Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'licensing'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Alamy Forum guidelines and announcements
    • Forum guidelines
    • Announcements
  • Alamy discussion and community support
    • Introductions
    • Portfolio critique
    • Community support: ask the forum
    • Stock photography discussion and contributor experience
    • Alamy Quality Control and technical talk
    • Let's talk about pics
  • Suggestions and ideas
    • Alamy
    • The Forum

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Alamy URL


Joined Alamy

Found 15 results

  1. Google starts to display licensing information about content that appears in Google Images. When the mouse is pointed on the images appears the "Licensable" text. When image is clicked (ex. Alamy images) "Get this image on: Alamy | License details" is displayed. Stay safe, andre
  2. Hi there, I'm trying to undestand how to submit editorial images: should I upload my pics as usual or should I follow another procedure? Where can I specify that those specific images are for editorial use only? Thank you for your help
  3. How's this for missing out on what should have been huge licensing fees--it appears this image was exclusive to a particular "other" agency: Single photograph used by political parties again and again and again . . . for a few quid. DD
  4. I've seen people mention "in perpetuity" licenses, but I don't see that option for one of my RM editorial photos (and I got an email from an editor who wants to use it, but without time limit). When I choose editorial/editorial website/duration, I only see the 5 years option; am I missing something? Is that not available for RM? https://www.alamy.com/bruce-siewerth-former-theater-teacher-at-evanston-township-high-school-image229036237.html
  5. Hi I’ve been wrestling with this editorial/commercial question for some time and wonder if anyone here can clarify. I’m aware this may show some fundamental mis-understandings of editorial/commercial licensing on my part – but I’ve asked around and done my googling, and still don’t feel I know the answer… Say, for example, a commercial company is producing a brochure that is being distributed for free / is for educational or public information purposes only. Could they use ‘editorial only’ images within that particular brochure, or – even though the brochure itself is not commercial (in fact is being produced at cost to the company), as the company is commercial by nature – would they still need a commercial license for images, and couldn’t use editorial licensing/ ‘editorial only’ images? Or is it that, even though the brochure is being distributed free, it could still be argued, is still in some ways promotion for a commercial company… so images shouldn’t be ‘editorial only’ and a commercial license would be needed? Or… (bear with me!) have I understood it completely wrong… and it’s nothing to do with whether the company using the image is itself a profit-making company, but is solely down to the particular context of how an image is being used? EG, an article within their brochure about ‘benches’ could feature an ‘editorial only’ generic picture of a random bench – but if the article was about a particular bench – and required a picture of that one particular, exact bench – then the image no longer becomes editorial, and a commercial license would have to be bought? Thanks in advance! And over to you…
  6. Hi folks An image of mine appeared in the online edition of the FT a couple of days back. (The link is here, but it's firewalled so may not work, and I can't for the life of me figure out how to insert a screenshot here! https://www.ft.com/content/ace1dbe0-7ece-11e8-8e67-1e1a0846c475 ) The image in question has been licensed quite a few times, but never for anything saying "newspaper". One license says "single company multiple use, editorial only" but doesn't say who the company was. So, with the vagueness of the license detail, how can I know whether this usage was legitimate or not? Is it reasonable to report it to Alamy as a possible infringement and ask them to confirm whether they have a sale logged to the FT? Thanks, Kate
  7. Does anyone else find that a lot of their images sold for "Personal use, Personal prints, cards and gifts, or reference for artists" are purchased and then refunded a few weeks later ? I find it hard to believe that these very high resolution photos are regularly downloaded for small amounts of money, refunded and then never used. What are other member's experiences ?
  8. Hi, AIM has my default image licensing set to RF but News images get set to RM regardless. I’ve been looking at Alamy’s PDF about licensing but I can’t see an explanation. Are News images always RM? Why? thanks.
  9. I have been so far marking Editorial Use Only on all my Monument images shot in my city.These monuments are 400 plus years old where photography is allowed.However there is no policy on licensing these images mentioned anywhere on the state tourism website. While going through similar images in Getty, I found some of them under Commercial use category. Just wondering if it is OK to sell these images for Commercial Use and if it makes any difference in terms of Sales
  10. If I have a photograph of an individual who is wearing Oakley sunglasses, but you can't really tell they are Oakley (I know they are Oakley), can I sell the image without making it for editorial use only (since I clearly don't have a release from Oakley)? I do have a model release from the individual.
  11. 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?
  12. Probably a daft question, but can 2 images created from the same RAW file origin but given different post processing be licenced differently, i.e. one RM and one RF? I've "redone" some of my images, some which have already been sold, so I don't want to delete the old versions off Alamy, but I may want to post the new versions as a different licence type. I know it is technically possible to select a different licence, but is it ethical?
  13. I have a photo for sale on Alamy, that's not on any other stock sites. It's also been published on my blog, and is registered with the U.S. Copyright office. I recently found several cases of unauthorized use of the photo on several web sites recently, in addition to a presumably legitimate use where Alamy is credited. My questions: When images are licensed for use, are the buyers required to post credit to Alamy? My understanding is that sales can take weeks or months to show on our accounts--anyone know if Alamy can provide a more up to date record of sales on request? I've sent a message to Alamy support and got back an automated response suggesting checking on the forum. I'm considering taking legal action against at least one site that has used the image, but obviously don't want to bug someone who has legitimately licensed the image.
  14. That's the 'Natural Environment Research Council' (UK). Just as a matter of interest, this could be a location to note down as a search for licensed images. They publish a monthly spreadsheet of their spending (listing on their website going back to April 2010). Unfortunately, the spreadsheets don't contain togs names, just details of amounts paid monthly to Alamy, so I guess it's down to a search of their Website or their publications. Just a quickie to start - from the Planet Earth Winter edition 2013 (link to pdf) The full archive listings for the planet Earth mag. (back to 2008) are here. B9BFXN by NSP-RF Apologies if this is old news to some !
  15. Sorry if i've missed this elsewhere, but I've had an education image used by the Guardian in November. It's popped up again in another different education story again on the Guardian last week - Am I right to assume this is a separate sale as it's a rights managed image?
  • 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.