Prints licence

[GP Essex]

One of my images was sold to someone earlier this year for low ££ online only licence, 5 yrs worldwide web & social media. Fair enough. I actually like what they do. However I've just seen they're selling prints on their website of the same image and charging £200 for an A2 limited edition print. I'm assuming that this isn't covered by a standard licence and I should be contacting Alamy to get them to chase it up. They've sold quite a number of prints by their own admission, and especially for someone who's supposedly a designer, creator and somewhat 'anti establishment' to be behave in this way grates somewhat...

[Cryptoprocta]

1 hour ago, Scenebyrail said:

One of my images was sold to someone earlier this year for low ££ online only licence, 5 yrs worldwide web & social media. Fair enough. I actually like what they do. However I've just seen they're selling prints on their website of the same image and charging £200 for an A2 limited edition print. I'm assuming that this isn't covered by a standard licence and I should be contacting Alamy to get them to chase it up. They've sold quite a number of prints by their own admission, and especially for someone who's supposedly a designer, creator and somewhat 'anti establishment' to be behave in this way grates somewhat...

 

They certainly should not be selling prints. Contact Alamy ASAP - you may need to keep chasing them up.

Anti-establishment sometimes seems to mean 'free-for-all'.

Edited November 16, 2019 by Cryptoprocta

[geogphotos]

Just incidentally I'm curious to know if many RF images are sold under RM licences like this.

 

Does the standard RF licence rule out the uses you are objecting to - I assume that selling prints is not allowed under any standard licence? If so I'm not so sure what Alamy can do for you.

 

You might have to sort this out direct with them.

Edited November 16, 2019 by geogphotos

[Cryptoprocta]

7 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

I'm curious to know if many RF images are sold under RM licences like this.

 

Does the standard RF licence rule out the uses you are objecting to - I assume that selling prints is not allowed under any standard licence?

I looked it up https://www.alamy.com/help, and " RF stands for royalty-free – This is the most flexible option and the most straight forward. You pay a one–off fee to use the image with no restrictions on how you use image, how many times you use it or how long you use it for. You can use the image across multiple projects, forever. There are some restrictions on image use for * reselling’ "

I have no idea what the * is for, I don't see it as a footnote, and I don't know what's meant by 'some' restrictions.

At other places, reselling needs a separate, much more expensive, licence., often called an 'extended' or 'enhanced' licence.

On an Alamy RF file I just looked at, I don't see any option for reselling.

Edited November 16, 2019 by Cryptoprocta

[geogphotos]

' No restrictions on how you use the image'

 

Rightly or wrongly isn't that what the 'infringer' would point to as a defence?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2019 by geogphotos

[Cryptoprocta]

27 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

' No restrictions on how you use the image'

Rightly or wrongly isn't that what the 'infringer' would point to as a defence?

It's wrong wording by Alamy, even though 'amended' later in the paragraph.

It's extremely bizarre to say 'no restrictions' and a short distance later 'some * restrictions' (undefined).

Should have been checked by the legal team - that's really sloppy.

 

BTW, this is an RF-allowed file sold under an RM licence, so this purchaser wouldn't have that as an 'out'.

 

@OP, please feed back what support reply. Let's hope they will clear up that ambiguity on the site.

Edited November 16, 2019 by Cryptoprocta

[geogphotos]

28 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

 

 

BTW, this is an RF-allowed file sold under an RM licence, so this purchaser wouldn't have that as an 'out'.

 

 

 What is an 'RF-allowed file'? And why is an RF image being sold with an RM licence? Is this common?

[Cryptoprocta]

6 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

 What is an 'RF-allowed file'? And why is an RF image being sold with an RM licence? Is this common?

RF allowed file (my term) just means that the artist has indicated that the file may be sold RF.

I have absolutely no idea how common these sales are (I'm not privy to Alamy's sales), but it's allowed on every Alamy RF image and has been for as long as I can remember.

 

Are you really incapable of looking for yourself?

 

Here is what is says on an Alamy RF file (a file I clicked on randomly):

Buy this stock image now…

Personal use   £ 9.99

Presentation or newsletters   £ 9.99

Website   £ 29.99

Magazines and books   £ 39.99

Marketing package: Small business   £ 39.99

Marketing package: Large business   £ 149.99

Choose a royalty-free license

   XSmall   £ 39.00   300 x 372 px 10.6 x 13.1 cm (72 dpi) 327 KB

   Small     £ 60.00   636 x 789 px 22.4 x 27.8 cm (72 dpi) 1.4 MB

   Medium     £ 140.00   1326 x 1644 px 22.5 x 27.8 cm (150 dpi) 6.2 MB

   Large     £ 165.00   2652 x 3288 px 22.5 x 27.8 cm (300 dpi) 24.9 MB

[geogphotos]

1 minute ago, Cryptoprocta said:

RF allowed file (my term) just means that the artist has indicated that the file may be sold RF.

I have absolutely no idea how common these sales are (I'm not privy to Alamy's sales), but it's allowed on every Alamy RF image and has been for as long as I can remember.

 

Are you really incapable of looking for yourself?

 

Here is what is says on an Alamy RF file (a file I clicked on randomly):

Buy this stock image now…

Personal use   £ 9.99

Presentation or newsletters   £ 9.99

Website   £ 29.99

Magazines and books   £ 39.99

Marketing package: Small business   £ 39.99

Marketing package: Large business   £ 149.99

Choose a royalty-free license

   XSmall   £ 39.00   300 x 372 px 10.6 x 13.1 cm (72 dpi) 327 KB

   Small     £ 60.00   636 x 789 px 22.4 x 27.8 cm (72 dpi) 1.4 MB

   Medium     £ 140.00   1326 x 1644 px 22.5 x 27.8 cm (150 dpi) 6.2 MB

   Large     £ 165.00   2652 x 3288 px 22.5 x 27.8 cm (300 dpi) 24.9 MB

 

 

I  did not understand your invented terminology. I don't have any RF images and haven't bought any so have zero experience of this. No need for you to tick me off about it!

 

It seems like a contradiction to offer a licence that is supposedly available with 'no restrictions' and then add restrictions.

[Cryptoprocta]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

I  did not understand your invented terminology. I don't have any RF images and haven't bought any so have zero experience of this. No need for you to tick me off about it!

 

It seems like a contradiction to offer a licence that is supposedly available with 'no restrictions' and then add restrictions.

It may be my invention but it was pretty much self-explanatory.

I don't have RF images here, but obviously I have looked to see how it works. You asked rather than looking for yourself! I assumed you knew all about RF here, as you've written about it a few times in the past.

 

It's called 'giving buyers options'. Sometimes a limited RM licence will work out cheaper for a buyer who is pretty sure they'll only have a limited use for the file. In theory, an RM sale with no exclusivity should cost less than an RF image, but in reality it usually doesn't; and anyway on Alamy,  as other places, it's all abut the discount.

[geogphotos]

Alamy should stop handing out high res files capable of being printed at A2 and sold for £200 when somebody buys a file for web use.

 

And they should not call that an RF licence when it supposed to be restricted to a very narrow use for a limited period of time. 

 

Best wishes to the OP in sorting this out.

 

 

Edited November 17, 2019 by geogphotos

[GP Essex]

2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Best wishes to the OP in sorting this out.

Thanks.

Going to email Alamy with screengrabs etc of his web & twitter. It's been used as a background for a photoshop montage, so not as a standalone image. 

Though I'm rather confused by the apparently RF not RF T's & C's in the help section. The sale conditions are restricted to web & social media use for 5 years but the help file says "You can use the image across multiple projects, forever" 

Now changed all my stock to RM for the moment. Obviously won't stop this sort of thing but should make it easier to control? I'm still unsure which one is most likely to result in higher sales/greater revenue though... But from reading other posts on here it's not all that cut & dried.

[hdh]

Had a read through the T&Cs. Drawing my attention to sections

 - 3.1.1, saying the image may not be resold - hence selling an A2 print does not sound to me being in line with the T&Cs. 

 - 3.3. saying the image may be part of a product, when sold. If the interpretation is they are selling A2 paper and the image is a (small) part thereof seems to be bending the rules. 

 - 3.5.1 Image may be part of an image library, but for internal purposes within the organization only, from what I interpret in your OP, it seems they share with the world. 

 

Maybe its worthwhile sharing the site, so other can check with their images? 

 

I would also be interested in Alamy's answer, if you do not mind sharing.  

[Cryptoprocta]

3 hours ago, Scenebyrail said:

Now changed all my stock to RM for the moment. Obviously won't stop this sort of thing but should make it easier to control?

That would seem to make perfect sense in theory, but in practice it doesn't always work out that way.

[BobD]

On 17/11/2019 at 12:10, hdh said:

Had a read through the T&Cs. Drawing my attention to sections

 - 3.1.1, saying the image may not be resold - hence selling an A2 print does not sound to me being in line with the T&Cs. 

 - 3.3. saying the image may be part of a product, when sold. If the interpretation is they are selling A2 paper and the image is a (small) part thereof seems to be bending the rules. 

 - 3.5.1 Image may be part of an image library, but for internal purposes within the organization only, from what I interpret in your OP, it seems they share with the world. 

 

Maybe its worthwhile sharing the site, so other can check with their images? 

 

I would also be interested in Alamy's answer, if you do not mind sharing.  

 

3.1.1 Could be open to interpretation. Is selling a print the same as being re-sold i.e the image file. However very sloppy as to what is and isn't allowed.

[GP Essex]

OK, Update - been in contact with Alamy and they have said:
 

"I can confirm there is a relevant licence by this customer, but the licence they have purchased doesn’t cover how they are using the image.

I am therefore going to pass this onto our infringement team who will contact the customer and ask them to purchase the correct licence."

 

The site in question is "Cold War Steve" - website is coldwarsteve.com

He's a  "collage artist and satirist". I suspect there could be more Alamy images on the site, it shows several of his creations being sold as prints. He also has Twitter and Facebook pages.

[Alex Ramsay]

Clever and amusing work, though! (so long as he buys the right licences)

 

Alex

[Harry Harrison]

Disappointing that this should be necessary from a 'fellow artist'. His stuff is really very good indeed.

[spacecadet]

1 hour ago, Scenebyrail said:

OK, Update - been in contact with Alamy and they have said:
 

"I can confirm there is a relevant licence by this customer, but the licence they have purchased doesn’t cover how they are using the image.

I am therefore going to pass this onto our infringement team who will contact the customer and ask them to purchase the correct licence."

 

The site in question is "Cold War Steve" - website is coldwarsteve.com

He's a  "collage artist and satirist". I suspect there could be more Alamy images on the site, it shows several of his creations being sold as prints. He also has Twitter and Facebook pages.

He did it to me as well. He took it down when warned by me and also blocked me on Twitter. I told Alamy and it was relicensed 4 months later for about twice the fee. Plus the original fee of course. Alamy kept tabs on it and let me know.

Get a screenshot now before he locks you out.

Edit- if he does you can still see posts if you log out. But you probably know that already, I don't use it.

Edited November 19, 2019 by spacecadet

[GP Essex]

22 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

He did it to me as well. He took it down when warned by me and also blocked me on Twitter. I told Alamy and it was relicensed 4 months later for about twice the fee. Plus the original fee of course. Alamy kept tabs on it and let me know.

Get a screenshot now before he locks you out.

Edit- if he does you can still see posts if you log out. But you probably know that already, I don't use it.

 

That's useful to know, thanks. Didn't realise he was a 'repeat offender'... Really grates as I like his work, and no doubt he would be outraged if someone ripped his work off.
I already got screencaps of the relevant pages and sent them to contributor relations.

He's got a book out apparently - with a signing in Bristol on election night, at the MPF forum for "providing a platform for emerging photographers to share and discuss their practice"
Maybe I should turn up and discuss image payments with him in front of the audience 😂

 

https://www.martinparrfoundation.org/events/cold-war-steve/

 

[hdh]

One would think that after first offense people would learn. 

If they repeat it sounds to me that they do not care and will potentially continue getting away with infringement. 

coldwarsteve's work looks interesting, but given the above I would definitely refrain buying from him. 

[MizBrown]

He may claim use in a collage is not copyright protected, that he's provided more to his piece than merely using your photo.  (Those of us who have done photos of wall murals do have to add content and context to avoid being in breach of the original artist's copyright, same principle).