Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'copyright'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Alamy Forum guidelines and announcements
    • Forum guidelines
    • Announcements
    • Contributor help page
  • 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. The U.S. Supreme Court is set to ponder in a case centering on work by Andy Warhol a question as philosophical as it is legal: when a work is inspired by other material, what is the line between art and copyright theft? https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/supreme-court-warhol-goldsmith-1.6612368
  2. Copyright is obviously a bit of a minefield but I have a question ! I bought a print, initially to copy and put on the wall of my old farmhouse in Hungary, which I will still do, but the quality is so good and so detailed that it would be fine for Alamy via the archival route. It is an original print that has a postcard type layout printed on the back. It was taken by a Hungarian photographer in the 1930s who has been deceased for more than 70 years. A small signature is on the print and obviously I would attribute his name in the title and tags. There are also other images by this photographer being used online buy not the image I have. Whilst he has been deceased for more than 70 years, I am also aware that copyright can be passed on to a heir or heirs so I have been trying to find out if it applies in this instance. Somebody in a Facebook group I am with asked a similar question and I answered as above regarding the 70 year rule ... but was then answered by someone who said that I was almost correct but not fully ... she said "The material rights part can be passed on, not the personal rights". She then went on to say that she is a lawyer who deals with copyright litigation. Now, I am not going to take the word of a stranger on Facebook and get bitten somewhere down the line so, the question is, has anybody else heard of a difference between material and personal rights because I have never heard of them and Google is no help either !!
  3. Thought this was interesting about the expiration of copyright. https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2019/
  4. I am wondering if anyone has ever taken a stock photo of public displayed artwork piece (to be used for educational purposes only), then had someone request that the image be removed? How did you respond? Thanks ...
  5. Hello everyone, I am an amateur photographer and shooting only cause I love recording memories. Photography is an obsession to me. I post my photographs on Alamy, Youtube and social media. The day has come when I realised that posting photographs on Facebook for advertisement reason is bad idea and the only question I have now is how bad? Thought being part of any photographic organisation or other legal photographic body as Alamy is enough to be protected from copyright infringements and today I learned I was wrong.. While reading "Report an unauthorised use" I've learned that Alamy: quote: "can’t chase unauthorised uses on your behalf if your image… Has been used in a personal (non commercial) blog or on an individual’s social media platform." In my case I posted some photos on Facebook and ouch!, seems like will have to row against the wind and waves on my own without Alamy's help.. Briefly: I was asked for the permission but refused for my photographs to be used on "this" calendar. Two of my photographs wore printed on calendar without my permission. Unlike others my name was not included anywhere on the calendar. Calendar price was £7.50 [receipt]. UK based. Feel so insulted by this having nightmares. Where do I go from here and where to start from?
  6. Having recently become an Alamy contributor I was pleased to learn that I can retain my own website. However, I asked Alamy whether they could give me some wording for the Permissions Page to alert potential image stealers that they were "registered" with Alamy and to direct them to Alamy should they wish to make a purchase. Alamy could not help and suggested I ask other contributors via the forum to find out what they do. My website host flatly refuses to disable right click actions and I can;t understand why. The only actions associated with right click on an image is to allow people to copy, download and use it for unauthorised/unpaid purposes. I am wondering what I need to do. All of my images on my website are showing a copyright symbol and name and I can add the website host name as a watermark but not only does that look awful, but I would have to reload all of my images, numbering some 500. Not a task I am really wanting to take on. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Sheila
  7. I have some images uploaded, but not yet keyworded, from this outdoor installation in Boston: https://www.rosekennedygreenway.org/public-art/currently-greenway/glow/ I am hesitating putting them on sale because I'm not sure if these are considered works of art that should only be submitted in wider context. One other photographer has images of these signs available on alamy. He has them marked royalty free, and NOT as property--but I wonder about that since the exhibition states they are on loan from the people who own them. That sounds like property to me.
  8. How does it work copyright-wise with images of printed matter such as posters, flyers, etc. (no context, just the thing itself)? I've noticed several posts about sales of such images.
  9. I've found another image in usage in article without my (and other authors) name under the work. Bryan was so kind to answer: A requirement that is more honoured in the breach unfortunately. In my experience the Mail Online never provides the name of the photographer, don't think that the Telegraph does either, but they do normally cite the name of the agency. The Guardian and Times are a tad more punctilious. Here on Alamy terms (http://www.alamy.com/terms/uk.asp#General) we can read: 4. Credit and Copyright issues 4.2. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, if any Image/Video is reproduced by you for editorial purposes (i.e. for any non-promotional purpose) you must include the copyright / credit line "(Photographer’s or Agency’s name)/Alamy stock photo", or any other copyright / credit line specified by Alamy. If a copyright / credit line is omitted then an additional fee equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the original amount invoiced attributable to the Image/Video in question shall be payable by you. 4.3. Alamy’s copyright notice and Image/Video identification reference which appear in the Image/Video file must remain with your digital copy of the Image/Video at all times. You will retain the copyright notice, the name of Alamy and the respective artist, the respective Image/Video reference and any other information or metadata that is embedded in the electronic file that comprises any Image/Video which you have downloaded from the Website or otherwise received from Alamy. Failure to maintain the integrity of the copyright information will constitute a breach of this Agreement. Alamy, can you lighten and kindly explain how it actually looks like, what you do in these kind of cases? Is there anybody who cares and takes the consequences of breaking rules? Are we, authors, protected by your terms out there or only on the paper? Seriously asking - is it working? As we can see not giving artist name has became standard act. Anything changed in terms/ law? I'd appreciate your valuable comments.
  10. A photographer from the US in Trafalgar Square yesterday complained to me that I'd infringed his copyright by apparently taking the same picture as him. From a distance away I saw an interesting situation and walked over quickly, took a very quick frame only half-aware of a person alongside until he spoke to me. According to him, by standing in the same place and making the same picture with the same lens and perspective (and so replicating the scene) I was copying his picture which would, in effect, stand up in a US court. I said that I'd never heard of such a thing and that it wouldn't apply in the UK: That two images made by different people using different cameras recording two files are the property of two authors. An example I added, is two news photographers standing next to each other photographing the same event wouldn't share the same copyright. 'Ah', he said, 'News is different'! He said he shot stock pictures and assumed I did too so just like him I'd probably been infringed, which I said was the case. But more intriguingly when I asked him who he was he very firmly declined saying, 'if I tell you, many people will find out and they'll all want to ask me out for coffee'. I can't be sure but don't believe my picture look like his - and plagiarising isn't my thing - so I showed him my picture, making the point that it was unlikely I'd made exactly the same composition anyway. He refused to show me his before walking away. The picture got better after that and it made a decent sequence - so his loss. Here's my edit in date taken order. So to our US friends I ask, has he in any way got a half-baked point or is he merely delusional, confused with US copyright law? Who was he! And why doesn't he like chatting with admirers about photography over coffee? Now that really is odd.
  11. Hi, If a news website shows a screenshot of my twitter post with n image on it, and they did not get a permission to use it, can I chase them for this? They did ask for permission but I directed them to Alamy News, they acknowledged my reply, and therefore I think they are using the twitter screenshot until they obtain the image from Alamy. Just in case I screenshoted (is this even a word?) they article to be able to chase them in case they dont end up purchasing from alamy. Is my approach correct?
  12. Hello, I'm looking for recommendations for a copyright infringement/claims site. Somewhere you upload your images to then they search the internet looking for your images, once they find a match you can then decided if your images are being used improperly and if so send the offending web site a take down demand letter or begin legal action. They keep %50 of the settlement for the legal work. I was using Pixsy.com but but have found them lacking. Thanks in advance, David L. Moore
  13. I see stock photo's that have been accepted where there's lots of random people in the photo's. I know that each person needs a written permission to use their photo's, so are these photographers asking each person on the street if they have permission to use their photo's? That would be crazy ridiculous. I moved to the Philippines a year ago, and often I'm left not taking photo's that I otherwise would because of all the people in them. There are people everywhere here, so getting photo's without people in the shot is very difficult often. Also, it would be nice to take photo's of people on the streets or whatever without worrying about having each person sign something. Aside from the fact that would be tedious, very few people in this country would actually understand why I'm asking them to sign something, or even what it's for and asking would cause a lot of confusion, even if my wife were to translate what I was wanting. People here don't care about copyright laws, and most don't even know what copyright protection is, or care about it at all. Are these photo's I'm seeing all for editorial use only, or is there some special thing happening here that I'm not aware of that's allowing people to use photo's that contain a lot of random people on the street without asking all of their permissions? Thanks in advance.
  14. Hi - I'm about to do a garden shoot at a private property, the photography being commissioned by the garden designer. I've just been contacted by the owners' representative asking that I sign away my rights jointly to themselves and the designer - the phrase used is "Usage – All rights/Intellectual Property in perpetuity to be assigned to . . . Usually we expect to pay a small fee of course" What are your thoughts on this - and what might be an appropriate fee? I'm thinking at least my day rate for this kind of job, but maybe it should be more? Advice from the hive mind welcome Alex
  15. Hi, I hope someone can help me here, i have taken thousands of photographs over the last 40 years and am just very slowly starting to put them on Alamy. I really want to share my images with the world, started my love of photography seeing an image appear on paper in the developer tray many decades ago! ie 35mm printing my own b&w images. It would be nice to earn money from this but it isn't my number 1 goal in life re my art. I have always been careful never to take pictures of someone or someones property, if they didn't want me to, asking if it is ok at the time for instance, but i have taken pictures of things me and my family own, thinking we paid for it so is ok, for instance our 1980 landrover defender 90 on holiday after we'd given it a good clean, and people in public, for instance playing tennis at Wimbledon or on stage. Sorry this is long hoping someone can help me. Hope it's alright to word my question with the following words:- I have tens of thousands of photographs I'd like to upload to Alamy, obviously dont want to break any laws etc, i have pictures on a redbubble site, where, if I sell an image as a greetings card, for instance, i earn 60 pence, (nothing really -redbubble earn far more than me in reality & for years ive wondered if its worth selling my pictures this way, earn nowt & some of my pics not the best quality wise). So i am obviously leading to a question re a picture i love of my husbands landrover defender 90, which we had spent lots of money and time on, and taken pictures of on holiday, like many people i am sure have done, I see thousands of pictures on internet of peoples own cars in variety of settings. The only way to ask is to say what happened so again i say i dont wish to offend any company etc... I had an email from redbubble saying they had removed one of my images with a landrover in, due to copyright claim from jaguar landrover. There are many thousands of pictures of landrovers on redbubble, flikr.... the internet in general so i felt shock, like im being picked on by a big company (note, pic is of my husbands landrover defender 90 of many years ago in a pretty landscape, my husband said....thats my car before jaguar even owned landrover). Is it because the image was for sale on goods redbubble sells? In which case how come jaguar landrover haven't put a claim in on all the images on redbubble? Mine was in a landscape, not even the main subject. As i used it really for perspective, there are many of the same car (& other brands of cars) without any background whatsoever for sale on redbubble. Feel like deleting my redbubble account as dont make any money anyway & im too old for the stress, made only £8 in over 7 years in total for all my photographic images being sold as cards or pictures, so nothing really. I'm sure someone here will know what is isn't allowed. There are thousands of pictures of landrovers on the internet, am i allowed to put any of my photographs online as long as they aren't for sale? (though now im tempted to remove every picture, even if our landrover is a teeny part of the pic as i see it as landrover getting free advertising my saying how brilliant our car was in the hills but im starting to not like them, (hope im allowed to say how i feel, i am simply a "poor" artist). As you know without my copyright sign over images, anyone could print my pics if they wanted to. Thanks, greatly appreciate help from anyone who can help with this copyright question. (note these are photos taken by me of our car)
  • 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.