Potential Licence Query

[sb photos]

Perhaps another forum member has come across a similar instance and can advise.

 

Yesterday I undertook one of my regular Google searches for Stephen Bell Alamy and it found a usage on Microsoft News - https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/revealed-priti-patel-u-turn-on-end-to-detention-for-refugee-women/ar-BB1e4ykd

 

As the same article containing my image didn't show in the Google search, I then searched via Muck Rack for the articles author Mark Townsend.  This found the original Guardian article https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/27/revealed-priti-patel-u-turn-on-end-to-detention-for-refugee-women, both were published 27/2/21.  

 

Image KHH0WF had previously licensed 4 times before in the Guardian, all with the same license terms, that included “One use in a single editorial article used within web versions of titles from the same group.” MSN is not part of the same group, and my image was marked as “© Provided by The Guardian Photograph: Stephen Bell/Alamy”. Presuming the license terms for the Guardian use will be the same as previously, this doesn’t permit them to syndicate images. Who is likely to be responsible for licensing MSN’s usage, MSN or the Guardian?

[geogphotos]

What is interesting here is that when you look at the image address it is an MSN address ( right click) then paste. Often these sort of sites hotlink to the original destination of the image in the article or even to the stock photo agency that it comes from. When that happens companies such as Pixsy won't pursue the case as it is not considered an infringement, here I don't know. I'm finding something similar with Tripadvisor, Yahoo and other such sites. 

 

You can try Copytrack for free and see what they find when you upload images which you know have licensed. I did that as part of my DACS campaign. 

 

I am also using Pixsy. I have paid a monthly subscription to have all my images imported from Photoshelter and scanned. It is extremely interesting to see all the uses both legitimate and not! 

Edited March 7, 2021 by geogphotos

[geogphotos]

Stephen,

 

Did you find out any more? I wonder if the Guardian has some sort of deal with MSN?

 

In chasing infringements my experience ( very little though it is) suggests that these sort of news sites will be all covered. It is the small businesses such as tour operators, travel agents, transport companies, building forms, trees surgeons, guesthouses etc who are most likely to blatantly nick images.

 

Oh and there was an MEP who I had to send a Take Down notice, and they immediately took the image down. I was half expecting a torrent of invective!

[sb photos]

No, no more on this issue. Once the Guardian report the image use and are invoiced It will be interesting to see if the license terms have changed from their previous 4. That’s likely at the end of this month, or latest next month.

[geogphotos]

I suspect that this will be covered by 'titles from the same group' in that the article does appear under a Guardian heading. From the look of it all sorts of newspapers 'subscribe' to MSN News and allow their articles to be featured there. I think that it is al legitimate even if annoying.