Thomas Kyhn Posted May 3, 2019 Share Posted May 3, 2019 I just came across this photo from Rødovre Town Hall (Denmark) on Alamy, which turns out to be on Flickr too with a CC license. Seems a little dubious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted May 3, 2019 Share Posted May 3, 2019 Could be an agency submission, in which case the agency might not be very happy about it being given away elsewhere. Either way the photographer may wonder why he has no sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Kyhn Posted May 3, 2019 Author Share Posted May 3, 2019 7 minutes ago, spacecadet said: Could be an agency submission, in which case the agency might not be very happy about it being given away elsewhere. Either way the photographer may wonder why he has no sales. I don't think the photographer's counting on selling any photos – on Flickr he says that he's not there to make money. And the photos on Flickr are clearly his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sb photos Posted May 3, 2019 Share Posted May 3, 2019 I have heard of agencies trawling for Creative Commons images then marketing them and placing them with other agencies. The CC license states "Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use." They obviously can't meet the CC license terms. Aside, it has been down sized from 2272 x 3224 to 1187 x 1683, no doubt as the original on Flickr is soft and shows some noise at 100%. Shot on an Olympus E-300, a bridge camera. Do agency submissions to Alamy bypass camera model checks? My first digital camera was a 2006 Sony DSC-R1, a 10.3MP APS-C bridge camera with an excellent lens, yet from what I remember it wasn't an Alamy approved camera but a much lower standard E-300 image is accepted. I sold images shot with the DSC-R1 and exhibition prints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Kyhn Posted May 4, 2019 Author Share Posted May 4, 2019 9 hours ago, sb photos said: it has been down sized from 2272 x 3224 to 1187 x 1683 Yes, I noticed the small file sizes. I appears to be the same with all photos from this account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted May 4, 2019 Share Posted May 4, 2019 15 hours ago, sb photos said: Aside, it has been down sized from 2272 x 3224 to 1187 x 1683, no doubt as the original on Flickr is soft and shows some noise at 100%. Shot on an Olympus E-300, a bridge camera. Do agency submissions to Alamy bypass camera model checks? My first digital camera was a 2006 Sony DSC-R1, a 10.3MP APS-C bridge camera with an excellent lens, yet from what I remember it wasn't an Alamy approved camera but a much lower standard E-300 image is accepted. I sold images shot with the DSC-R1 and exhibition prints. What I saw hasn't been through QC at all - they were all reportage / archival images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Kyhn Posted May 7, 2019 Author Share Posted May 7, 2019 The photographer confirmed, he didn't upload the photos to Alamy. Apparently, some of his family photos have been uploaded to Alamy too, and, according to him, Alamy refused to do anything about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sep120 Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 The info under the image indicates "Contributor: FP Collection / Alamy Stock Photo" Clicking on "FP Collections" shows 2,285 photos. I would guess they're all either creative commons or images old enough not to be subject to current copyright law? I seem to remember Alamy saying something about such photos being definitively allowed here now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sep120 Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 (edited) deleted duplicate post Edited May 9, 2019 by sep120 duplicate post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Kyhn Posted May 9, 2019 Author Share Posted May 9, 2019 11 minutes ago, sep120 said: Clicking on "FP Collections" shows 2,285 photos. I would guess they're all either creative commons or images old enough not to be subject to current copyright law? But a creative commons license doesn't allow you to sell someone else's photos, does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 1 hour ago, Thomas Kyhn said: But a creative commons license doesn't allow you to sell someone else's photos, does it? Yes, unless it's a non-commercial licence, BYNC or whatever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Kyhn Posted May 9, 2019 Author Share Posted May 9, 2019 5 minutes ago, spacecadet said: Yes, unless it's a non-commercial licence, BYNC or whatever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license On Flickr, in the rights section, there's a link to this page: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ It says you're free to "Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially", but it's not entirely clear if commercial use is OK without any adaptation. In any case, it says: "You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made". All of this is missing from the photos FP Collections are selling on Alamy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 Then it appears to be a breach of the CC licence. But that's not what you asked. I've collected settlements on CC images where the infringement was not the copying, but the breach of licence by lack of attribution. I no longer put up images under CC. The few I have done, over a decade ago, are everywhere now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Kyhn Posted May 9, 2019 Author Share Posted May 9, 2019 2 minutes ago, spacecadet said: Then it appears to be a breach of the CC licence. But that's not what you asked. True. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zxzoomy Posted February 19, 2020 Share Posted February 19, 2020 In past years I had put some on Flickr as CC licence. I was somewhat grumpy to see a foreign photo agency had sourced it from there and supplied one of my images to a website. It won't be happening again if I can help it. And, as said above, they have to follow all the conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now