Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'copyright'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • 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




Alamy URL


Joined Alamy

Found 52 results

  1. 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
  2. I have some images uploaded, but not yet keyworded, from this outdoor installation in Boston: 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.
  3. Printed matter and copyright

    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.
  4. Trafalgar Square Photographer

    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.
  5. Re-posting Twitter picture

    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?
  6. Photo's With Random People

    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.
  7. signing away rights

    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
  8. 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)
  9. Useful copyright summary from DACS

    Thought I would share this very useful summary of copyright developments over time from DACS : Marc
  10. 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.
  11. 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?
  12. 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
  13. 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 but but have found them lacking. Thanks in advance, David L. Moore
  14. 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
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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: 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.]
  19. 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 win 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
  20. 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?
  21. Publisher’s lawyer warns journalists of the need to discover the provenance of pictures before they are published in their newspapers.
  22. 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?
  23. 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.
  24. 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...
  25. Hello, I hear many people find copyright infringment on the internet and wonder what you guys to find your infringements. THANKS, Jacob Y.