Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'theft'.

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 6 results

  1. rumahmigran.com Rumah Migran You can do a Google search with your name, and/or image and/or alamy with site:rumahmigran.com as keywords Alamy will not chase as the site is Indonesian. rumah migran is owned by triple one global Triple One Global address: 81 Ubi Ave 4 #01-05 UB.One Singapore 408830 website www.tog.sg Tel : +65 65384074 | +65 8484 3836 | E : info@tog.sg
  2. Hello everyone, I'm a very old contributor, but this is my first time on the forum. I'm having a serious problem and although this is going ahead for already several years time, I finally decided to ask help here on the forum. To be honest, on last year I tried to explain this issue to the Alamy support, but they couldn't help me, so I hope to find some useful feedback here. As the most of you, I have my images on sale also on several other stock agencies. One of these agencies around five years ago put my whole portfolio on sale here on Alamy, without asking my permission. But much worse than this is the fact that this agency never paid me a single cent for all the sales they made with my images. When I discussed about this with them in the past, they pretended they didn't have any sales at all, but this is absolutely impossible, because the same images are also sold by myself here and I have several sales every given month for many years. Obviously after I realized about it, I immediately asked to let me cancel my subscription as contributor to them, but they refused to do it.. can you believe it? As they are a stock agency, even if not one of the big ones, but very often my images in the search engine here on Alamy, come first under this agency name, rather than under my own portfolio.., so this means that I'm loosing lots of money that this agency is getting in my place, without even share with me my part. It's a real fraudulent action. I'm totally sure that over five years, they stolen several thousands of dollars from me. I'm not saying the name of this agency, because I'm not sure that this is allowed, but I would need to know from you, what would you do in my place. Doing a legal action against this agency, would be very expensive, because I'm located in Italy, this agency is located in Spain and Alamy in the UK, this is why I've never done it, but I'm hoping that a sort of organization that protect artists/photographers from these kind of issues might exist... Any advise, suggestion, or useful comment will be much appreciated. Thank you very much.
  3. Good insight to the workings of the Daily Mail Online. The link in the story takes you to the full blog. Now you know why there are so few reported sales from them. http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/mar/05/my-year-ripping-off-the-web-for-the-daily-mail-by-ex-employee
  4. Photoshelter users be warned. They have introduced Lattice, a Pinterest type "service" with no watermark protection. It took me barely 2 minutes to grab an unwatermarked 1200 x 800 px image. It is yet another opportunity for image theft. You are opted in by default. If you use PhotoShelter and value you your images I suggest you login immediately and opt out. You might also want to share your view on their Blog. I am now taking a hard look at whether I am going to continue using PhotoShelter to store my images as they clearly are not thinking in terms of protecting professional photographers. I will probably cancel my account as soon as I can download my images (although I do have them on my own machines) and rebuild my web site. I was going to redesign it anyway this just moves it to the top of the list.
  5. I was just about to issue a DMCA notice to a WordPress blogger, when I noticed the last statement that I must confirm before issuing the notice: WHAT! So WordPress (http://automattic.com) now require that I have to release all my personal contact information to a stranger who has already proved that they believe themselves to be above the (copyright) law (or at best - and usually more likely - to be ignorant of it), so that I may enforce my rights? Clearly, few copyright owners will want to release personal details to infringers except as a last resort. Are WordPress trying to appease bloggers who believe that everything is/should be free on the Web or are they trying to lower their admin. costs or a little of both? This is something new, no? I certainly do not recall it being there before, and am not sure of it's validity within the bounds of the DMCA. Is this another nail in the coffin of copyright owners retaining ownership of their own work? Are we all expected to roll over and play dead, now? It certainly put me off submitting the form - which is clearly its intention.
  6. I have just had someone use 6 (at least) of my images after I explicitly told him that my pictures were not available for free. He must have taken them from the event organisers web site where they were watermarked with a copyright notice. I will be billing the magazine that used them for full list price based on the calculator on my web site - >£500 plus the administrative time of dealing with the theft. I had a clear agreement in writing with the event organisers that they could only use the supplied images on their online presence and confirmed in a separate follow up email that he cannot expect free pictures. The other point I am trying to clarify whether removal of the watermark is an illegal act in the UK. I realise it strengthen my case that this was deliberate copyright theft. They have not been published anywhere without a watermark. I will be checkinbg that they were not licenced from Alamy but judging by the credit they weren't especially as three are from separate selections I made for the event organiser. Having met the guy I believe he is arrogant enough to believe that he can do anything without repercussions. I was chasing copyright before he was born and have had a heavyweight project management career so have a little experience of fighting my corner.
  • 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.