Special Request

[Paul Thompson]

Hi Guys,

Sorry if this has been asked for in previous threads but after recently finding numerous newspaper usages from well over 3 months ago that had not been reported I feel there is a need for a report on images that have been downloaded, whether they have been used or not. AM shows the views and zooms that we have why can it not also report the images that have been downloaded. This would make it 20 times easier for us to trace online, rather than randomly checking images to see if they appear online, surely the downloaded images would be most likely visible online? This would not be hard to implement and would save the contributor hours of wasted time giving them more time to contribute.

Rant over, what do you guys think

Cheers

Paul

[spacecadet]

This one needs an answer from Alamy. I suspect this would have to contain information about the licensee which is proprietary to Alamy and covered by confidentiality and DPA issues, so we can't have it. We also wouldn't be aware of contract terms which might cover reporting timescales, so we'd be forever chivvying without reason.

[Marianne]

We don't need them to tell us who downloaded our photos, obviously that's their proprietary client information, but if we knew which images were downloaded (courtesy copies, etc.) then at least we could search online and it helps us and Alamy if we find unreported uses. 

 

[Marianne]

1 minute ago, GS-Images said:

 

Just to clarify, it was a download report that I asked about rather than who it was who downloaded them. This suggestion was still rejected, but I cannot remember if a reason was giving without searching back to find it.

 

Geoff.

 

Geoff,

I think we are all on the same page on this. 

spacecadet seemed to intimate that while he agreed, it could be a problem for Alamy because disclosures would "contain licensee information" - I should have quoted him to be clear to whom I was responding. 

Alamy should be able to give us a download report as part of Measures with no licensee info. They must be keeping track and I assume also checking those sites/publications regularly. They've collected on unpaid uses for me on their own which I didn't find so I know they are out there looking. With hundreds of thousands of files and so many media outlets especially online today, not to mention all the commercial uses, it's got to be a nightmare keeping track and finding every misuse. Even with my smallish portfolio it's hard. Giving us download information would benefit everyone - us and Alamy. 

 

[fotoDogue]

I find a lot of newspaper uses are lifted and posted on other sites. Some of these are syndicates. Others are just stolen. I don't know how many times Google has found one of my photos on some site in Russia, or Asia that points back to the UK newspapers.

 

 

[Marianne]

19 minutes ago, fotoDogue said:

I find a lot of newspaper uses are lifted and posted on other sites. Some of these are syndicates. Others are just stolen. I don't know how many times Google has found one of my photos on some site in Russia, or Asia that points back to the UK newspapers.

 

 

 

Good point. I've found the same thing. 

But getting a download report would sure help determine which images to search on google & tineye

[Paul Thompson]

Yes, we don't need any details of possible licence, just which images have been taken as with the zooms. Also downloads must relate to our ctr as they are more likely to become a sale than a zoom

 

[M.Chapman]

37 minutes ago, Marianne said:

 

Geoff,

I think we are all on the same page on this. 

spacecadet seemed to intimate that while he agreed, it could be a problem for Alamy because disclosures would "contain licensee information" - I should have quoted him to be clear to whom I was responding. 

Alamy should be able to give us a download report as part of Measures with no licensee info. They must be keeping track and I assume also checking those sites/publications regularly. They've collected on unpaid uses for me on their own which I didn't find so I know they are out there looking. With hundreds of thousands of files and so many media outlets especially online today, not to mention all the commercial uses, it's got to be a nightmare keeping track and finding every misuse. Even with my smallish portfolio it's hard. Giving us download information would benefit everyone - us and Alamy. 

 

 

Totally agree.

[Hellonearth]

13 hours ago, fotoDogue said:

I find a lot of newspaper uses are lifted and posted on other sites. Some of these are syndicates. Others are just stolen. I don't know how many times Google has found one of my photos on some site in Russia, or Asia that points back to the UK newspapers.

 

 

I have also found the same also with photos used by the BBC website but what action can we take?

[CM photo]

15 hours ago, fotoDogue said:

I find a lot of newspaper uses are lifted and posted on other sites. Some of these are syndicates. Others are just stolen. I don't know how many times Google has found one of my photos on some site in Russia, or Asia that points back to the UK newspapers.

 

 

 

Which, of course, is why many people, myself included, are opted out of the newspaper scheme.  Not just the low fees, but the likelihood of seeing pirated images all over the internet.

[Craig Yates]

They clearly know which images get downloaded Why can't downloaded images have some sort

of indicator in AIM . Now that would be useful in many ways.

 

 

Craig

[M.Chapman]

5 hours ago, Chris Mattison said:

 

Which, of course, is why many people, myself included, are opted out of the newspaper scheme.  Not just the low fees, but the likelihood of seeing pirated images all over the internet.

 

But then you can possibly chase for infringement payments and get much more than the original licence fee. 

[Craig Yates]

38 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

In one sense any additional information would be welcome but I don't really understand the logic of trying to trace downloaded images that have not been published.

 

Isn't it enough to try and track the ones that are reported as sales? 

 

It kind of only makes sense if the underlying premise is that some buyers are cheating - using downloaded images without paying -  and I can't think that is much of a winner in terms of Alamy attracting and keeping customers to regard them in such a way. 

 

Also, given the often long time lag between use and a sale being reported isn't there a danger of contributors stirring things up unnecessarily when they find a use which hasn't yet been reported,  contacting the publisher, sending emails to Alamy, and so on. 

 

I assume that Alamy wants to encourage downloads because it is more likely to lead to the buyer buying at Alamy rather than elsewhere where they don't have download access. 

 

 

 

It would benefit both the photographer and Alamy if we could detect images not paid for, it is loss of income for both parties.

Marking images that have had a download would narrow down the effort required to find published images, in particular when

you have a lot of images on sale to trawl through. 

 

Craig

 

[M.Chapman]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

In one sense any additional information would be welcome but I don't really understand the logic of trying to trace downloaded images that have not been published.

 

Isn't it enough to try and track the ones that are reported as sales? 

 

It kind of only makes sense if the underlying premise is that some buyers are cheating - using downloaded images without paying -  and I can't think that is much of a winner in terms of Alamy attracting and keeping customers to regard them in such a way. 

 

Also, given the often long time lag between use and a sale being reported isn't there a danger of contributors stirring things up unnecessarily when they find a use which hasn't yet been reported,  contacting the publisher, sending emails to Alamy, and so on. 

 

I assume that Alamy wants to encourage downloads because it is more likely to lead to the buyer buying at Alamy rather than elsewhere where they don't have download access. 

 

 

"Isn't it enough to try an track the ones that are reported as sales"

    No - That's the whole point - I want to find usages that haven't been reported.

 

"It kind of only makes sense if the underlying premise is that some buyers are cheating - using downloaded images without paying"

    It's probably not so much deliberate cheating as "administrative errors..." Judging by reports on this forum and personal experience, it does happen.

 

"Also, given the often long time lag between use and a sale being reported isn't there a danger of contributors stirring things up unnecessarily..."

   I wouldn't mind if Alamy waited 3 months before telling us about the download.
   This would reduce the number of "false alarms", nevertheless we'd still have to allow at least 3 months from publication before chasing.

 

In recent times Alamy has always responded positively when I've notified them of potential infringements where I've found usages that they weren't aware of.  I'd have thought that collaborating with contributors would be the best approach to crack down on infringers, which will (in the long run) be good for the stock industry. At the moment I've uploaded all my images onto Pixsy for them to identify usages (it's amazing what they find). But unfortunately (on the free account) they don't seem to keep watching after the first check. I'm quite happy to search for usages myself, but could only search for my sales and downloads, as searching my whole collection would be impractical.

[CM photo]

 

6 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

But then you can possibly chase for infringement payments and get much more than the original licence fee. 

 

Yes, but the trouble is that they're often in Russia or China, etc., and not worth chasing.  Personally, I'd rather spend my time doing other things.

[M.Chapman]

9 hours ago, geogphotos said:

My pics are non-exclusive with Alamy, so anything I find online, unless it is credited, could be from Alamy or could be from other agencies. There are just so many tiny sales for web use that personally I don't have time to check all of those let alone thinking about downloads.

 

Pixsy is hit and miss I find with some very odd matches, and very often the matches they find are foreign or personal blog sites that are not worthwhile chasing - and they won't pursue it. Often these have been nicked from a newspaper site.

 

I can't remember if Pixsy finds a match whether Alamy will tell you if it has been downloaded or not. 

 

 "But unfortunately (on the free account) they don't seem to keep watching after the first check."

 

Mark, have you considered upgrading your Pixsy account so that they do keep watching? Do you think that there is enough potential infringement money out there to justify the cost? I must say that I don't. 

My Pics are mostly exclusive to Alamy. I have a few on Fine Art America.

Alamy have investigated matches I found via Pixsy.

Yes I have considered upgrading my Pixsy account. But, so far, I feel the cost wouldn't give worthwhile payback. But it's early days yet as the number of images I have published is still quite low (111), so that decision may change.

I've found their matches to be pretty good. There are some strange ones (small part of an image matches mine) and many that are blogs. But they have found several commercial ones that I had missed and passed to Alamy.

[York Photographer]

It was the lack of accountability by the papers, that made me opt out of the newspapers scheme. To many times they would reuse an image, having brought it previously and not report it. With the silly low fees, the time spent back searching zooms and sales, then reporting the uses to MS, wasn't worth the couple of dollars you would eventually get.

 

Given the ethics of the UK press, self billing is asking for trouble!