Arletta Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 I've found another image in usage in article without my (and other authors) name under the work. Bryan was so kind to answer: They don't give names of authors so I can't find out whose images are used... Is it allowed to publish photos without author's name? I thought Alamy requires to add this info under images... A requirement that is more honoured in the breach unfortunately. In my experience the Mail Online never provides the name of the photographer, don't think that the Telegraph does either, but they do normally cite the name of the agency. The Guardian and Times are a tad more punctilious. Here on Alamy terms (http://www.alamy.com/terms/uk.asp#General) we can read: 4. Credit and Copyright issues 4.2. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, if any Image/Video is reproduced by you for editorial purposes (i.e. for any non-promotional purpose) you must include the copyright / credit line"(Photographer’s or Agency’s name)/Alamy stock photo", or any other copyright / credit line specified by Alamy. If a copyright / credit line is omitted then an additional fee equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the original amount invoiced attributable to the Image/Video in question shall be payable by you. 4.3. Alamy’s copyright notice and Image/Video identification reference which appear in the Image/Video file must remain with your digital copy of the Image/Video at all times. You will retain the copyright notice, the name of Alamy and the respective artist, the respective Image/Video reference and any other information or metadata that is embedded in the electronic file that comprises any Image/Video which you have downloaded from the Website or otherwise received from Alamy. Failure to maintain the integrity of the copyright information will constitute a breach of this Agreement. Alamy, can you lighten and kindly explain how it actually looks like, what you do in these kind of cases? Is there anybody who cares and takes the consequences of breaking rules? Are we, authors, protected by your terms out there or only on the paper? Seriously asking - is it working? As we can see not giving artist name has became standard act. Anything changed in terms/ law? I'd appreciate your valuable comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Not giving credit is a breach of condition. In the UK, and probably EU, it's a breach of the author's moral rights. But suing on it wouldn't be worth much if the publication was otherwise within the terms of the contract. It's only helpful in an actual infringement- breach of moral rights can give rise to enhanced damages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 BAPLA tried to get agencies to insist on proper credits many, many years ago and it didn't work. There have even been some publications who didn't want to sully their pages with credits at all, back in the day we used to be paid a premium for that. It's been a non-issue for decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armstrong Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Not giving credit is a breach of condition. In the UK, and probably EU, it's a breach of the author's moral rights. But suing on it wouldn't be worth much if the publication was otherwise within the terms of the contract. It's only helpful in an actual infringement- breach of moral rights can give rise to enhanced damages. Being pragmatic..is suing your customers (or threatening too) a good way of ensuring future custom and good relations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Some things are not worth the effort. Chasing a credit line is one. As long as I get the money, I really don't worry if my name is on the credit line as I don't think it matters that much in the stock game. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Being pragmatic..is suing your customers (or threatening too) a good way of ensuring future custom and good relations? Indeed. Those who I go after aren't customers and one even asked to keep my details handy in case they needed my services in future. That's the way to settle an infringement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotoDogue Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Back in the last century, pubications were billed a penalty for miscrediting or not crediting a photo. One time a local paper gladly paid me 3x the usual amount because they credited my photo to someone else. It was part of the licensing agreement.Nowadays, unfortunately, it seems to be commonplace, most likely because nobody bothers to enforce it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geofk Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 @Jill, I disagree. You miss the point. It's not just about recognition, it's equally about telling others that a copyright exists and has to be respected. One of my images has been used extensively by a UK newspaper - about 25 licensed uses. Few uses, if any, carry a credit. It's been taken from their on-line publication many times and I now count about 100 unauthorised uses. On chasing these up, I often get the response that the image carried neither credit nor watermark to indicate ownershop. And that the users thought the image is in the public domain. Granted if users thought they might (heaven forbid) have to pay for an image, this usage would have dropped dramatically but I would still have earned from whatever uses. I think that this unfettered use, apart from giving me admin headaches, making me learn several languages etc could be avoided by insisting on appropriate credits. Otherwise we will be promoting the orphaning of our work and hence losing income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Douglas Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 If there is a credit line then readers know where to go to obtain the image if they wish to buy a licence themselves. I had a photo printed in The Times on the 13th November, and I've made two further sales of the image in the last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geofk Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 If there is a credit line then readers know where to go to obtain the image if they wish to buy a licence themselves. I had a photo printed in The Times on the 13th November, and I've made two further sales of the image in the last week. As Alamy doesn't demand exclusivity, there shouldn't be any problem. If there were no credit then you would probably have lost the print sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Mayall Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 My various suppliers have told me that the condition of copyright being mentioned is in their contracts with buyers, however they have no control over the buyer placing a credit line. If publishers would show credit lines it would make it easier for everybody to know if the image has been licensed or not and where it came from. How many times have we photographers seen our work published without credit lines then wondered where it came from, hence the long process of chasing the source. Credit lines save a lot of time and help keep some honesty in our business. Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R De Marigny Posted October 13, 2018 Share Posted October 13, 2018 As the owner of the copyright I m not happy with not being credited on photograph, I have just discovered the Guardian newspaper have listed Alamy rather than myself on my photograph. It is a clear breach of terms of licence. If I thought that clients buying on Alamy were going to do this I would not continue uploading. It would not matter if the user of the image was a non corporate or private individual its still wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptoprocta Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 On 13/10/2018 at 10:56, R De Marigny said: As the owner of the copyright I m not happy with not being credited on photograph, I have just discovered the Guardian newspaper have listed Alamy rather than myself on my photograph. It is a clear breach of terms of licence. If I thought that clients buying on Alamy were going to do this I would not continue uploading. It would not matter if the user of the image was a non corporate or private individual its still wrong. It's pretty common for images to be credited to Alamy but not the photographer. It's also increasingly common for publications to credit unpaid-for (donated) images, but not paid-for images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 On 13/10/2018 at 10:56, R De Marigny said: As the owner of the copyright I m not happy with not being credited on photograph, I have just discovered the Guardian newspaper have listed Alamy rather than myself on my photograph. It is a clear breach of terms of licence. If I thought that clients buying on Alamy were going to do this I would not continue uploading. It would not matter if the user of the image was a non corporate or private individual its still wrong. The Guardian is one of the better publishers- they usually do give the joint credit Alamy/your name (you'll find that you agreed to that in the contributor contract) but they miss a few. It's not worth getting too concerned about, as long as they pay up, and it's one of the quicker payers. You can't eat credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 Credit lines? That bird has flown... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sally Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 On 10/13/2018 at 10:56, R De Marigny said: As the owner of the copyright I m not happy with not being credited on photograph, I have just discovered the Guardian newspaper have listed Alamy rather than myself on my photograph. It is a clear breach of terms of licence. If I thought that clients buying on Alamy were going to do this I would not continue uploading. It would not matter if the user of the image was a non corporate or private individual its still wrong. The license agreement, as quoted above, is "(Photographer’s OR Agency’s name)/Alamy stock photo" . So, no breach of conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colblimp Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 On 10/13/2018 at 10:56, R De Marigny said: As the owner of the copyright I m not happy with not being credited on photograph, I have just discovered the Guardian newspaper have listed Alamy rather than myself on my photograph. It is a clear breach of terms of licence. If I thought that clients buying on Alamy were going to do this I would not continue uploading. It would not matter if the user of the image was a non corporate or private individual its still wrong. Who cares, as long as you get paid?! A credit means absolutely nothing, whereas cash means a lot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeCee Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 15 hours ago, John Morrison said: Credit lines? That bird has flown... +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptoprocta Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 45 minutes ago, Colblimp said: Who cares, as long as you get paid?! A credit means absolutely nothing, whereas cash means a lot! It may mean 'absolutely nothing' to you, and 'not a lot' to me, but in some circumstances (e.g. selling physical prints, needing tearsheets, etc) it can be very important. I was interested to note that on one occasion a magazine used two of my pics via Alamy and one purchased directly from me via Flickr, but only the direct sale was credited to me, the other two were credited Alamy only. (That annoyed my Dad no end, as it was a quite upmarket mag and he wanted bragging rights!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colblimp Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 1 minute ago, funkyworm said: Being credited is one way of finding out whether you have been paid or not. Sometimes publishers "forget" to report their usages. I recognise my pictures, I don't need my name or even Alamy's name credited to find out whether my pics have been used/I've been paid. Again, a credit means nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSnapper Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 22 minutes ago, Colblimp said: a credit means nothing. A credit is very useful when you're, for example, negotiating access / accreditation to an event, activity, location or person ...... They are not without value km Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regen Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 4 hours ago, Colblimp said: Who cares, as long as you get paid?! A credit means absolutely nothing, whereas cash means a lot! unless its an agency stock sale then a lot is usually very little!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R De Marigny Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 It's not about payment, its the principle of the issue. A credit may not seem important to some of you, it is to me, regardless of current practices - omitting credit to photographers whether by broadsheets, other corporates, or private individual, if another name appears without crediting the copyright author, its akin to someone asserting another entity as owner and creator to that image holder of copyright lock stock and barrel with the photographer nowhere in sight. That's how it seems. In negotiating access and accreditation on basis of a specific body of work, it could prove a bit difficult, if all clients decided to start omitting credit lines across the board. A form of ' Invisibility phenomenon' ? Siobhan, at Alamy contributor relations, explained that Alamy do ask credit lines to be included with the photographer's name and the stock agency- Alamy. However, in practice not every client does so and Alamy cannot guarantee this. It would be nice gesture, if client's across the industry did include them as best practice, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.