Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'copyright'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Forum rules and announcements
    • Rules and announcements
  • Alamy discussion area
    • Introductions
    • Alamy Quality Control and technical queries
    • Ask the forum
    • Let's talk about pics
  • Suggestions and ideas
    • Alamy
    • The Forum




Website URL







Alamy URL


Joined Alamy

Found 41 results

  1. Pixsy alterative?

    Hello, I'm looking for recommendations for a copyright infringement/claims site. Somewhere you upload your images to then they search the internet looking for your images, once they find a match you can then decided if your images are being used improperly and if so send the offending web site a take down demand letter or begin legal action. They keep %50 of the settlement for the legal work. I was using but but have found them lacking. Thanks in advance, David L. Moore
  2. Yesterday I attended a seminar on copyright organised by one of our professional organisations here in Holland. An interesting recent decision by a court came up in passing. For the Nederlandstaligen under you this blog explains it in detail: The gist of it is that a stock library sued for misappropriation of one of their images. An image of a temperature gauge in a car. The judgement was that copyright law rests on the work having an original character and carrying the personal "stamp" of the photographers knowledge. In this case it was judged that the image was (my words) too simple to carry the personal stamp of the photographer. In the presentation yesterday it was mentioned that another judge may have judged differently, if it went to appeal the decision could be reversed. The blog too argues that there are obvious choices made in producing the image, even though we aren;t talking about high art. However it sets a precendence about how courts are interpreting copyright laws with regard "simple" images. Interpretations which could have consequences.
  3. Interesting - Copyright Video

    Not sure if this has already been put up and also not sure if the info is correct. However, it's food for thought. John
  4. Editorial use only?

    Hi, whats the rules in regards to Royal Mail post boxes. I've got a few good old V R embossed post boxes. But I'm unsure if these kind of images would need a property release or are they classed as public domain etc.. I presume its probably editorial use only, But I can't find anything of any sense searching so thought I'd ask. thanks in advance.
  5. I just read the post on "How many more Customers Get This Treatment", and I've been in that boat as well. I have a different issue now, which I'm hoping someone can give me some insight on. Over the past week I've sent mails to ms@, sales@, and two or three direct email addresses, none of which have responded. Not even an automated message to confirm that my mail was received. Here's my situation. I did a reverse search a month or so ago. I found two of my images used on a website (+ affiliate websites, a total of 8 or 9 in different countries) that sells prints and canvases. The images weren't credited, but the profile, believe it or not, was made in my full name, which is not the name I'm on Alamy with. One of the images was cropped from the bottom, into the subject of the picture (the picture is complete on Alamy). I contacted the website, and my mail bounced. I contacted a few days later another email stated on the website, and got no response, but a day later "my" profile was gone, and the two pictures unavailable. I contacted my lawyer, and he was responded with "We've licensed the images from Alamy. We have a general print-on-demand license agreement with Alamy. The agreement is not for specific images." My lawyer has asked to see the EULA, but they haven't produced it (yet). One of the images has never been sold on Alamy, the other image was sold on March 27 as an iQ one time use only sale for $4,06. The Wayback machine showed that the image was on the website well before March 27. Ironically, when my lawyer forwarded me the mails, I rechecked the website, and a new profile under my name had been created with three new images. Again, neither of which has been sold, ever, on Alamy. I wanted Alamy to confirm to me that these images had been sold, but they have been non-responsive so far. Now... My question: an iQ sale, stated one time use only, can this be used to sell prints and canvases by a third party? I most certainly would not agree to these terms, and definitely not for $4,06. Any input much appreciated. And if there's anyone from Alamy around, feel free to chime in.
  6. Copyright rule/laws

    Hi, I want to submit some photos I have tacken at a football match in the UK. The game was at the Fulham Fc FA cup game against Tottenham. My pictures include a close up shot of the Emirates FA Cup sign, the Fulham FC sign on one of there stands, and wide shots of the pitch with players either during the pre-match warm up or playing (not a close up shot). I am wondering if anyone knows what the rule/copyright laws would be for these type of photos? Any commercial lawyers out there? Thank you.
  7. I guess most stock photographers will have come up against the issue of restricted commercial use of images due to not having property releases...Well in this instance i had taken shots of the Shrine of Remembrance War Memorial in Melbourne Australia..The images were taken of the shrine buildings and monuments from the grounds of the shrine,these images have been on Alamy for quite a few years.. Well my images were deleted yesterday along with many other contributor images of the shrine,after a representative of the trustees of the shrine pointed out to Alamy that we did not have permissions or releases to use these images for commercial gain..Apparently there is an act dated 1978 that prohibits commercial use of photography...well if you pay for the permission you may or may not be granted a release...Alamy has done the right thing in deleting the images,ahh that`s the life of the stock shooter win lose some. PS..There are about 155 images still online,but are of activities at the shrine as these images are not close up images of the buildings or monuments...Images taken looking away from the shrine,say towards the city of Melbourne skyline are ok. Cheers Bill
  8. Have people seen the survey the US Library of Congress is conducting as part of community consultation on the next Register of Copyrights? The Copyright Alliance appears to have some serious concerns about whether the new Register will be on the side of creators. Thus, they are encouraging creators such as photographers to take part in the (very quick) survey, and have provided a model response. This looks pretty important - and deadline is 31st, i.e. today (presumably east coast US time). Full explanation and links here: Any thoughts about this? [apologies to those on the Facebook forum as I've posted there as well - but it looks as though the Copyright Alliance's thoughts deserve a wide audience.]
  9. A 34m high 'puppet' has been passing through Cornwall over last 2 weeks. Yesterday it was in Penzance and one of my photos has been requested for a CD cover. The picture is essentially just a head-and-shoulders of it. I will be giving my picture freely to the Royal Geographic Society of Cornwall as a cover image for their CD. Will it's use be a breach of copyright?
  10. Publisher’s lawyer warns journalists of the need to discover the provenance of pictures before they are published in their newspapers.
  11. I just had an interesting talk with an artist who's works include a sculpture located in downtown Chicago. I have a few images of this work on Alamy. The artist contacted me with concerns that the images of his work might be used commercially. I responded that since the images are listed as not having a property release, this isn't likely. However, he pointed out that when one views the images on Alamy, all use options are available, even for unreleased images. And, he said an image of the same sculpture by another photographer was recently licensed for commercial use. This isn't a good thing and he's not happy, nor would I be. I have set restrictions on my images of the sculpture to limit use to editorial only and I may do this with other images of public art. But, I think it would be wise for Alamy to implement a one-click editorial use only function as the current system makes you restrict the use list one by one, rather than only having to click one box. What do you think?
  12. Possibly a stupid question but...... Can I claim and Alamy on my behalf too? I've always claimed for DACS myself. I just send them a spreadsheet of Alamy sales and they do the rest. John.
  13. Infringement costs

    I've found finding and dealing with copyright violations challenging. Part of the reason is that my images on Alamy often get used without proper credits to me or Alamy, post late, and the end customer is never named in an Alamy sale. I had a recent episode where I found a couple of images of mine used to illustrate an article for a big British news outlet. I found them with a reverse image search. As is often the case, there was no credit to me, any of my pseudonyms or Alamy. This particular article was dated about three years ago and I had to cross reference the images and find them on Alamy, then check to see if they had ever been licensed. Those images in question hadn't ever been licensed. This type of searching takes me a long time to find copyright violations and make sure that they weren't legit. I contacted member services at Alamy and I now see the images in question in the "sold" list this month. Each license was for about US$7. So the couple hours I invested in chasing this violation will net me about US$2-3/hr after Alamy's split. What I'd really like to see is that there be a disincentive to "forgetting" to pay Alamy. And I think to help in catching copyright violations, there ought to also be a further cost to not crediting either Alamy or the photographer. Think about it..... you know when you go on the subway in areas with an "honour system". Every so often the transit police come by and make sure that you bought a ticket. If the punishment for being caught was exactly the cost of the ticket you were required to buy- why would anybody buy a ticket?! Similarly, if the punishment for a major UK news outlet was if ever caught to simply pay the minimal amount they would have had to anyway- they are going to "forget" regularly. Just an idea...
  14. Hello, I hear many people find copyright infringment on the internet and wonder what you guys to find your infringements. THANKS, Jacob Y.
  15. I sold a photo through Alamy a few years ago that was used for the movie poster, some online downloadable wallpapers and it was also used for the DVD cover. The license included all those uses. Now however I find two images on Alamy of the movie posters where My image was used. Specifically in the poster they used Caesars Palace hotel and the Bellagio hotel fountains in Las Vegas in a photo collage. I am wondering if that could be considered infringement or should I just forget about it. One other consideration for anyone that is worried about not having property releases, in this case releases were obviously obtained after the fact. Here are the two movie posters and my original below. It doesn't appear the posters were from the production company but I would have to contact member services to find that out. Preview
  16. Ownership rights of very old photos

    I have some family photos from the Victorian era and slightly younger. say 1900 through to 1950s. Many of these were taken in studios, now long defunct, of my family members or their homes. Some are simply family "snapshots" Do I have any right to sell scanned versions of these on Alamy, or are they the Intellectual property of the original photographer?
  17. hi all, im going to be registering latest batch of copyright images, and hopefully using the electronic deposit this time, after looking up tutorial online on how to go through step by step. im just wondering, can i resize the images, or do they need the full-fat versions? i have also emailed the USA office, but they say it can take 5 business days, so thought i'd ask anyone on here who may have also been through this. i was thinking resizing to 800x640 or similar would allow enough detail to be seen, so it can be proven its my image etc also has anyone ever used the UK copyright service - UKCS, which is a paid for service kinda like the USA one, which offers proof of registration if needed. thanks dan
  18. Credit and Copyright

    I've found another image in usage in article without my (and other authors) name under the work. Bryan was so kind to answer: 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 ( 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.
  19. Aggregation and Copyright

    Has anyone had to deal with aggregation ? I have an unlicensed usage (in the Mediteranean region) and the newspaper involved claims it's only aggregating from another source (same country) in an iframe box . I've read extensively on aggregation issues but most of the decisions I've seen revolve around how much content is reproduced and whether there are pointers back to the original source. In the case of a picture, it's all or nothing - not possible to have a percentage reproduced. In my case, there were no pointers back to my image anywhere, nor was there a credit. The Med is outside Alamy's area for chasing up possible infringements. Would be interested in hearing what the forum's experience is. Thanks
  20. I have just been doing a Google image search for some of my zooms and one of the images appeared on a site called which tries to do just what you would expect from the title. It should perhaps be renamed, but more worryingly it offers images for download, with the line "You can always use one of these images but please respect the copyright of the owner, We have provided the source link for you to also credit the image(s) owner." Has anyone else found any of their work on here or tried to contact the site about copyright?
  22. For those that have their images with stock photography providers OTHER than Alamy, this might be of interest. Photoshot have acquired a few other libraries of late and have subsequently instructed to trawl the web and find infringements. So imagine my surprise when I received a somewhat "un-delightful" series of emails from Imageprotect of all people, threatening to sue the pants off of me for using my own images on my own website. To be clear, this wasn't a polite cease & desist type email. It came across more that they actually wanted £1000 per image and then have a chat. The worrying side of this is that if you license your own work to clients whilst also submitting images to a library that employs a company such as Imageprotect (as Alamy have said they could well do) and they do this to one of your respected clients on your behalf at some stage, you could well be "missing" future sales. C. Email included below: ***************** From: ImageProtect [] Subject: Re: Unauthorized Use of Copyrights Owned Exclusively by Photoshot Holdings Ltd. FIRST ATTEMPT Dear Sir or Madam Copyright Infringement by Photoshot Holdings Ltd. Letter Before Claim ImageProtect is a third-party corporation that monitors and detects images for the purpose of copyright enforcement. We write to you in regard to your unauthorised use of the image (the "Image") (a copy of which is enclosed) as stated below. The author and copyright owner of the Image, Photoshot Holdings Ltd., has directed us to pursue this claim on their behalf on the basis of a Licence Recovery agreement. The Image was discovered on your website and on your server. We enclose for your reference copies/screen captures of the webpages where the Image appears and the following information: Timestamp: Infringers IP Address: Infringers Hosting Company: Listing of infringement(s): This appears to be an unlicensed use of the Image. As the copyright owner, Photoshot Holdings Ltd. has exclusive rights pursuant to the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988 (the "CDPA") to license acts restricted by the copyright, including issuing copies of the work to the public without his/her consent. The CDPA does not require any kind of intent or knowledge on the part of the infringer that their use infringed another party's copyright. Therefore, it is no defence to say that you did not know the Image was protected by copyright. If you did not have a valid licence to use the Image you are liable to pay damages to Photoshot Holdings Ltd. for the unauthorised use. We hereby demand that you comply with the following: 1. If a valid licence was purchased prior to the use of the Image, please provide us with a copy of the sales order, invoice, or other licence information. If the image was licensed under an alternative company name or in the name of a third party, such as an advertising agency, please provide that company name and phone number. We will review that information and respond to you as quickly as possible. 2. If a valid licence does not exist for the identified usage and you do not plan to use the Image in the future, you must immediately cease and desist use of the Image and remove it from your website. In addition, in consideration of our client refraining from bringing legal proceedings against you, a payment of £1000.00 for the use of the Image must be received within 14 days of the date of this notice. ImageProtect treats copyright infringement as a serious matter. If you are interested in resolving this matter prior to litigation, we expect full compliance with the above demands. Image Protect operates an online settlement portal which automates the processing of damages payments. You can access the portal by copying and pasting the URL below into a browser. Follow the instructions to pay damages of £1000.00 or provide valid licence details. Alternatively, please contact the undersigned within the next 14 days in order to clarify if a valid licence exists or to discuss payment of damages for past use. If possible, we can discuss the continued use of the Image once the damages have been paid and if there is no conflict with any current licensed user. If we do not hear from you Photoshot Holdings Ltd. reserves the right to take any action they deem necessary, including but not limited to the issue of legal proceedings against you without further notice. In such event, Photoshot Holdings Ltd. will seek all remedies available under the CDPA. For the avoidance of doubt, any claim against you will be commenced by the copyright owner. This letter complies with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct. You have an obligation to comply with the Practice Direction which can be found at the following web address: Please note in particular paragraph 4 which sets out the sanctions the Court may impose should you fail to do so. Ignoring this letter may lead to proceedings and an increase in the amount of your liability. At this stage we are not aware that you have any grounds to dispute this claim. Once we receive your response to this letter we will be in a better position to consider if any alternative dispute resolution method is appropriate to any issue you raise. This letter is in attempt to settle a claim. Photoshot Holdings Ltd. reserves all its rights and remedies whether legal or equitable while awaiting your full response. Yours faithfully Jonathan Thomas CEO Clear Arts Inc dba ImageProtect 1401 N El Camino Real, Ste 203 San Clemente, CA 92672 +1 949 361 3959 For any correspondence regarding this case, please send your emails to and refer to Notice ID. If you need immediate assistance or if you have general questions please call the number listed above. *****************
  23. Alamy Infringements

    Good news folks: I just had an email from "Alamy Infringements" checking on a possible illegal image use of a photo which is a good multiple seller. I confirmed it was only on Alamy with no direct licenses. This is the first email I've had of this type but maybe more will follow? Kathy
  24. Hello everyone, newbie questions, so please be kind. I have just passed initial QC for "grown-up" Alamy (have some Stockimo images) and am now going through the process of keywording, etc those first 4 little images I have a question - well, two really, about property releases: 1. I have a set of images taken of the facades of 100+ year old buildings. All the photos are taken from a public street, and none of them show people or other copyright items such as logos, etc. From what I know or have researched, the architects of these buildings died well over 70 years ago so therefore copyright in the buildings would not subsist (if it ever did which is a whole other debate about whether in fact photos of a building can be the subject of copyright as opposed to the original building drawings...but I digress). Anyway, what is Alamy's general approach to whether these need releases or not? I have read the guidelines but I have submitted the same images to some of the micro sites as commercial with mixed results: most have not required releases, while some have. (Even more frustratingly, some images of the same facade of the same building have been treated differently by the same agency). So the guidelines, while helpful, don't give a feel as to how the rules are applied in practice. What is the experience of others with regard to photos of this type? I was proposing to put them forward as RF, but is the prudent course to classify them as RM? 2. This leads to the second question: the contributors agreement says that the images must have a licence that is consistent with how the images are being licensed on other sites, but if there is no consistency on other sites, then what do I do?! (Also, as a general question, I am assuming that in practice this means that if images are listed as 'editorial' on micro sites, this is the equivalent of RM here?) 3. Just thought of a third question: I read in some forums that if images are RM on Alamy, they can't be sold on other sites, but that's not how I read the contributor agreement which expressly states that the images are supplied on a non-exclusive basis. And the section regarding consistent licensing between sites seems to confirm this. Perhaps what I was reading was old information? In short, if images are made available on Alamy as RM (because need to be editorial because no releases), can I still leave them on other micro-sites? (Clearly different story if they are RM-Exclusive but won't have any in that category). Sorry for the long post, but I find this one of the most baffling aspects of the whole process. Thoughts?
  25. Help finding infringements

    Seems like there has to be a better way for Alamy and its contributors to find copyright infringements. Like many of you, I use Google's reverse image search to try and track down where my Alamy photos have been used. Though I often find plenty of results, they very rarely credit me, either by my name or my Alamy pseudonyms. Though Alamy is often the credit line, it is not at all uncommon to find that somebody else is- presumably another third party stock agency. And with each search, I seem to open a new can of worms that takes me hours to follow up. As examples, I go to my "zooms" for this month and reverse search here. My blogs pop up a couple times, and then there's a real result: a news story in a Slavic language. Three of my images are used, and they are all attributed to a "Profimedia". After some searching, it turns out Profimedia is another stock photo distributor. I can only assume that they are legit and working with Alamy. Another search came up with what appeared to be my photo, but I wasn't sure until I compared it detail for detail for several minutes. This is a photo of the "Apple Garage" in Silicon Valley and there are plenty of other similar photos. Seemed plausible at first that it could have been a very similar photo until I compared the little details. So this image of mine is being used by a German publication and my photo is attributed to another outfit I've never heard of, Mauritius Images. Again I’m assuming that they are on the level and working with Alamy. I’ve been tempted to just call them out and have them explain to me why their name is attributed to my image. Recently I had an experience directly with Alamy that seemed to make enforcing my copyright difficult as well. I knew an old photo of mine had been used for a book cover a couple times. The licenses I see on Alamy both state "Media: Retail book - print only". But I found the book for sale as an ebook and as a Kindle book and contacted Alamy. Their response was it was indeed licensed, but that licenses are issued with a price calculator and can't be 100% specific. I get that but I do find it strange that something that is explicitly excluded in a license would be "covered" by said license. And it makes it nearly impossible to then enforce copyright for contributors or? Again, I’m tempted to just confront the publisher and send them a bill for the extra usage. But if Alamy is making deals that we aren’t privy to, this could end up being embarrassing for all involved. Seems we're leaving a lot of money on the table, both contributors and Alamy. We should be chasing blatant image thieves and making them pay. I understand in licensing that there may be grey areas at times. But there must be better ways. For example: ·Require end users to credit Alamy, or the pseudonym or real name of the copyright holder, never just a third party ·Generate a code that can be used to verify the license that end users are required to display alongside the image ·Use a service like Licenstream that tracks content digitally and follow up on violations ·Generate licenses that are pretty close to the actual use ·Or???? Suggestions? Thoughts? Am I missing something I should be doing?