Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I take "only available on Alamy" to mean that I haven't sent a particular image, regardless of its content, to another stock agency.

 

The whole "artwork" thing has to do with the content of images and possible copyright infringements, not with exclusivity.

 

These are really two separate matters that shouldn't have been lumped together. Therein lies the continuing confusion.

 

 

Agreed. Although I see Alamy's point about excluding copies of 2D artwork, the exclusivity flag is still of no use to them when selling to customers as there's no way Alamy can guarantee that there aren't other images available online that look virtually identical. Some will be illicit copies (e.g. nicked from newspaper websites). Others will have been taken at the same time of the same subject with a viewpoint that's identical (e.g. long lens shots of Royal balcony at Buckingham Palace at key moments). IMHO this whole exercise has been a total waste of time for all concerned. Alamy have lost good contributors, others are now offering their images elsewhere (I am) and I somehow doubt if the increase in commission Alamy are taking on the images that are now marked as non-exclusive has paid for the cost of the exercise.

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Agreed. Although I see Alamy's point about excluding copies of 2D artwork, the exclusivity flag is still of no use to them when selling to customers as there's no way Alamy can guarantee that there aren't other images available online that look virtually identical.

Mark

 

Yes, that makes sense as far as "exclusivity" goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

Others will have been taken at the same time of the same subject with a viewpoint that's identical (e.g. long lens shots of Royal balcony at Buckingham Palace at key moments).

Or from people next to each other on a safari vehicle, or in a wildlife hide, or well known landmarks where there are only a few, or even one, 'ideal' view/composition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Agreed. Although I see Alamy's point about excluding copies of 2D artwork, the exclusivity flag is still of no use to them when selling to customers as there's no way Alamy can guarantee that there aren't other images available online that look virtually identical. Some will be illicit copies (e.g. nicked from newspaper websites). Others will have been taken at the same time of the same subject with a viewpoint that's identical (e.g. long lens shots of Royal balcony at Buckingham Palace at key moments). IMHO this whole exercise has been a total waste of time for all concerned. Alamy have lost good contributors, others are now offering their images elsewhere (I am) and I somehow doubt if the increase in commission Alamy are taking on the images that are now marked as non-exclusive has paid for the cost of the exercise.

 

Mark

 

 

and as confirmed on page 1, it doesn't take much "variation" for Alamy to consider two images distinct.  Showing two shots, one second apart from same spot, with a minor difference in look of person was classified different enough that i could upload one to Alamy only and call it "exclusive".    (as stated only reason i have both is i rushed upload, and missed the subtle difference of the second).  

 

so it's almost as Alamy is saying, just press Shutter twice, and upload the one only here the other elsewhere and get 20% extra. with little distinctiveness for the customer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Abiyoyo said:

That is my problem. I have hundred of musical posters, lots of them stripped out from the walls, that means that each one has its "finger prints" and are unique. Are those artworks have to be "non-exclusive?

 

lou-reed-madrid-1980-tour-musical-concer

 

 

This is really a different issue. My view it that it's still in copyright, it's a straight copy,  you don't own the rights and it shouldn't be here at all, but that's up to you. It certainly shouldn't be exclusive.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

This is really a different issue. My view it that it's still in copyright, it's a straight copy,  you don't own the rights and it shouldn't be here at all, but that's up to you. It certainly shouldn't be exclusive.

 

 

Alamy has accepted masses of material such as this - LP covers, book covers, posters etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Alamy has accepted masses of material such as this - LP covers, book covers, posters etc.

Indeed and it's covered by the contract- you give a warranty that you're the rights owner or have permission therefrom. It doesn't mean that the contributor is legally safe.

I wouldn't do it and I daresay a lot of us wouldn't- your private material is a bit different though and at least you're asking the question.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Indeed and it's covered by the contract- you give a warranty that you're the rights owner or have permission therefrom. It doesn't mean that the contributor is legally safe.

I wouldn't do it and I daresay a lot of us wouldn't- your private material is a bit different though and at least you're asking the question.

 

Has there been a change to the copyright of designs for front covers/posters/LPs and the like? Going back into the 2000s ( I forget when ) I remember being told on a forum that the design of a copyright on, for example, a book front cover was much shorter than the normal copyright period ( 15-20 years or so) instead of the 70 years after a photographer's death. 

Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

Has there been a change to the copyright of designs for front covers/posters/LPs and the like? Going back into the 2000s ( I forget when ) I remember being told on a forum that the design of a copyright on, for example, a book front cover was much shorter than the normal copyright period ( 15-20 years or so) instead of the 70 years after a photographer's death. 

A design has a shorter protection, yes, but IMO a layout with artwork and images, etc., would still be protected by copyright for the full term. You might need to rely on design right if there were no other material in the poster protected by copyright. Abiyoyo's example has an image of Lou Reed for a start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With copyright in mind but more so the Exclusivity policy, Alamy states under the definition "Exclusive" that:


 'Images of artworks, or that are not protected by copyright, or that are in the public domain or for which copyright ownership is unknown will never be deemed to be exclusive.'


OK, from a personal viewpoint all my illustrations from books will need to be changed (which go from 100 - 400 years old).
I presume also that all my vintage advertisements will have to go the same way. The enamel signs I will leave as each sign will be unique through its rusting pattern.
My vintage playing cards are all artwork so they go to.
What about old photographs (both celluloid and glass) and cabinet cards? I don't have the negatives but they are unique and out of copyright yet according to the definition I cannot mark them as exclusive.
Similarly I have original artwork  but am not the artist yet the definition says I cannot mark these as exclusive either.

In all these copyright will have ceased under normal circumstances (except possibly on a pack of 'Wizard of Oz' cards.

I joined Alamy because it was simple and straightforward and a straight 50% commission. I sell very little and only do it as a hobby. I feel as though I might as well mark the whole lot as non-exclusive and sign up with other stock agencies

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/12/2019 at 14:23, Mander Images said:

With copyright in mind but more so the Exclusivity policy, Alamy states under the definition "Exclusive" that:


 'Images of artworks, or that are not protected by copyright, or that are in the public domain or for which copyright ownership is unknown will never be deemed to be exclusive.'


OK, from a personal viewpoint all my illustrations from books will need to be changed (which go from 100 - 400 years old).
I presume also that all my vintage advertisements will have to go the same way. The enamel signs I will leave as each sign will be unique through its rusting pattern.
My vintage playing cards are all artwork so they go to.
What about old photographs (both celluloid and glass) and cabinet cards? I don't have the negatives but they are unique and out of copyright yet according to the definition I cannot mark them as exclusive.
Similarly I have original artwork  but am not the artist yet the definition says I cannot mark these as exclusive either.

In all these copyright will have ceased under normal circumstances (except possibly on a pack of 'Wizard of Oz' cards.

I joined Alamy because it was simple and straightforward and a straight 50% commission. I sell very little and only do it as a hobby. I feel as though I might as well mark the whole lot as non-exclusive and sign up with other stock agencies

 

 

 

I'd already taken that step with a few exceptions they all have to be marked as none exclusive :(

The exceptions are my father's and grandfather's photos which I scanned and they can be marked exclusive.

 

Old photos (unless your ancestor took them and you can claim copyright) and the cabinet cards will have to be marked none exclusive.

 

 

 

I wonder how the big archive image collections took the 20% cut 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.