Mal Knight Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
York Photographer Posted August 2, 2016 Author Share Posted August 2, 2016 Now that's interesting, that Image just appeared as a sale, in date invoiced, won't be able to see the details until tomorrow in sales history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Baker Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 A sale! Excellent! And does it correspond to that usage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
York Photographer Posted August 2, 2016 Author Share Posted August 2, 2016 A sale! Excellent! And does it correspond to that usage? Can't tell until it appears in my sales history overnight, that image was zoomed on friday, so the jury is out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 They have probably asked Alamy for a retrospective licence after seeing the tweeted comments. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 They may think they have "rectified" it with Alamy, but they haven't "rectified" it with the OP. A moderate number of quid doesn't make it uninfringing. The usual excuse- a "mistake". It isn't a mistake. The admission says as much and helps you, OP. No prisoners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
York Photographer Posted August 2, 2016 Author Share Posted August 2, 2016 I had a zoom on that one on Friday, could be unrelated to this Twitter use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 I believe Alamy has issued retrospective licences in the past, at least I read it somewhere in the forums. If that is the case the OP does not have a leg to stand on regarding illegal usage. My opinion only. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
York Photographer Posted August 2, 2016 Author Share Posted August 2, 2016 It was them, they have just added this https://twitter.com/PSNIAntrim/status/755429813112954880 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 I'm not sure Alamy is within its contractual rights to license retrospectively for a user who doesn't have a contract. A question for MS at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 I'm intrigued that the Police apologist says it's a "genuine mistake". I shoplifted two packets of smoked salmon from ASDA and, when apprehended, I too suggested it was a "genuine mistake". My case comes up next week* * This crime is imaginary, for spurious 'comic' effect only... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
York Photographer Posted August 2, 2016 Author Share Posted August 2, 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat I look forward to seeing the dates of the license Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Robinson Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 I expect their twitter feed is run by someone who is perhaps not as conversant with the law of the land as other people within the organisation. Possibly an IT specialist who grew up using Google to get pics to use in his homework. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 It was them, they have just added this https://twitter.com/PSNIAntrim/status/755429813112954880 So they now have an image without watermark. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Baker Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 I can no longer access their Twitter feed. Something's up. https://twitter.com/PSNIAntrim/status/759741059748491265?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet (Edited: Now displaying the page). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Baker Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 I expect their twitter feed is run by someone who is perhaps not as conversant with the law of the land as other people within the organisation. Possibly an IT specialist who grew up using Google to get pics to use in his homework. Like many webmasters, designers and IT people in the basements of private sector companies and public organisations! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 It was them, they have just added this https://twitter.com/PSNIAntrim/status/755429813112954880 So they now have an image without watermark. Allan I wonder if they chose the "Personal Use" option . It will be interesting to hear the licence details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarlMillerPhotos Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Definitely got some "free exposure" out of this one, I'd think. That's what I seem to work for most of the time anyway. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptoprocta Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 I believe Alamy has issued retrospective licences in the past, at least I read it somewhere in the forums. If that is the case the OP does not have a leg to stand on regarding illegal usage. My opinion only. Allan In the past, Alamy has issued the Daily Muddle with restrospective licences for unreported uses. Sadly, Alamy's policy is to charge them their current price, not the higher price which prevailed at the time of the unreported use, and certainly no 'discouraging' penalty for not reporting a use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 It was them, they have just added this https://twitter.com/PSNIAntrim/status/755429813112954880 Using a watermarked image is NOT a genuine "mistake". Ignorance of the law is no defence, as the police and the judiciary like to tell us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
York Photographer Posted August 2, 2016 Author Share Posted August 2, 2016 You can see the license details today if you download and open the sales report. The same details are there that will appear tomorrow under the sales history. Geoff. Thanks for that, didn't realise you could do that. Here are the details: Country: Worldwide ; Usage: Commercial electronic ; Media: Website, app and social media ; Industry sector: Government (local, regional, national) ; Start: 02 August 2016 ; End: 02 August 2021 ; Additional Details: License valid from 01/07/2016 $23.02 -$11.51 $11.51 UK Looks to me like a Retrospective License has been applied at source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickfly Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Can't wait for my next shoplifting trip to NI. If I get caught I can just rectify it with the shop owners! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 You can see the license details today if you download and open the sales report. The same details are there that will appear tomorrow under the sales history. Geoff. Thanks for that, didn't realise you could do that. Here are the details: Country: Worldwide ; Usage: Commercial electronic ; Media: Website, app and social media ; Industry sector: Government (local, regional, national) ; Start: 02 August 2016 ; End: 02 August 2021 ; Additional Details: License valid from 01/07/2016 $23.02 -$11.51 $11.51 UK Looks to me like a Retrospective License has been applied at source I would not be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sultanpepa Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 In hindsight it was possibly the wrong move to alert them to their mistake before starting recovery proceedings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
York Photographer Posted August 3, 2016 Author Share Posted August 3, 2016 In hindsight it was possibly the wrong move to alert them to their mistake before starting recovery proceedings? I take your point, but I hadn't started recovery proceedings at any point or agreed to a retrospective license for the period 19th July to the 2nd of August Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.