Tracking sales by Alamy (apart from the personal dashboard)

[IACOB MADACI]

Hello,

I found this forum while looking randomly for some of my pictures on the internet. The forum shows that one of my pics identified by its ID code was sold in September 2020 with my name and the website where it was published. Yet, my personal dashboard did not track that sale more than 6 months later.

So it seems that some people manage to track all sales by Alamy every month, and I'm just wondering how you make it.

Can somebody explain please ? And help me find my own sales and the websites where I was published ?

Many thanks.

Iacob

[Avpics]

12 hours ago, zxzoomy said:

This week I found an unreported use from last June by a google search of my name and a well known newspaper title. Alamy quickly replied they could see a relevant download and they would add it to the billing. It's worth a bit of googling now and then to see what we can find. 

I bet Alamy will still take 50%/60% from your earnings from that, despite you doing the work.

[meanderingemu]

i am always surprised that people seem to believe other agencies are more transparent about sales reporting.  If anything i have found them to be way more of a black box, with total inconsistent labelling, little information how much and when they received, and many many misuses.

 

 

At least Alamy gives me more information.

Edited March 26, 2021 by meanderingemu

[GP Essex]

On 24/03/2021 at 17:57, geogphotos said:

Sometimes sales through distributors take many, many months. 

 

You can use and online tracking system such as Pixsy or Copytrack. If you only have 618 images you could upload all of them to Copytrack for free. 

I've been using copytrack for a while and found a few images of mine in use. Since I saw your post I added Pixsy last night as I'd not heard of it before - and I've already found 2 matches for one image! One is a very recent newspaper one, so I expect that to be notified soon. The image hadn't been zoomed either, just viewed. Chasing them up with Alamy now. Thanks 😊

 

[geogphotos]

7 minutes ago, GP Essex said:

I've been using copytrack for a while and found a few images of mine in use. Since I saw your post I added Pixsy last night as I'd not heard of it before - and I've already found 2 matches for one image! One is a very recent newspaper one, so I expect that to be notified soon. The image hadn't been zoomed either, just viewed. Chasing them up with Alamy now. Thanks 😊

 

 

 

I'm pleased to be able to help. Though tread carefully on starting a Claim against anybody - make absolutely as sure as you can that is 100% - because otherwise you can be held liable for Pixsy's costs. 

 

I started around 50 Pixsy cases without realising the possible implications and then had to back peddle rapidly!  Most of them are close to 100% but I can't be entirely sure and so there is a risk.

 

The trouble is that with the way sales reporting goes across the stock industry it is actually quite difficult to be 100% sure that the possible infringer doesn't have a licence.

 

But in any case it is interesting to be able to monitor uses and add information to your Alamy sales spreadsheet. I wish I had done it years ago, With over 12,000 sales in my spreadsheet from all agencies it is something of a monster to keep under control, especially those agencies ( not Alamy) that have changed their reporting system and removed all the old records. 

 

Copytrack seems to me to have an excellent search engine but less good on the chasing infringement side of things and with much lower expectations over the fees they try to charge. 

[geogphotos]

14 minutes ago, GP Essex said:

I've been using copytrack for a while and found a few images of mine in use. Since I saw your post I added Pixsy last night as I'd not heard of it before - and I've already found 2 matches for one image! One is a very recent newspaper one, so I expect that to be notified soon.

😊

 

 

This I'd say sums up the infringement strategy to use. Follow all legitimate media uses and then see who nicks images from there! 

Edited March 26, 2021 by geogphotos

[GP Essex]

5 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

I'm pleased to be able to help. Though tread carefully on starting a Claim against anybody - make absolutely as sure as you can that is 100% - because otherwise you can be held liable for Pixsy's costs. 

I'm just forwarding the links to Alamy for the moment. They did eventually get me extra £££ last time I had to do this when "Cold War Steve" used one of mine for a web post, then I saw he was making £££'s from prints & had only licensed it for web use. It did take them almost a year to chase it up, though that was 2020 so everything went a bit haywire anyway...

[geogphotos]

44 minutes ago, GP Essex said:

I'm just forwarding the links to Alamy for the moment. They did eventually get me extra £££ last time I had to do this when "Cold War Steve" used one of mine for a web post, then I saw he was making £££'s from prints & had only licensed it for web use. It did take them almost a year to chase it up, though that was 2020 so everything went a bit haywire anyway...

 

I have also forwarded some to Alamy. But not sure that Alamy is the best choice, being our agent, and possibly having an interest in keeping an existing client happy, or attracting a new one. And Alamy can only take on Exclusive images.

Edited March 26, 2021 by geogphotos

[GP Essex]

Interesting half hour spent searching, Pixsy & Copytrack have both found a couple of the same images but there's very little overlap between the two. In particular the Montpellier image I just posted in the "found pics March" thread appears to have been grabbed off the Sun/Mirror pages and been used all over the place, inc a Youtube news vid 😒
This was all picked up by Pixsy, but not by Copytrack. Looks like it's worth using both

[geogphotos]

5 minutes ago, GP Essex said:

Interesting half hour spent searching, Pixsy & Copytrack have both found a couple of the same images but there's very little overlap between the two. In particular the Montpellier image I just posted in the "found pics March" thread appears to have been grabbed off the Sun/Mirror pages and been used all over the place, inc a Youtube news vid 😒
This was all picked up by Pixsy, but not by Copytrack. Looks like it's worth using both

 

Yes they both seem to find different things. With Copytrack I only uploaded Alamy images that had sold for web use or possible web use. I found it useful for my DACS claim. 

 

The Pixsy search engine seems to throw up more false hits while Copytrack has a an excellent system for exactly overlaying the source and found images.  Copytrack seems to keep searching, chugging away whereas Pixsy does a search and then there is a long pause. Not sure how exhaustive the Pixsy search is. Worth using both.

[Magnus]

On 26/03/2021 at 15:55, geogphotos said:

 

Yes they both seem to find different things. With Copytrack I only uploaded Alamy images that had sold for web use or possible web use. I found it useful for my DACS claim. 

 

The Pixsy search engine seems to throw up more false hits while Copytrack has a an excellent system for exactly overlaying the source and found images.  Copytrack seems to keep searching, chugging away whereas Pixsy does a search and then there is a long pause. Not sure how exhaustive the Pixsy search is. Worth using both.

 

Enlightenment !  Thanks. 

As an itinerant contributor to Alamy, I often wondered, but only used Google, if any pictures / photos had been half inched.   Copytrack and Pixsy will be the way forward.

What was (were?) more concerning and further enlightening were the blog articles on copyright or privacy infringement  - e.g. photos of people, buildings etc.  While I appreciate that our trans Atlantic cousins might be more litigious, the potential but not definitive pitfalls were sufficient to cause pause and reflection.   If I read it correctly (possibly not) buildings such as the Empire State are objects and you cant (or shouldn't) just take a picture and maybe sell (licence) it.  

Shades of your blog comment on slide / transparencies you got at an auction and who might still hold the rights - photographer or estate holder ?

Regards, 

[zxzoomy]

3 hours ago, Magnus said:

 

Enlightenment !  Thanks. 

As an itinerant contributor to Alamy, I often wondered, but only used Google, if any pictures / photos had been half inched.   Copytrack and Pixsy will be the way forward.

What was (were?) more concerning and further enlightening were the blog articles on copyright or privacy infringement  - e.g. photos of people, buildings etc.  While I appreciate that our trans Atlantic cousins might be more litigious, the potential but not definitive pitfalls were sufficient to cause pause and reflection.   If I read it correctly (possibly not) buildings such as the Empire State are objects and you cant (or shouldn't) just take a picture and maybe sell (licence) it.  

Shades of your blog comment on slide / transparencies you got at an auction and who might still hold the rights - photographer or estate holder ?

Regards, 

I read that some buildings in the USA, like the Empire State Building, Chrysler Building, and Rockefeller Center are registered trademarks which is different from copyright. There seem to be plenty of stock photos of the Empire State Building available. Selling mats, mugs and postcards of an image of it might be a step too far? As for uk buildings this is informative: https://filmlondon.org.uk/resource/filming-buildings

Edited March 27, 2021 by zxzoomy
addition re uk

[Hectorchrome]

After viewing this thread I did the image Name/Alamy search and found one of my images published by an extremely well known outlet fifty one weeks ago with no record of it in my sales, is this kind of timescale normal and whose responsibility is it to chase the payment if they just refuse to do so?

 

Also, how do we find is a buyer is misusing the licence and selling the image on to third parties?

[geogphotos]

4 minutes ago, Hectorchrome said:

After viewing this thread I did the image Name/Alamy search and found one of my images published by an extremely well known outlet fifty one weeks ago with no record of it in my sales, is this kind of timescale normal and whose responsibility is it to chase the payment if they just refuse to do so?

 

Also, how do we find is a buyer is misusing the licence and selling the image on to third parties?

 

UK newspapers do syndicate articles including photos to others so you have to be careful before accusing users of 'misuse' or 'infringement'. 

 

It is not unknown for legitimate Alamy clients in the media to fail to report uses. If it is a UK newspaper or magazine 51 weeks is a very long time and you should certainly ask Alamy to chase it up for you through the Infringement Route ( it needs to be exclusive) or just by email to Contributor Services.

Edited March 28, 2021 by geogphotos

[Hectorchrome]

6 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

UK newspapers do syndicate articles including photos to others so you have to be careful before accusing users of 'misuse' or 'infringement'. 

 

It is not unknown for legitimate Alamy clients in the media to fail to report uses. If it is a UK newspaper or magazine 51 weeks is a very long time and you should certainly ask Alamy to chase it up for you through the Infringement Route ( it needs to be exclusive) or just by email to Contributor Services.

 

I meant more in the context mentioned further up the thread of someone finding prints being offered by someone who had purchased their image for web use. That question answers itself, follow your sales to see what's happening with them.

 

The newspaper isn't UK, it's a famous publication from the largest country in Eurasia. I'd emailed Alamy prior to posting here as I'd been posting exclusively to Alamy but it must have been somehow unticked so was emailing them with regard to this when I noticed this thread and found the image which has my name credit/Alamy under it but no record of it in my sales.

[spacecadet]

17 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

UK newspapers do syndicate articles including photos

The Alamy licence agreement doesn't cover syndication. (AFAICS s.3.11.1 excludes it).

[geogphotos]

28 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

The Alamy licence agreement doesn't cover syndication. (AFAICS s.3.11.1 excludes it).

 

Whatever the licence says syndication is happening:

 

About 
Guardian Syndication

Guardian Syndication is the sales function responsible for the commercial re-licensing of GNM content. Clients include UK and international media, websites, aggregators, educational bodies, book publishers, information service providers and MMO's.Our products incorporate the full range of GNM content and we offer a number of licensing options from ad hoc purchase to annual contract, with a number of exclusivity options available.Examples include - news and feature services aimed at international media clients, full output feeds to aggregators and information service providers, API integration for websites and one off article and image sales. We also offer institutional access to the Guardian and Observer Digital Archive.

Edited March 28, 2021 by geogphotos

[geogphotos]

4 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

Whatever the licence says syndication is happening:

 

About 
Guardian Syndication

Guardian Syndication is the sales function responsible for the commercial re-licensing of GNM content. Clients include UK and international media, websites, aggregators, educational bodies, book publishers, information service providers and MMO's.Our products incorporate the full range of GNM content and we offer a number of licensing options from ad hoc purchase to annual contract, with a number of exclusivity options available.Examples include - news and feature services aimed at international media clients, full output feeds to aggregators and information service providers, API integration for websites and one off article and image sales. We also offer institutional access to the Guardian and Observer Digital Archive.

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/24/vegetables-vegan-organic-agriculture-farming

 

 

https://upc-online.org/environment/200109_are_vegetables_vegan.html?fbclid=IwAR18eUA9HGxFPohOx-VOKXMdpBRfDqbMa_tAOaJRe5Ddi3aCm1KbHlTxmwQ

[spacecadet]

45 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

Whatever the licence says syndication is happening:

 

About 
Guardian Syndication

Guardian Syndication is the sales function responsible for the commercial re-licensing of GNM content. Clients include UK and international media, websites, aggregators, educational bodies, book publishers, information service providers and MMO's.Our products incorporate the full range of GNM content and we offer a number of licensing options from ad hoc purchase to annual contract, with a number of exclusivity options available.Examples include - news and feature services aimed at international media clients, full output feeds to aggregators and information service providers, API integration for websites and one off article and image sales. We also offer institutional access to the Guardian and Observer Digital Archive.

Well, yes, but that's "GNM content". Its own material.

[geogphotos]

21 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Well, yes, but that's "GNM content". Its own material.

 

It would seem to include our pictures as GNM content.

 

Or perhaps the content one comes across taken from the Guardian is an infringement? How am I as a mere contributor supposed to know what has been agreed?

 

And since I don't know what is going on it would be a risk to get an agent such as Pixsy on the case because if it all turns out to legit their costs could be charged to me. A bit later I'll look up the licence I have for that image and see what it says. Mrs is watching a film on the Mac at the moment so I'm relegated to Chromebook writing this.

 

 

Edited March 28, 2021 by geogphotos

[spacecadet]

The Guardian is pretty scrupulous and respectful of rights, it seems to me. They wouldn't be knowingly acting outside the licence terms. No licence I've even had mentions syndication. And I've never found an image of mine in syndicated content. Perhaps the syndication is less common than the Guardian would like.

[sb photos]

17 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

The Guardian is pretty scrupulous and respectful of rights, it seems to me. They wouldn't be knowingly acting outside the licence terms. No licence I've even had mentions syndication. And I've never found an image of mine in syndicated content. Perhaps the syndication is less common than the Guardian would like.

 

I am hoping to see a Guardian image use reported at the end of this month, as I'm intrigued to see the terms of the license. From this thread I see the Guardian syndicate articles, and from MSN who used a Guardian article including an image of mine, credited to me and Alamy and supplied by the Guardian, state on the MSN website they pay media organisations for news items. I await the license terms for what additional payment they include above the Guardian norm.

[geogphotos]

This is the Guardian licence:

 

Country: Worldwide ; Usage: Editorial ;  Media: Editorial website ;  Start: 24-December-2019 ; End: 24-December-2024 ;

 Additional Details: One use in a single editorial article used within web versions of titles from the same group. Digital usage includes archive rights for the lifetime of the article. Country: United Kingdom

 

I've had a lot of Guardian licences and have never seen use of the word 'syndication'. 

 

Not sure that 'archive rights for the lifetime of the article' does not preclude syndication because it is not referring to an image but to an article ie) GNM content?

Edited March 28, 2021 by geogphotos

[Nigel Roberson]

I had an image on The Guardian website this weekend. No sale showing yet but I get it that it might take a while to show.

 

I then did a google search and found 4 websites around the world and uk running the same story and same words and including my image.

Do I assume The Guardian released the entire story to these others or did they steal it?

 

If Guardian gave or sold it do I get paid for every url it appears under or will it just a one off payment from Guardian?

 

I dont get many newspaper sales so dont understand how this dilution of the contaent works.

 

[geogphotos]

49 minutes ago, Nigel Roberson said:

I had an image on The Guardian website this weekend. No sale showing yet but I get it that it might take a while to show.

 

I then did a google search and found 4 websites around the world and uk running the same story and same words and including my image.

Do I assume The Guardian released the entire story to these others or did they steal it?

 

If Guardian gave or sold it do I get paid for every url it appears under or will it just a one off payment from Guardian?

 

I dont get many newspaper sales so dont understand how this dilution of the contaent works.

 

 

 

This is what I want to know before possibly starting infringement cases. And if these sort of uses are sanctioned by the Guardian I would like to be paid my share of what they are charging for it. At the very least the Guardian should report these syndicated uses to Alamy so that Alamy and us contributors can distinguish between what is legal and what isn't.

Edited March 29, 2021 by geogphotos

[spacecadet]

3 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

This is what I want to know before possibly starting infringement cases. And if these sort of uses are sanctioned by the Guardian I would like to be paid my share of what they are charging for it. At the very least the Guardian should report these syndicated uses to Alamy so that Alamy and us contributors can distinguish between what is legal and what isn't.

If only Alamy would just confirm whether or not NS licences cover syndication I could stop pontificating that it doesn't and we'd sleep easier, if poorer.