Question over what constitutes presentation/newsletter

[Jon Rosenthal]

Hi all

 

I've  a quick question on rights. Alamy sold the following RM image (HYAFH6)  a year ago for "Usage: Presentation or newsletters, Use in a presentation/talk (eg,Powerpoint and Keynote) or in a newsletter." 

I see it has been used by the UN in a print magazine and online. 

https://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/august-november-2018/trading-while-caring-people-and-planet

 

Is this within their rights and is it worth my time to try to enforce and infringement? I'm a little annoyed that after Alamy's cut I walked away with the price of a London pint. 

 

Thanks

 

 

[Sally]

It may have been used in a presentation but has now found its way online. That’s website use and a different license is needed for it. Unless it has been copied by someone else from the original, you can ask Alamy to chase up a new license. Don’t necessarily expect to get a lot more for it, though. 

[regen]

I suppose it depends upon the definition of a magazine i.e. is it weekly/monthly. Does it have an ISSN number,is it available thro news stand etc. Again whats the definition of a news letter. I wonder how often Alamy check where and how the material is used and wether they actually do anything about it? 

 

Regen

[Jon Rosenthal]

Thanks v much.

[losdemas]

Yup, I'd agree with Sally. Especially given the user, it's very likely to genuinely have been used in the licensed form, then inadvertently or mistakenly used online. Perhaps confusion over limitations of the licence? I'm sure that Alamy would happily contact the end user and re-bill and that there would be no problem at the other end. But, again as Sally says, don't expect a huge increase in licence value.   

[Starsphinx]

2 hours ago, regen said:

I suppose it depends upon the definition of a magazine i.e. is it weekly/monthly. Does it have an ISSN number,is it available thro news stand etc. Again whats the definition of a news letter. I wonder how often Alamy check where and how the material is used and wether they actually do anything about it? 

 

Regen

Its about time they started checking properly far more often and definitely doing something.

[losdemas]

1 hour ago, Starsphinx said:

Its about time they started checking properly far more often and definitely doing something.

 

Sadly, I can't ever see that happening.

[Thyrsis]

Same scenario as we had recently. First thing to do is ask Alamy if they have a record of a download of that image for presentation use by the UN. If so send them a screenshot of the current usage and hopefully they will invoice the buyer correctly.

[BobD]

This abuse of the system is getting out of hand. If organisations like the UN, who don't have to worry too much about budget, are playing the system, then the system is broke.

Come on Alamy pull your finger out and address the situation.

[Starsphinx]

3 minutes ago, BobD said:

This abuse of the system is getting out of hand. If organisations like the UN, who don't have to worry too much about budget, are playing the system, then the system is broke.

Come on Alamy pull your finger out and address the situation.

Dare I say it but even the big boys will play a system when it is observed there is no come back for doing so.  If Alamy actually started chasing misuse aggressively and billing new licences from the date of the offence, not the date of it being admitted, plus adding costs for chasing the proper licence misuse would drop massively.   If misusing an image carries a 50/50 chance of not being chased at all and the worse thing that happens when it is chased is you are forced to buy the licence you should have done at the same cost as it would have been anyway there is no deterrent to misusing.  Imagine a supermarket where only 50% of shoplifters were challenged - and the only thing that the ones challenged faced was put the items back or pay for them - no arrest, no shop ban, no prosecution, no punishment.  There would be a lot more people "chancing it" - after all what have they got to lose?

[KevinS]

6 hours ago, Jon Rosenthal said:

...used by the UN in a print magazine and online. 

You should contact Alamy immediately and ask about this. Actually, you are required to report suspected infringements; it's in the contract (16.2.).

[Jon Rosenthal]

Thanks all for the useful feedback. I've alerted Alamy and I'll let you know how it pans out.

 

[Sally]

On 20/12/2018 at 15:36, Starsphinx said:

Dare I say it but even the big boys will play a system when it is observed there is no come back for doing so.  If Alamy actually started chasing misuse aggressively and billing new licences from the date of the offence, not the date of it being admitted, plus adding costs for chasing the proper licence misuse would drop massively.   If misusing an image carries a 50/50 chance of not being chased at all and the worse thing that happens when it is chased is you are forced to buy the licence you should have done at the same cost as it would have been anyway there is no deterrent to misusing.  Imagine a supermarket where only 50% of shoplifters were challenged - and the only thing that the ones challenged faced was put the items back or pay for them - no arrest, no shop ban, no prosecution, no punishment.  There would be a lot more people "chancing it" - after all what have they got to lose?

I don’t believe in a conspiracy theory. Most likely its use in another format is simply a genuine mistake by a junior member of staff who didn’t know any better. Let’s not go over the top about these things. What useful purpose would it serve for Alamy, and for us, to develop a reputation of an aggressive hard-hitting organisation?

[Starsphinx]

3 minutes ago, Sally said:

I don’t believe in a conspiracy theory. Most likely its use in another format is simply a genuine mistake by a junior member of staff who didn’t know any better. Let’s not go over the top about these things. What useful purpose would it serve for Alamy, and for us, to develop a reputation of an aggressive hard-hitting organisation?

It's not a conspiracy theory just simple observable human behaviour.
You have 2 stretches of road with speed cameras - one is seen to flash speeders and it is known people have gotten points and fines from it.  The other has not flashed anyone for years, and nobody has ever heard of anyone being prosecuted by it.  How many people slow down for the first and how many don't bother to slow down for the second?   Some will speed no matter what.  Some will never speed no matter what.  The big chunk in the middle between the 2 will sometimes speed and sometimes not - and are far more likely to do so in places they know they won't get into trouble for doing so.

As for what purpose it would serve Alamy to develop a reputation for chasing and securing image infringements?  It would reduce the number of people who tried it.  It would mean organisations using Alamy for images would be slightly more alert to what licences they were ordering and using - and would be slightly more likely to check they have the right licence in the first place.  They do not have to be particularly aggressive or hard-hitting - just assertive about enforcing their contracts. 

[regen]

Over the years I sold more than 20,000 licences in the days when RM meant something and every month I dealt with oversights,mistakes  and very occasionally attempts to use material without paying. Very few got away with it because I knew where I had sold every licence and what rights I had granted and continually checked publications and chased every transgressor wether deliberate or not.

 

Trouble with Alamy is they don't bother presumably because its not financially viable for them to do so.

 

regen

[KWheal]

On ‎20‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 15:36, Starsphinx said:

Dare I say it but even the big boys will play a system when it is observed there is no come back for doing so.  If Alamy actually started chasing misuse aggressively and billing new licences from the date of the offence, not the date of it being admitted, plus adding costs for chasing the proper licence misuse would drop massively.   If misusing an image carries a 50/50 chance of not being chased at all and the worse thing that happens when it is chased is you are forced to buy the licence you should have done at the same cost as it would have been anyway there is no deterrent to misusing.  Imagine a supermarket where only 50% of shoplifters were challenged - and the only thing that the ones challenged faced was put the items back or pay for them - no arrest, no shop ban, no prosecution, no punishment.  There would be a lot more people "chancing it" - after all what have they got to lose?

To add to that not only billing them for the misuse from the date of misuse but the fees that were in place then. A few years back I found a newspaper use , which was a couple of years old that had never been reported. When it was used it was when we received decent prices for licences to newspapers. However when I reported it the only fee I received was that which was now in place . So they got it at a massively reduced fee to what they should have paid at the time of the use

Kevin

[Martin P Wilson]

13 hours ago, regen said:

Over the years I sold more than 20,000 licences in the days when RM meant something and every month I dealt with oversights,mistakes  and very occasionally attempts to use material without paying. Very few got away with it because I knew where I had sold every licence and what rights I had granted and continually checked publications and chased every transgressor wether deliberate or not.

 

Trouble with Alamy is they don't bother presumably because its not financially viable for them to do so.

 

regen

 

It would be very worthwhile if they didn't simply rollover and licence the infringement on current discounted terms, use the calculator as a minimum reference price.  A few high-profile punitive awards and clients would wake up to the fact that it was going to be very expensive and bad press if they don't stick to licencing terms, and pay promptly. A certain Tier 1 library sends very high bills to infringers, gets a lot of press and sends a clear warning, pour encourager les autres!

 

I know of photographers (including ex-Alamy) who make a significant additional income by chasing infringements, especially in the USA, using specialist detection and collection services. As I replan my non-Alamy photography life that is a route I will probably go down. I will register copyright in the USA to allow punitive damages on US infringments.

[Jon Rosenthal]

Hi all

 

Just an update from Alamy CR as follows, so it seems they are on the case:
"We’ve heard back from our team about the below use and this particular customer reports uses every 6 months so this will be reported an billed before the end of February."

 

[regen]

1 hour ago, Jon Rosenthal said:

Hi all

 

Just an update from Alamy CR as follows, so it seems they are on the case:
"We’ve heard back from our team about the below use and this particular customer reports uses every 6 months so this will be reported an billed before the end of February."

 

And this is so wrong- that Alamy allows customers like the UN six months to report a usage!! so do they report all uses in the previous 6 months or are they allowed 6 months credit either way its wrong.

 

Regen

[dustydingo]

On 12/25/2018 at 04:01, Sally said:

I don’t believe in a conspiracy theory. Most likely its use in another format is simply a genuine mistake by a junior member of staff who didn’t know any better. Let’s not go over the top about these things. What useful purpose would it serve for Alamy, and for us, to develop a reputation of an aggressive hard-hitting organisation?

 

Wise words. And in the case under discussion, despite many insinuations to the contrary, it was _not_ a case of license misuse.

DD