All Activity

If contributors are following the rules, clicking the editorial box and not uploading full frame images of logo's / 'property' in isolation and are still liable for infringement of intellectual property right claims then Alamy will end up with no one uploading images to them, it's not worth the risk especially for the low fees and the reduction in our %.

Thank you to Jansos and Phil who have flagged up this “worrying” situation. It seems surprising that a European media giant such as Axel Springer would take legal action in respect of a small number of pictures (volume based on feedback on this forum) but there must be a reason/background/financial decision for them to do so and that is their decision. What is “worrying” is the apparent way that Alamy are approaching this based on feedback forum. I had a quick search of Alamy for “Bild” images and was surprised at the results, nothing overly contentious and low numbers and then I read that Alamy had taken a load of photos down (as a precaution presumably, fair enough). However it seems that Alamy have taken a somewhat “worrying” kneejerk reaction by demanding payment to cover this/these alleged infringement(s) from contributors who do not know if their images are the subject of the “Bild” legal action – Alamy need to explain why they have done this. My quick reading of the contract leads me to believe that unless the contributors images were the cause of the action that Bild/Springer has brought, then contractually they are not involved in such action and do not have to indemnify/defend Alamy – the hold-harmless agreement does not come into play. That would seem logical and fair. Set out below are the relevant contract clauses as I see them – I have added the bold font in on the wording. If you did not supply the images which are part of this alleged “infringement” stand your ground because you have done nothing wrong. Alamy owe you all more clearer, accurate information and if that is not supplied then I suggest escalating the matter up directly to Emily Shelley (Alamy's Managing Director). I think the way this appears to being handled is putting a lot of unnecessary worry and strain on contributors who should not be involved in whatever legal action is running in the background. 5. Indemnities 5.1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to: (i) any claim that the Content or Metadata infringes any third party’s copyright or any other intellectual property right (ii) any breach of your representations, obligations and warranties under this Contract or the System. This clause will remain in force after the termination of this Contract. “Content” means any digitised photograph, footage, illustration, other media of whatever nature which you submit to Alamy at any time during the term of this Contract. "Metadata" means Content information supplied to Alamy by the Contributor by any means, including but not limited to licence types, licence restrictions, Releases information, captions, keywords, descriptions, date taken, location and Pseudonyms.

Still waiting for an answer to my email.

Well looking at the comments here and on other forums where people are also talking about this case it looks like clicking the editorial box will not prevent you from having to cough up $$.

A third bird license this month, after two last month. $$

A little humor after being buried in paperwork: I've been playing around with some Legos this winter trying to improve my still life/indoor shooting skills. This was obviously shot in a lightbox, but I've tried some dramatic lighting too - harder than I imagined when my subjects are so tiny! I guess I'm enjoying my second childhood. I'm not alone, it's a growing hobby and a couple of other places have already licensed some of the images. I've filled several pages in my photo shoot idea notebook with ideas but when I want to order specific parts it can take weeks when I can only get it from Denmark; the US warehouse doesn't carry everything, but there are some second hand markets too.

Nice collection! I bought one of those Junior Model A's in pristine condition with the box along with a a bunch of other stuff on ebay when someone was doing an estate cleanout about 20 years ago. Have it in my office. I thought about buying a roll of 120 film at the time to try it out but never ended up using it - but I'd bought it for display. I've only got three old cameras all bought cheaply (<$20) . Wish I'd bought some more at the time. Ebay used to be such a bargain.

This has always been the QC policy. As a 10-year veteran I'm surprised you don't know it. With 24k images you'd have been likely to find out about it the hard way if you had lax QC yourself, but now you know.

Assuming your images were submitted according to Alamy's guidelines my view would be that they can whistle for taxation of your account to pay their legal fees for an unsettled case. I would not be standing for this. If all is as you say, and I don't doubt it, if Alamy take your money I would be knocking on the door of the small claims court.

No. They clearly didn't assess 6000 images to see whether or not there was an infringement case, they simply did a sweep of the keyword Bild and decided all the photographers concerned should contribute to the legal costs whether or not there was any case for liability. Springer (the publishers) will have complained about certain images (not 6000) and Alamy decided to removed everything, in their own words, 'as a precaution'. That was their decision but it does not form the basis of a legal argument to include uninvolved photographers in the payment of costs. As I said above, there used to be some straightforward full-frame images of just the Bild logo which the publisher would rightly have taken exception to, but unless all 6000 images were included in the original infringement complaint, there is no basis to penalise photographers of images that do not infringe copyright.

Not really. If Alamy QC find a defective image it indicates the contributor's own inspection standards or process can't be relied on. So Alamy are simply asking the contributor to recheck the images that have just been submitted. This practice is quite common in "Goods Inwards inspection" in industry. Mark

It seems to be the way everything is going. Online updates allow companies to release poorly tested software because they can fix it later. When I was developing software we had to commit to production of a large batch of disks for retail sale, and online updates didn't exist. That sure focussed the mind on getting it right or the whole lot had to be scrapped. With all the ongoing glitches, I just hope our sales are accurately being reported... Mark

All of the images in question were marked as editorial and were variations of this, taken from different angles. I really can't see where the infringement of IPR is.

Andy, occasional rejections should never be stumbling blocks, but shouldn't be ignored either. Each mistake we make is a chance to learn something. We can all do better.

Thank you for spotting this one! You found another article with the same image just the other day. Maybe keep an eye on the sales report. 😉😉 wim

Alamy's own submission guidelines.: "If there’s recognisable property in your image you’ll need a property release in order to sell for commercial use. Property is not just limited to buildings, it’s anything identifiable that’s copyrighted/trademarked e.g. logos and branded items. This release must be signed by the property or brand owner. Remember what we said earlier; don’t worry if you don’t have a property release as all of these images can be sold editorially."

Maybe also see if you can export as a jpeg? File/export/export as [is jpeg an option?]

Axel Springer own the tabloid Bild who feature in a thread elsewhere on the forum.

Bild is a German newspaper I believe.

Is this a UK thing?

As Phil said i can understand them going after images that use a logo full frame and not in context etc. If an image only has the logo as part of the image and are marked as editorial then this could mean that any image with a logo in it is fair game from now on, even news images. It might be time to get rid of any image with logo's etc in them. It is clearly risky to upload them because you may end up having to pay $$. Contributors having to accept licence fee % cuts and now potential legal fees is making uploading look less and less attractive.