Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'copyright'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Forum rules and announcements
    • Rules and announcements
  • Alamy discussion area
    • Introductions
    • Alamy Quality Control and technical queries
    • Ask the forum
    • Let's talk about pics
  • Suggestions and ideas
    • Alamy
    • The Forum

Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests


Alamy URL


Images


Joined Alamy

Found 45 results

  1. Useful copyright summary from DACS

    Thought I would share this very useful summary of copyright developments over time from DACS : https://www.dacs.org.uk/latest-news/copyright-uncovered-photographs?category=For+Artists&title=N&utm_source=DACS+General+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=f7a41f8e79-DACS_newsletter_Q1_2018&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_de159500fe-f7a41f8e79-223246869&mc_cid=f7a41f8e79&mc_eid=abf8554838 https://www.dacs.org.uk/knowledge-base/factsheets/copyright-in-photographs Marc
  2. I found this website while searching for my own images. They are just grabbing images from Alamy and many other stock libraries and using them free of charge, watermarks intact. I sent an email last night to CS about the entire website as there are so many infringements to deal with. Here is a google search I just did which will give you an idea. I only searched for alamy images but if you have images on other sites it seems to matter that Traveltempters be all one word in your search. https://www.google.com/search?q=traveltempters+alamy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1
  3. When the submission form asks me if there is property, I've been filling in "no" for public buildings, and "no" for sculptures. But it seems that Australian law makes exceptions when things are photographed for commercial use. Should I fill in "yes" for all buildings-as-property questions without checking the law? Everything not human is property, so that means that if I photograph an expanse of fields, I should contact every farmer who has a field with a corner in the photograph. Apparently even graffiti requires a release! Here is some of the Australian law The recent settlement achieved for a U.S. sculptor for unauthorised use of a photo of his public sculpture engages the debate about the radical differences between Australian and U.S. laws on copyright for sculptures. In Australia, the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Copyright Act) specifically allows the taking, and use of, photos of public sculptures without the sculptor’s permission. In the U.S., it’s copyright infringement. Australian law on Sculptures in public The exception to copyright infringement under Section 65 of the Copyright Act allows anyone to make drawings, take photographs or film a sculpture that is on permanent public display, without infringing copyright in the sculpture. A work is on permanent public display where it is in premises open to the public or permanently in a public place. Permitted reproductions extend to the adaptation of the work into digital form for both commercial and non-commercial reproductions. However the exception does not extend to other artistic works, such as paintings, murals or mosaics that may be permanently on public display. In these circumstances, permission of the copyright owner is required to avoid infringement. As a consequence, where sculptures are on permanent public display in Australia, commercial uses are allowed without the permission or remuneration of the sculptor. That is, a sculptor has no legal grounds to demand payment for any visual reproduction of the sculpture as his or her copyright does not extend to the general control of reproduction rights if the sculpture is publicly situated. The rationale behind the section 65 exception appears to be the difficulty in controlling or preventing the copying of public artworks such as in stopping tourists from taking photographs of sculptures. The logic is flawed when one considers that the rule is not applied to public murals or even graffiti. In Australia most forms of "unauthorised" photography have in fact been authorised since the 1937 High Court decision in Victoria Park Racing v. Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479 (at p.496). This was reaffirmed recently in ABC v Lenah (2001) HCA 63, where the Court ruled that despite the passage of decades since Victoria Park, any concept of a Tort of invasion of privacy still does not exist in Australia. As Justice Dowd put it with ruthless clarity in R v Sotheren (2001) NSWSC 204: A person, in our society, does not have a right not to be photographed. Summary: The short answer is that a photographer seems to have very wide rights in Australia - more so than in many other countries. When in a public place you can take photos of people also in public, and of people who you can see from the public place, with some limitations re looking into buildings etc. There are some limitations on photos of armed forces property - which are probably of no great surprise. When on private property you may take photos but must stop doing so if requested to do so by the owner or their agent. Photos that you have taken up to that point may be retained and used. You are not restricted when in public from taking photos of children or 'famous' people and they may block your line of vision but may not actively interfere with you - not legally anyway :-). Should I fill in "yes" for all buildings-as-property questions without checking the law?
  4. Hello, we're a commercial photographer company in the UK and have worked with clients for many years on their commissions, events etc. I'd like to know whether the pictures we have taken on behalf of the clients can be added to our Alamy library? As is normally the case, the client pays us for the time and delivery of the the images - but can we then sell them for stock? Is there a period of time that must elapse before we do? We don't issue contracts for each job so assume that the default arrangement is that the photographer owns the copyright of the images. Any guidance would be most appreciated, thanks
  5. Pixsy alterative?

    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
  6. Yesterday I attended a seminar on copyright organised by one of our professional organisations here in Holland. An interesting recent decision by a court came up in passing. For the Nederlandstaligen under you this blog explains it in detail: https://www.charlotteslaw.nl/2017/12/geen-auteursrecht-op-stockfotos/ The gist of it is that a stock library sued for misappropriation of one of their images. An image of a temperature gauge in a car. The judgement was that copyright law rests on the work having an original character and carrying the personal "stamp" of the photographers knowledge. In this case it was judged that the image was (my words) too simple to carry the personal stamp of the photographer. In the presentation yesterday it was mentioned that another judge may have judged differently, if it went to appeal the decision could be reversed. The blog too argues that there are obvious choices made in producing the image, even though we aren;t talking about high art. However it sets a precendence about how courts are interpreting copyright laws with regard "simple" images. Interpretations which could have consequences.
  7. Interesting - Copyright Video

    Not sure if this has already been put up and also not sure if the info is correct. However, it's food for thought. John https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M16CGK1T9MM
  8. Editorial use only?

    Hi, whats the rules in regards to Royal Mail post boxes. I've got a few good old V R embossed post boxes. But I'm unsure if these kind of images would need a property release or are they classed as public domain etc.. I presume its probably editorial use only, But I can't find anything of any sense searching so thought I'd ask. thanks in advance.
  9. I just read the post on "How many more Customers Get This Treatment", and I've been in that boat as well. I have a different issue now, which I'm hoping someone can give me some insight on. Over the past week I've sent mails to ms@, sales@, and two or three direct email addresses, none of which have responded. Not even an automated message to confirm that my mail was received. Here's my situation. I did a reverse search a month or so ago. I found two of my images used on a website (+ affiliate websites, a total of 8 or 9 in different countries) that sells prints and canvases. The images weren't credited, but the profile, believe it or not, was made in my full name, which is not the name I'm on Alamy with. One of the images was cropped from the bottom, into the subject of the picture (the picture is complete on Alamy). I contacted the website, and my mail bounced. I contacted a few days later another email stated on the website, and got no response, but a day later "my" profile was gone, and the two pictures unavailable. I contacted my lawyer, and he was responded with "We've licensed the images from Alamy. We have a general print-on-demand license agreement with Alamy. The agreement is not for specific images." My lawyer has asked to see the EULA, but they haven't produced it (yet). One of the images has never been sold on Alamy, the other image was sold on March 27 as an iQ one time use only sale for $4,06. The Wayback machine showed that the image was on the website well before March 27. Ironically, when my lawyer forwarded me the mails, I rechecked the website, and a new profile under my name had been created with three new images. Again, neither of which has been sold, ever, on Alamy. I wanted Alamy to confirm to me that these images had been sold, but they have been non-responsive so far. Now... My question: an iQ sale, stated one time use only, can this be used to sell prints and canvases by a third party? I most certainly would not agree to these terms, and definitely not for $4,06. Any input much appreciated. And if there's anyone from Alamy around, feel free to chime in.
  10. Copyright rule/laws

    Hi, I want to submit some photos I have tacken at a football match in the UK. The game was at the Fulham Fc FA cup game against Tottenham. My pictures include a close up shot of the Emirates FA Cup sign, the Fulham FC sign on one of there stands, and wide shots of the pitch with players either during the pre-match warm up or playing (not a close up shot). I am wondering if anyone knows what the rule/copyright laws would be for these type of photos? Any commercial lawyers out there? Thank you.
  11. Have people seen the survey the US Library of Congress is conducting as part of community consultation on the next Register of Copyrights? The Copyright Alliance appears to have some serious concerns about whether the new Register will be on the side of creators. Thus, they are encouraging creators such as photographers to take part in the (very quick) survey, and have provided a model response. This looks pretty important - and deadline is 31st, i.e. today (presumably east coast US time). Full explanation and links here: http://copyrightalliance.org/get-involved/register-copyrights-survey/ Any thoughts about this? [apologies to those on the Facebook forum as I've posted there as well - but it looks as though the Copyright Alliance's thoughts deserve a wide audience.]
  12. I guess most stock photographers will have come up against the issue of restricted commercial use of images due to not having property releases...Well in this instance i had taken shots of the Shrine of Remembrance War Memorial in Melbourne Australia..The images were taken of the shrine buildings and monuments from the grounds of the shrine,these images have been on Alamy for quite a few years.. Well my images were deleted yesterday along with many other contributor images of the shrine,after a representative of the trustees of the shrine pointed out to Alamy that we did not have permissions or releases to use these images for commercial gain..Apparently there is an act dated 1978 that prohibits commercial use of photography...well if you pay for the permission you may or may not be granted a release...Alamy has done the right thing in deleting the images,ahh that`s the life of the stock shooter today..you win some...you lose some. PS..There are about 155 images still online,but are of activities at the shrine as these images are not close up images of the buildings or monuments...Images taken looking away from the shrine,say towards the city of Melbourne skyline are ok. Cheers Bill
  13. A 34m high 'puppet' has been passing through Cornwall over last 2 weeks. Yesterday it was in Penzance and one of my photos has been requested for a CD cover. The picture is essentially just a head-and-shoulders of it. I will be giving my picture freely to the Royal Geographic Society of Cornwall as a cover image for their CD. Will it's use be a breach of copyright?
  14. Publisher’s lawyer warns journalists of the need to discover the provenance of pictures before they are published in their newspapers. https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/jul/27/newsquest-hit-by-growing-copyright-claims-over-use-of-photographs
  15. I just had an interesting talk with an artist who's works include a sculpture located in downtown Chicago. I have a few images of this work on Alamy. The artist contacted me with concerns that the images of his work might be used commercially. I responded that since the images are listed as not having a property release, this isn't likely. However, he pointed out that when one views the images on Alamy, all use options are available, even for unreleased images. And, he said an image of the same sculpture by another photographer was recently licensed for commercial use. This isn't a good thing and he's not happy, nor would I be. I have set restrictions on my images of the sculpture to limit use to editorial only and I may do this with other images of public art. But, I think it would be wise for Alamy to implement a one-click editorial use only function as the current system makes you restrict the use list one by one, rather than only having to click one box. What do you think?
  16. Possibly a stupid question but...... Can I claim and Alamy on my behalf too? I've always claimed for DACS myself. I just send them a spreadsheet of Alamy sales and they do the rest. John.
  17. Infringement costs

    I've found finding and dealing with copyright violations challenging. Part of the reason is that my images on Alamy often get used without proper credits to me or Alamy, post late, and the end customer is never named in an Alamy sale. I had a recent episode where I found a couple of images of mine used to illustrate an article for a big British news outlet. I found them with a reverse image search. As is often the case, there was no credit to me, any of my pseudonyms or Alamy. This particular article was dated about three years ago and I had to cross reference the images and find them on Alamy, then check to see if they had ever been licensed. Those images in question hadn't ever been licensed. This type of searching takes me a long time to find copyright violations and make sure that they weren't legit. I contacted member services at Alamy and I now see the images in question in the "sold" list this month. Each license was for about US$7. So the couple hours I invested in chasing this violation will net me about US$2-3/hr after Alamy's split. What I'd really like to see is that there be a disincentive to "forgetting" to pay Alamy. And I think to help in catching copyright violations, there ought to also be a further cost to not crediting either Alamy or the photographer. Think about it..... you know when you go on the subway in areas with an "honour system". Every so often the transit police come by and make sure that you bought a ticket. If the punishment for being caught was exactly the cost of the ticket you were required to buy- why would anybody buy a ticket?! Similarly, if the punishment for a major UK news outlet was if ever caught to simply pay the minimal amount they would have had to anyway- they are going to "forget" regularly. Just an idea...
  18. Hello, I hear many people find copyright infringment on the internet and wonder what you guys to find your infringements. THANKS, Jacob Y.
  19. I sold a photo through Alamy a few years ago that was used for the movie poster, some online downloadable wallpapers and it was also used for the DVD cover. The license included all those uses. Now however I find two images on Alamy of the movie posters where My image was used. Specifically in the poster they used Caesars Palace hotel and the Bellagio hotel fountains in Las Vegas in a photo collage. I am wondering if that could be considered infringement or should I just forget about it. One other consideration for anyone that is worried about not having property releases, in this case releases were obviously obtained after the fact. Here are the two movie posters and my original below. It doesn't appear the posters were from the production company but I would have to contact member services to find that out. Preview
  20. Ownership rights of very old photos

    I have some family photos from the Victorian era and slightly younger. say 1900 through to 1950s. Many of these were taken in studios, now long defunct, of my family members or their homes. Some are simply family "snapshots" Do I have any right to sell scanned versions of these on Alamy, or are they the Intellectual property of the original photographer?
  21. Aggregation and Copyright

    Has anyone had to deal with aggregation ? I have an unlicensed usage (in the Mediteranean region) and the newspaper involved claims it's only aggregating from another source (same country) in an iframe box . I've read extensively on aggregation issues but most of the decisions I've seen revolve around how much content is reproduced and whether there are pointers back to the original source. In the case of a picture, it's all or nothing - not possible to have a percentage reproduced. In my case, there were no pointers back to my image anywhere, nor was there a credit. The Med is outside Alamy's area for chasing up possible infringements. Would be interested in hearing what the forum's experience is. Thanks
  22. Credit and Copyright

    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.
  23. I have just been doing a Google image search for some of my zooms and one of the images appeared on a site called Suggestkeyword.com. which tries to do just what you would expect from the title. It should perhaps be renamed KeywordSpamming.com, but more worryingly it offers images for download, with the line "You can always use one of these images but please respect the copyright of the owner, We have provided the source link for you to also credit the image(s) owner." Has anyone else found any of their work on here or tried to contact the site about copyright?
  24. https://torrentfreak.com/cnn-cbc-sued-for-pirating-31-second-youtube-video-150813/
  25. hi all, im going to be registering latest batch of copyright images, and hopefully using the electronic deposit this time, after looking up tutorial online on how to go through step by step. im just wondering, can i resize the images, or do they need the full-fat versions? i have also emailed the USA office, but they say it can take 5 business days, so thought i'd ask anyone on here who may have also been through this. i was thinking resizing to 800x640 or similar would allow enough detail to be seen, so it can be proven its my image etc also has anyone ever used the UK copyright service - UKCS, which is a paid for service kinda like the USA one, which offers proof of registration if needed. thanks dan