gnagel

When this photograph appeared on Alamy’s website, it indicated that there was NO property release. Glenn

Thanks Kumar! Glenn

Thanks...I have been interacting with the Alamy Copyright team as well. Glenn

I do realize that some buyers may shop around for the cheapest price of a download. Glenn

Oh...thanks Glenn

What is an MS RF site? I assume RF means royalty free, but not sure about MS. The lawyer probably saw the image on Dreamstime—but it was editorial only. Glenn

Thanks Betty...same to you! This too shall pass. Glenn

Thanks Chuck...and I very much appreciate this advice. I will continue to participate in this thread, but will avoid disclosing any further details about this situation. It's too easy to sit hear and vent (especially with other mostly sympathetic photographers), but that won't advance my interests. Glenn

Yes...my problem is that I am not familiar enough with the law. How much protection does an editorial designation give to the photographer? Glenn

I had the same thought about the possible acknowledgement and emphasis on editorial versus commercial. Glenn

Interesting...I wish I knew how many of those payments came from photographers who licensed an editorial sale of the image. Glenn

Yes...the issue here is that I had no idea that the image was still available through Alamy. I deleted the image from all stock agencies...not just Alamy. I then checked to see if it was deleted by doing a search using the Alamy search engine box. And the image did not and still does not appear on the Alamy site. However, if one has the original link to the image...it will access the photo! I only learned of this yesterday. Alamy did say that they would remove it if I drafted a request with an explanation as to why the image should be removed from the site entirely--otherwise my agreement with Alamy apparently states that deleted image will remain active for 180 days. At this point, I thought it best to just wait a few days and the 180 day period will end. The image cannot be found on the site...without the link to that page from back when it was active six months ago. Glenn

I've been trying to read all I can about copyright infringements on the internet. It gets complicated very quickly. It's possible that there might be some merit that I am liable for attempting to personally profit from the work of the artist? I've seen some information that confirms that the artist must provide evidence that he has incurred damage as a result of my activity--which I don't see how he would be able to do that. If anything, he probably benefited. Apparently, the image probably appeared in a magazine promoting Buffalo. I'm concerned that the attorney might have found a niche. He has decades of experience in intellectual property litigation. He clearly knows a lot more about this than I do--and must also know that it isn't a small thing for me to find and hire a competent intellectual property lawyer. I'm being told that it is a very specialized field and that I should expect to pay a lot of money for a consultation. If I need someone to represent me in federal court in Buffalo--it will be very inconvenient and costly to me. The attorney is likely counting on all of this to keep pushing for a settlement or hoping that if a law suit is initiated that I might not appear in court. Glenn

Anyone taking of photo of this artwork would likely come away with a similar image. My photo was a straight shot of the mural--which filled the frame. I did not make any edits in post other than cropping and the usual white balance, contrast, saturation and sharpening adjustments. I embedded my copyright information in the digital file--stamped by my camera. I did not file any copyright information with the government. Glenn

Thanks...I've had a feeling of anger as well. When I was first contacted by the attorney back in June, I was super cooperative--told him that I had no intention of infringing upon the artist in any way and that I would remove the image from all of the stock agencies within the hour (which I did). At the time, he was focused on Dreamstime--and I told him that the image sold two times through that agency...one time I received 25 cents and the other time I received $2.00. He asked if I had proof of that, which I did, and I emailed him the life to date earnings report showing the $2.25 in earnings since inception for that image. He then sent me the photo from the Alamy site and told me that it appeared that I was selling the image for "more than editorial usage". By then, I was getting tired of this since he linked the page on the Alamy website that clearly indicates it is an editorial image! He suggested once again that I forward the information to my insurance company. I figured that was the end of it until I received another letter from him yesterday (six months after he last contacted me)--telling me that since he hasn't heard from my attorney or insurance company that his client is requesting that he take me to federal court. He wrote that he is giving me 30 days to reconsider (and I'm not sure what I am supposed to reconsider--offering him a settlement, I suppose), that will he file the law suit in federal court on January 3rd. I wasn't sure if I should respond at all as I might just keep getting deeper into this thing and unwittingly provide him with more language he might be able to use against me. But, a couple of my lawyer friends suggested that I at least send a reply letter to him simply stating that the image was never sold for commercial usage. It was offered as an editorial image until he first contacted me, but since then the image has not been offered or sold at all. Finally, I certainly didn't willingly infringe on the artist's intellectual property rights--and in fact removed the image from all photo agencies immediately as a courtesy (despite it being limited to editorial licensing from the beginning). Glenn