Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Cryptoprocta

  1. 1 minute ago, Cryptoprocta said:


    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 people my not see our e.g. rhino pics if the first page is badly polluted with beetles, hornbills and helicopers, and - as we know from Measures - a reasonable proportion of buyers only look at the first page.

    *Whoops, I realised that you were asking specifically about putting quotes into your own tags. I have no idea.

    I don't know whether that bit you quoted really meant that the person had tagged with quotation marks, rather the quote was just to indicate that they had used a  search phrase. Punctuation marks in tags in my previous experiments have been ignored, e.g. possessives, in the manner of "Land's End". This may not currently be true.


  2. 34 minutes ago, FocusUno said:

    found this wrt using quotation marks, specifically in tags:


    • I’ve tagged my image “Banff National Park”, will my image show if someone searches “Park”? Our tagging system does not exclude constituent words of a tag from being searched. For example, “Banff National Park” will still show up for “banff”, “national park” and “park” searches. This also means that “Rhinoceros Beetle” will show up in “Rhinoceros” searches, but the search engine tries to make sure that the beetle image does not appear too high up.


    has anyone tested quotation marks for supertags & captions?  conclusions?  TIA.

    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 people my not see our e.g. rhino pics if the first page is badly polluted with beetles, hornbills and helicopers, and - as we know from Measures - a reasonable proportion of buyers only look at the first page.

    • Upvote 1
  3. 1 hour ago, Inchiquin said:


    My understanding was that each word is still treated as a separate keyword, it's just that if the keywords appear as the same phrase they should come higher up the search. But I haven't put this to the test. Can anyone else confirm?



    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 to regularly change them.


    • Thanks 1
  4. 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.

    If you check every now and then you'll see how strictly the actual search order is keeping to the theory, depending on how often the search is being 'tweaked'.

    So essentially, keep it as your example 1, for your own sense of professionalism at least.

  5. On 16/08/2021 at 19:32, Caffolive said:


    I have many vintage magazines from as early as 1930s -1970s. Is it possible to upload the images from these magazines onto Alamy and make money from them? How does this work in terms of copyright? I ask because there are many similar images on this site. Any wise words would be gratefully received.

    Everything depends on the country of origin of the magazines and the photographs.

    For example, in the UK:


    Other countries are different. Be careful with France for whom war service extends the number of years ...


    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  6. 8 hours ago, BobD said:

    You can't buy images for that price on microstock sites. so it's not just ridiculous it's just plain unnecessary.

    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.

  7. Yaaaaaay. Of the two options, I opted to email info-commons@wikimedia.org and ... it's down!!!



    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.

    • Thanks 1
  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 that fits their needs, have settled for a speedy deletion policy for images that violate copyright law.

    One can add the tag to a page under the Commons deletion policy and it should be looked into by one of the volunteer users on Commons. You can also send an email to

    info-commons@wikimedia.org, which will put you in touch with some of the most experienced users on Commons, who may be able to assist you with your request.
    Best of luck.
    Jane Connor 
    WMF Legal Department"


    which is a bit of a runaround considering legal@ was the suggestion which was made by volunteers@, which was the address given on the wiki page, as was legal@

    So I'm not quite at the end of the road, but have two other options.


    Does anyone else think "Best of luck" is rather bizarre in this circumstance?

    Surely I shouldn't have to rely on "luck" on such an open and shut case.

  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.



    2. Wikipedia themselves claim to take copyright seriously, in this article for contributers:

    (Point 5: "Blatant violations of copyright law and our image policies are usually deleted immediately. ")



    and meanwhile: 3 - their contributors don't like agencies like Alamy selling their CC files (so why did they allow commercial use?)

    (this is an unofficial page, and bizarrely there's a notice on it that people should take the article with a pinch of salt!):



    Probably this is the end of the road. I'm not throwing away good money on lawyers for a moral/legal win on a photo that anyone could just walk up and take.

    Again, Alamy has disappointed, or as SpaceCadet said, Palamy "fell at the first fence". Thanks BTW for the IPEC suggestion. I don't actually know anyone in England that I could ask.


    We have an equivalent in Scotland, but it was one of their advising lawyers who told me I'd be out a lot more money than I'd stand to gain if I took that Irish lawyer to court.



  10. 23 hours ago, Alexander Hog said:

    Hi Steve 

    It was to make ...... up to 500 a month( not all the time) and am years away from making that amount.

    Hi from a compatriot!

    Just to say, have you seen the end of month threads where some contributors post their sales:






    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).


    • Upvote 1
  11. 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 so on, and so forth, for many of your images.

  12. Just now, spacecadet said:

    Spectacular piece of arrogance hiding behind lawyers there. They're not "using your image within the limits of the license", they don't have a licence.

    That's a scam site,there's no fee for a DCMA notice.

    Thanks for that. Although I was confused by the mention of a fee, I didn't even think 'scam'. (idiotIZme)

  13. 10 minutes ago, wiskerke said:


    In this case the Wiki people should have seen the copyright notice in the metadata.

    It is still there. They can still see it now. So it's not an innocent mistake.

    I would take screen dumps of everything btw.

    And send them a hefty bill for making your image available for free download.

    $10.000 will wake them up and get their attention.

    It should be an open and shut case for the new legal service Alamy is using. 



    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.


    I sent a screendump to 'volunteers' and now have sent ti to 'legal'. We shall see.

    Now chasing up legit DMCA info!

  14. 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.



    Not wasting money on this, it's not a valuable image; so writing to legal@wikimedia, though without much hope.


  15. 2 hours ago, spacecadet said:

    Obviously Scottish law is different- you can't bring a case in IPEC unless you have a business address in England or Wales. You'd need to find a UK entity to proceed against if there is one- after all the infringement has taken place in Scotland because you've seen the image on your screen and that's enough.

    Maybe this one


    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!)

  16. 10 hours ago, spacecadet said:

    Considering how brazen Wikipedia has been about UK copyright and asserting its God- given American right not to be held to anyone else's laws, I'd have no compunction about going to IPEC with it if I could be sure about suing the right entity.

    Oh, except you're in Scotland. Too bad.

    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 page says, "Wikimedia Commons does not currently have a user page called Seanbotha."

  17. 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.

  18. ^^ 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!

  19. 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!)

  20. 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 permission of the registered copyright holder to report this unauthorised use."

    It has been on display on another website: it has sold at least once* (I think more than once, maybe to the same newspaper) and was on a newspaper site a few years back.

    I put a note to that effect on the form to compliance, but it looks like either another loophole or a way to catch us out.

  • 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.