Legit sale not recognized by Alamy...finally appeared as distro sale

[shearwater]

8 hours ago, sooth said:

The Madrid image however does have the invoice bit:

View your order summary at: https://www.alamy.com/Order-summary.asp?OrderID={C14226BB-7837-460B-9AAE-0F5B99168F0B}
 Your Ref: Código Único DY39833709 Downloaded: 04 February 2020 Image ID: R0XJDE

 

can somebody verify this image again, i don't see the alamy invoicing on the pic (it should be located in the iptc, special instructions box)

 

Hello sooth,

To get the full res image with IPTC metadata you have to get rid of the "resizer" stuff of the URL.

This is the direct link of Abiyoyo's image: https://www.codigounico.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/02/madrid-secreto-10-lugares-que-casi-nunca-salen-en-las-rutas-turisticas-8.jpg

I hope he doesn't mind me to put the link. Jorge, if you have any concern, please let me know and I delete it inmediately. 

Regards

[shearwater]

1 hour ago, mickfly said:

Get exact confirmation from Alamy that it has never been licenced, remove (or hide it) from your Alamy port then give all the info to Pixsy.com.
If they take it on, and are successful. you will receive more than what Alamy would charge if they bothered to pursue it.
I had an unreported use a few years back, the 'team' couldn't find the infringers details so gave up and suggested I go after them... In reply, I gave them all the users (easily googled) details including the home address within minutes!

 

Thank you for the good advice, mickfly.

I would probably go that route if Alamy doesn't do anything else with more contributors alerting them from same issue.

The CodigoÚnico seems a serious editorial website, with all the contact information in a couple of clicks. I passed that to Alamy, but they say they didn't obtained response from the infringer. I have to believe... 

Regards

 

[wiskerke]

1 hour ago, shearwater said:

 

Hello wiskerke,

 

I didn't notice the invoice field! But I had nothing to compare with. Now I can compare with Abiyoyo's Madrid photo.

In my image and Abiyoyo's beach image, using Preview app in Macos, I have see an additional field that the image from Madrid hasn't got: Digital creation date (26/07/2019 in both cases, the day of their zooms).

 

About the sizes of the zoomed and original image in the Codigo's website compared to the preview watermarked image that anyone can download from Alamy, all are different sizes to me. Not sure if I'm getting you.  

 

Thank you and regards

 

P.D. about your concern about images downloaded without watermark...I expressed it above, and I'm like you, the possibility worries me.

 

 

It's about the original images on their server. If you follow the clue from the first one, you'll get to the next.

Codigo seems to be a legit client and buys from Alamy directly, but also buys Alamy via Panther. So people a bit of caution please. Alamy's clients are our clients remember.

Suffice to say that my statements are correct.

I have downloaded the originals and opened them in Photoshop. A simple binary view will reveal the same. The best exif viewer I know is PIE btw.

 

wim

 

edit: Sorry, missed the bit that you've already gotten to the originals. My bad. I don't know why you're seeing different sizes.

edit 2: Ah I see now: Macos Preview.

Edited February 22, 2020 by wiskerke

[spacecadet]

28 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

a bit of caution

Thanks Wim for confirming that and

 

30 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

Codigo seems to be a legit client and buys from Alamy directly, but also buys Alamy via Panther. So people a bit of caution please.

I have exercised it and edited a post accordingly.

[shearwater]

4 hours ago, wiskerke said:

 

It's about the original images on their server. If you follow the clue from the first one, you'll get to the next.

Codigo seems to be a legit client and buys from Alamy directly, but also buys Alamy via Panther. So people a bit of caution please. Alamy's clients are our clients remember.

Suffice to say that my statements are correct.

I have downloaded the originals and opened them in Photoshop. A simple binary view will reveal the same. The best exif viewer I know is PIE btw.

 

wim

 

edit: Sorry, missed the bit that you've already gotten to the originals. My bad. I don't know why you're seeing different sizes.

edit 2: Ah I see now: Macos Preview.

 

Hello wiskerke,

 

You are right. Full-res from the server and the preview downloaded from Alamy are the same size (1300px longest size). The difference is only the watermark.

 

I do believe CodigoUnico is a legit client, and possible a good one for sure. I'm not saying that anyone has stolen nothing. Far from my intention.

My issue is the fact that CodigoUnico is using an image (or many) from Alamy, and Alamy knows nothing, nor direct or distro download. Alamy treated it as an infringement, tried to contact them, and got no response.
If it is a distribution sale, it has been almost seven months ... and Alamy knows nothing yet.
Besides that, I have two pending distro sales to spanish newspapers, confirmed by Alamy, that will be invoiced at the end of february. I would love to see this sale magically appears too at the same time… but I'm afraid it will not.

Only wanted to blow off steam a little bit and to know if someone have got a similar issue. And surprisingly, at least one has suffer the same issue!

 

In this list I can’t find Panther distributor: https://www.alamy.com/contactus/local-distributors.aspx
Alamy’s spanish distributors are:
- Age Photostock
- ACI Agencia de Fotografía
- Cordon Press
Can you give us more information about Panther?

 

I think there is not much that can be said, at least until Alamy answers to other contributors with the same issue.

 

Thank you and regards

[Cryptoprocta]

5 hours ago, wiskerke said:

Codigo seems to be a legit client and buys from Alamy directly, but also buys Alamy via Panther. So people a bit of caution please. Alamy's clients are our clients remember.

So why couldn't Alamy have told the OP that? If you worked it out, why couldn't they?

 

Also if it's true that Alamy "Unfortunately, ... haven’t had any luck chasing this particular usage for you. The team have been chasing this for some time now but have had no response from the infringer. Therefore we’re closing this case at our end, why didn't Codigo just tell Alamy "we bought the photos from Panther" and Alamy could chase up from there?

[wiskerke]

4 hours ago, shearwater said:

Can you give us more information about Panther?

 

I think there is not much that can be said, at least until Alamy answers to other contributors with the same issue.

 

Thank you and regards

 

Oops second time I missed a bit: it's a Panther Media image via Alamy, not the other way around but again no invoice data. Could have been stripped though.

It's R5N797.

My bad again.

You are absolutely right about the distribution. It's Mauritius and 2 others in Germany, but not Panther.

The weird thing is when I search for my own name on Panther I get 49 hits, none of them mine, and 392 for Alamy.

 

wim

[KristenBentz]

So sorry for your trouble!!! I am actually on here for the same reason... different infringers. 😒 

 

Looking at your original posted link, this image would be unbelievably easy to just rip off from the zoom and use software to remove the Alamy watermark from it.

 

If you take a close look at the orange around the front of the surfboard it looks distorted like someone did a super quick clone out job.

 

Definitely go to https://www.pixsy.com and let them nail these a-holes!

[wiskerke]

3 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

So why couldn't Alamy have told the OP that? If you worked it out, why couldn't they?

 

Also if it's true that Alamy "Unfortunately, ... haven’t had any luck chasing this particular usage for you. The team have been chasing this for some time now but have had no response from the infringer. Therefore we’re closing this case at our end, why didn't Codigo just tell Alamy "we bought the photos from Panther" and Alamy could chase up from there?

 

Sorry about the Panther thing: that's misinformation from my end: it's a Panther Media Image via Alamy. So the other way around. I had just glanced it in exif viewer and misinterpreted Panther Media GmbH / Alamy Stock Photo, but not downloaded the image.

 

How long would you have people working on a job that would only bring in the fee for online use?

OK it could well have been in print also. And the magazine is a men’s high–end magazine. Meaning paying high end fees?

 

wim

 

 

[Cryptoprocta]

2 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

 

Sorry about the Panther thing: that's misinformation from my end: it's a Panther Media Image via Alamy. So the other way around. I had just glanced it in exif viewer and misinterpreted Panther Media GmbH / Alamy Stock Photo, but not downloaded the image.

 

How long would you have people working on a job that would only bring in the fee for online use?

OK it could well have been in print also. And the magazine is a men’s high–end magazine. Meaning paying high end fees?

 

wim

 

 

It would help them and us if Alamy made punitive charges for unrecorded sales, and made that clear to clients.

[wiskerke]

39 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

It would help them and us if Alamy made punitive charges for unrecorded sales, and made that clear to clients.

 

This used to be the case in the old days. Not anymore I'm afraid. Like with everything else in the stock world, as soon as soon as one company rocks the boat or leaves the boat altogether, the race to the bottom is on.

 

Now there's a difference between the regular clients and other businesses that occasionally nick an image. It could well be argued that in the latter case it's a good idea to treat it as a marketing opportunity and offer a very moderate deal showing it's actually not that expensive at all to go legit. And that it's also quite simple and quicker than searching all of the internet.

Maybe not in the direct interest of the contributor involved, but much more so for the company as a whole. And thus in the long run...

 

wim

[shearwater]

 

1 hour ago, wiskerke said:

 

Sorry about the Panther thing: that's misinformation from my end: it's a Panther Media Image via Alamy. So the other way around. I had just glanced it in exif viewer and misinterpreted Panther Media GmbH / Alamy Stock Photo, but not downloaded the image.

 

How long would you have people working on a job that would only bring in the fee for online use?

OK it could well have been in print also. And the magazine is a men’s high–end magazine. Meaning paying high end fees?

 

wim

 

 

 

Thank you for the link, wiskerke. Didn't know Codigo was a monthly print magazine too. Good to know and hope for better fees for licenses.

 

 

[Gordon]

On 22/02/2020 at 10:09, mickfly said:

Get exact confirmation from Alamy that it has never been licenced, remove (or hide it) from your Alamy port then give all the info to Pixsy.com.
If they take it on, and are successful. you will receive more than what Alamy would charge if they bothered to pursue it.
I had an unreported use a few years back, the 'team' couldn't find the infringers details so gave up and suggested I go after them... In reply, I gave them all the users (easily googled) details including the home address within minutes!

At last -someone has given us a answer , Pixsy.com ,...Had problem a couple of years ago ,in the end Alamy gave up the chase -now we have another way to chase our stolen pics.But can they get Chinese to pay up ! one of my pics ended up on over 200 sites in China ! 

[shearwater]

I have found this two images in Codigo Unico server:

https://www.codigounico.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/07/bilbao-del-pasado-industrial-a-la-renovacion-6.jpg

https://www.codigounico.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/07/bilbao-del-pasado-industrial-a-la-renovacion-7.jpg

It is the same image, and same size, but the first one with the Alamy footer but without watermark!

It would be interesting to know if this image was obtained and treated the same way than mine.

[shearwater]

On 23/02/2020 at 00:24, wiskerke said:

 

This used to be the case in the old days. Not anymore I'm afraid. Like with everything else in the stock world, as soon as soon as one company rocks the boat or leaves the boat altogether, the race to the bottom is on.

 

Now there's a difference between the regular clients and other businesses that occasionally nick an image. It could well be argued that in the latter case it's a good idea to treat it as a marketing opportunity and offer a very moderate deal showing it's actually not that expensive at all to go legit. And that it's also quite simple and quicker than searching all of the internet.

Maybe not in the direct interest of the contributor involved, but much more so for the company as a whole. And thus in the long run...

 

wim

 

I'm "afraid" that you have got your own sale with Codigo Unico:

https://www.codigounico.com/placeres/palacios-reales-bonitos-mundo.html

I really hope that it become a real license with high fee for you

Would you please inform us when it appears in your sales history?

Regards

[wiskerke]

5 hours ago, shearwater said:

 

I'm "afraid" that you have got your own sale with Codigo Unico:

https://www.codigounico.com/placeres/palacios-reales-bonitos-mundo.html

I really hope that it become a real license with high fee for you

Would you please inform us when it appears in your sales history?

Regards

 

Thank you! Well spotted! That's good sleuthing!

It seems pretty recent.

Last time the image has sold (has been licensed) was 19 March 2019.

 

Let's keep an eye out! Thanks again.

 

wim

[shearwater]

36 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

 

Thank you! Well spotted! That's good sleuthing!

It seems pretty recent.

Last time the image has sold (has been licensed) was 19 March 2019.

 

Let's keep an eye out! Thanks again.

 

wim

Not at all. Glad to help!

I've learned the hard way

Please, if you don't mind, could you inform us when it appears in your history?

Regards from Spain!

[spacecadet]

Just an update to say that I've had those two Codigo Unico images reported today.

$  and distro.🙁

Edited March 6, 2020 by spacecadet

[Abiyoyo]

4 sales just reportered.

 

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Editorial
Media: Editorial website
Industry sector: General business services
Image Size: Any size
Start: 01 February 2020
End: 01 February 2025
Spain

 

 

$6.29 each

 

Gracias Jaime for initiate this. I owe you a cerveza.

Edited March 6, 2020 by Abiyoyo

[shearwater]

Me alegro Jorge!

Although prices are sooo low

Are they distro sales?

Nothing in my sales history. Anyway, I have given up with this license.

You are welcome. I accept the beer! 🍻

[shearwater]

Mine has appeared right now too. Together with two more distro pending sales.

Exactly the same license details for the 3 licenses, so I suspect there was some kind of issue with a Spanish distributor (not sure which one), and finally today they got reported a great bunch of longtime pending licenses. Suspicious but at least we can finally see the licenses.

 

[spacecadet]

1 hour ago, shearwater said:

Mine has appeared right now too. Together with two more distro pending sales.

Exactly the same license details for the 3 licenses, so I suspect there was some kind of issue with a Spanish distributor (not sure which one), and finally today they got reported a great bunch of longtime pending licenses. Suspicious but at least we can finally see the licenses.

 

I nudged MS again and they "sent it to billing" on the 21st. last. So always worth another poke with the cattle prod if it's been over half a year. Not too often though- MS are doing their best.

[shearwater]

6 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

I nudged MS again and they "sent it to billing" on the 21st. last. So always worth another poke with the cattle prod if it's been over half a year. Not too often though- MS are doing their best.

 

I'm sure they are doing a hard work. But sometimes we get frustrated with everlasting unreports, and even more with not recorded/recognized licenses like this one.

Thank you and regards  

[spacecadet]

19 minutes ago, shearwater said:

 

I'm sure they are doing a hard work. But sometimes we get frustrated with everlasting unreports, and even more with not recorded/recognized licenses like this one.

Thank you and regards  

All the best.

Poor fees of course but I like the images and haven't had much action from Oviedo yet, so nice to see a couple. Just not as nice as that cocktail.

Edited March 6, 2020 by spacecadet

[wiskerke]

2 hours ago, shearwater said:

You are welcome. I accept the beer! 🍻

 

No show here so far, but it's extremely early days if it's a distributor sale.

But I'll buy you a beer too. Where in Spain are you based?

 

wim