Jump to content

Cryptoprocta

Verified
  • Content Count

    2,029
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cryptoprocta

  1. At other times that has not been true. Rhinoceros searches have thrown up beetles, hornbills etc on the first page well above rhino (the mammal) photo But right now, as I noted in another thread, search seems particularly 'clean', and at least for me, on a search for rhinoceros just now, no quotation marks, every image on the first place is one of the rhino (mammal) species. I'm sure you can devise your own searches to see how widespread this is. Not much we can do about the search algorithm: even though, when it isn't working as well as it should we, could be disadvantaged, as
  2. I have, as explained above. My test search is Leonard Cohen. When there are pictures 'not' of him well above pics of him, I sometimes go in and look at the caption and keywords. Often (not ATM) it's Leonard X or X Leonard with X Cohen. So I'm surmising, without any proof, that these have been taken by contributors with a better overall selling record. That particular search is sometimes very clean, sometimes really quite poor. At the moment, the first page is particularly relevant. 🙂 Caveat: we don't know whether PA have plans to review the search algorithms, or
  3. Generally, any word in the caption or keywords combines with any other word in caption or keywords which can give really odd search results. The theory is that if you have them combined in a keyword phrase, 'New South Wales', that should come higher in the search for New South Wales than it does in a search for Wales, but that's debatable in practice: it certainly varies with different search iterations. For example if you have a photo of Joe Bloggs and Jane Doe, your pic will also appear in searches for Joe Doe, Jane Bloggs, Joe Jane, Jane Joe as well as the actual two people.
  4. Everything depends on the country of origin of the magazines and the photographs. For example, in the UK: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/copyright-notice-digital-images-photographs-and-the-internet/copyright-notice-digital-images-photographs-and-the-internet Other countries are different. Be careful with France for whom war service extends the number of years ...
  5. you can earn .021c on micro, on pay for view deals. There's a sort of aggregation, but it's often just another way they get to benefit without compensating the supplier. But where has Alamy claimed recently that they are anything other than micro? Sure, good sales are reported here still, (though not by me), but if I win the random lottery I can sometimes get good value sales on my micro.
  6. Yes, pics I had accepted early yesterday aren't 'live' yet.
  7. Yaaaaaay. Of the two options, I opted to email info-commons@wikimedia.org and ... it's down!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:St_Aloysius_College_Glasgow.jpg Bookmark this page in case it ever happens to you! Thanks to all for your support. Why could Alamy not have earned their 60% by doing that for me? I have replied to my email from Alamy telling me they couldn't do it, giving them that email for future reference.
  8. Seems it's not over til it's over. The reply from volunteers@ said if I wasn't happy with their reply, I should contact legal@ So I've now got a reply from legal@ which says: "Thank you for contacting the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm sorry to hear that a work you own was allegedly uploaded without your permission. You should be aware that the Wikimedia Foundation does not write, edit, or curate any content on Wikimedia Commons or any Wikimedia project. That effort is conducted by the global community of volunteer users. The users on Commons, lacking a technical solution
  9. Well, still nothing after the DCMA take-down notice, other than another auto-receipt. Some things I've noticed over there: 1. Old, but probably still relevant, iseems that biG pursue image theft there, even if Alamy claims it "can't": Note - this is not a wikimedia page but I'm sure I'm right to infer that biG has successfully pursued illegal uses of their images. https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2882 2. Wikipedia themselves claim to take copyright seriously, in this article for contributers: (Point 5: "Blatant violations of c
  10. I emailled legal@ but got no reply. That was a fairly informal email, but I've just sent another, this time attaching a proper DMCA take down, with my digital signature, using the template provided here: https://www.pixsy.com/how-to-send-a-dmca-takedown-notice. I will indirectly gain money from this. As I find Wikipedia so useful, I've always sent them a donation for their annual appeal. That is stopping as of now.
  11. Hi from a compatriot! Just to say, have you seen the end of month threads where some contributors post their sales: E.g. https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/14668-how-was-your-july-2021 https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/14559-how-was-your-june-2021 Of course, only a very small percentage of contributors post on the forums and fewer on these threads. Clue: the money is in Live News, for which there is a lot of competition already in Edinburgh (I don't do Live News).
  12. I clicked on 2GAEN6P and see the caption "Butterfly and bright summer flowers on a background of blue foliage in a fairy garden". I'm sure English isn't your first langague and sympathise completely with having to translate, but you won't sell anything if your caption and keywords aren't accurate. 1. It's not a butterfly. I know nothing about Indonesian insects, so sorry I can't help identify this one. 2. The foliage is green, not blue. 3. "fairy garden"? I guess it might be a garden with a fairy theme, but it's not evident in the photo, so just say garden. And
  13. Thanks for that. Although I was confused by the mention of a fee, I didn't even think 'scam'. (idiotIZme)
  14. Yes indeed. And Alamy has taken an extra 20% from us. Yet Alamy has refused to take it on. One of the main reasons I wanted to sell via Alamy was because I naively thought that RM misuses would be easier to chase up than RF via my other place. This has categorically not proved to be the reality from Alamy. Sadly. I sent a screendump to 'volunteers' and now have sent ti to 'legal'. We shall see. Now chasing up legit DMCA info!
  15. Well, $%^&*: 1. Reply from volunteers at Wikimedia: "if anybody is using your image against your license, it it of course your right to take measures against this abuser. In our understanding this doesn't mean the we, who are using your image within the limits of the license, shall remove it. If you disagree, please contact legal@wikimedia.org for further assistance." Went right over to the DMCA page and discovered there's a substantial fee! so clearly when I've thought I was using DMCA, most recently for Flickr, I wasn't. https://www.dmca.com/signup/createtake
  16. Oh, that's funny. I looked up IPEC and the first page I saw was on gov.uk, and on that particular page it doesn't say it's just for England and Wales. However, the Wikipedia page summary says England and Wales. If it's not down by Monday, I'm taking out a DMCA. I recently found one from my other place on Flickr- they took it down inside 8 hours (while I was sleeping). (Also ironically, when I looked last night to see if it was down yet, I got an appeal for donations. Forget that!)
  17. We're still in the UK (for now?)! But I wouldn't rush to go down that route again. The last time I saw an IP lawyer (about that Irish lawyer), essentially she told me I would certainly have a moral victory, but I'd be well out of pocket. Would IPEC be any more effective against an American entity than a DCMA is furth of the US? BTW, CS said "we can’t chase this particular usage for you because it’s on Wikipedia we aren’t to know who to contact as anyone could have put the image up. " And indeed when I clicked on 'seanbotha', who claims to be the copyright holder, the linked
  18. As you all suspected, my reply from CS came back suggesting I pursue this myself. I've taken the softly, softly approach first by "seeking resolution through the Wikimedia volunteer community", putting in all the information and more, and indicating that if a fast takedown doesn't happen I'll follow up with a DMCA.
  19. ^^ Oh, I know, I'm still reeling from that Irish lawyer a while back, but at least that file is down now. Bizarrely, it's still just a blank space where the photo was - all he'd have to do is to take about 50 steps out of his office and he could take the same photo, more or less!
  20. If they tell me they're not going to pursue it, I'll file a DMCA. I'm not one of the people who hate Wikipedia, I use it a lot. But if I've chosen not to make an image CC, I don't want to see it labelled as such and someone else claiming authorship.
  21. Thanks, I already filled out the form. I'll probably get a reply from CS tomorrow, so we'll see what they say. I'll feed back. Wonder how often that happens? Also interesting that Google picked it up, way up in the list of search results (page 2, and I hadn't even excluded Alamy sites!)
  22. I thought about that, but thought under our contract with Alamy we had to let them do it first, or at least give them first dibs. BTW, isn't it funny how, following the new contract, we're now seeing clauses we didn't see before? On Alamy's misuse form, it says: "By clicking submit I confirm the following, and agree to indemnify Alamy if either of the below statements turn out to be incorrect: This image has never been for sale or display on any other website and it’s not in the public domain / copyright free. I am the registered copyright holder or have the p
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.