geogphotos Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 2 minutes ago, Vincent Lowe said: Interestingly, I clicked the 'go for it' option yesterday and this morning I had two sales drop in marked with 'License Upgrade'. I don't think I've seen that before. $120 total. The title of the book was given for one and the name of the publisher for the other. If this is the infringement team at work then I'm all for it! Hurrah! That is what we need if we are going to be able to help control and report possible infringements to the Infringement team. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 16 hours ago, geogphotos said: Good news. The question I have is the degree to which Alamy has a conflict of interest. Is it looking after the best interests of its contributors or will it want to maintain relationships with clients or potential clients? That's a good point, but it surely can't be in Alamy's interest to have clients who commit infringements? They lose financially as well as us, and if they turn a blind eye it will only give clients a licence to keep on infringing. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Ramsay Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 17 hours ago, Steve F said: Sounds good! But I get emails from Alamy and I'm 100% exclusive, didn't get one this morning though..... Same here Alex 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Pearsall Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 Interested to see how this is going to work out. I currently use Lapixa who take a performance commission amounting to 43% of the received proceeds from asserting the rights (principal claim) vis-à-vis the infringers. Will Alamy pursue "proper" infringement compensation on our behalf or are they just seeking to sell the infringer a retrospective licence ? No indication of this in the email I received yesterday. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geogphotos Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 1 hour ago, Inchiquin said: That's a good point, but it surely can't be in Alamy's interest to have clients who commit infringements? They lose financially as well as us, and if they turn a blind eye it will only give clients a licence to keep on infringing. Alan Because Alamy's main business is revenue from selling licences - they may lose more financially by upsetting a client or potential client than they gain from chasing infringements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 No email received here, as yet. This is v good news though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Gallery Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 I have been reporting Infringements to Alamy for some time and can confirm that Alamy claim back the usual fee which is pitiful. There should be a mark up of 100% for flagrancy and the same for lack of credit (This means Alamy would have to insist on Photographer credit at all times going forward), plus an administration fee added to cover the cost to Alamy to chase infringers. The low hanging fruit are customers who will licence for print and online and reuse multiple times on line and they can manage that internally. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Pearsall Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 Exactly my point. Lapixa regularly return me anything between £300-1000 on individual infringements. Properly pursued by lawyers with correct allowances for flagrancy and lack of attribution. Can't see Alamy getting even close to that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geogphotos Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 As I said above. I found a UK newspaper use from a few years ago and reported it to Alamy. This was after being told by Alamy that the image had not been licensed. The response was that it would be billed for the end of May. To Alamy it seemed to be automatically regarded as a mistake to be smoothed over ( and I am not saying it isn't). To a copyright infringement company they wouldn't care about the reason - if it wasn't a licensed use it be treated as an infringement and pursued. What I am hoping to hear is that Alamy will hand the infringements to a third party specialist so as to avoid any perceived conflict of interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 At the very least, an infringement team might deter (some) people from 'gaming the system'... if they know that useage is being 'policed' more assiduously... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gillis Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 I’ve yet to receive my invitation email. Steven 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geogphotos Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 As to deterrence. I don't think so. That is a much, much bigger story. The people who get clobbered aren't media billionaires. They are small businesses who don't know anything about copyright. Considering how little so many newbies know about stock photography it is hardly surprising that your typical small tree surgery, builder, guest house, carpet company, local builder etc etc gets caught up in a net that they didn't know existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geogphotos Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 1 hour ago, Steven Gillis said: I’ve yet to receive my invitation email. Steven That's why I posted the content above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve F Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 On 29/04/2021 at 17:42, geogphotos said: John I am only a beginner but I have learnt to my horror just how widespread infringement is and am realising that, rather unpleasant though it is, this is something that we just cannot ignore. People are stealing our images left, right, and centre. We should not be turning a blind eye to it. They should not be just taking advantage of us. I've had one saying that they thought is was 'quite an ordinary image so there was no harm in using it on my website' and then the old chestnut 'we have no budget for images' ( a large financial company) But did they use software to remove the watermark? Or just 'forget' to pay Alamy? I wonder about the mindset... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Kuta Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 13 hours ago, sb photos said: Yes, a dead sheep in a field isn't likely to printed and framed on someones wall. As your dead sheep image sold perhaps I should scan a B&W neg of mine from the 1970's, one never forgotten. It was of an upturned dead sheep, just head bones a wool. A local farmer was prosecuted for neglecting his sheep. They weren't sheared and I believe couldn't stand up, died and was eventually devoured by wildlife. A browse through a large greeting card display will find all kinds of dark and rude humor, so there are lots of PU applications I can think of for a dead sheep 😅 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geogphotos Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 59 minutes ago, Steve F said: But did they use software to remove the watermark? Or just 'forget' to pay Alamy? I wonder about the mindset... They will have found it on UK newspaper website without any watermark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve F Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 12 minutes ago, geogphotos said: They will have found it on UK newspaper website without any watermark. Hmmm... been a long week, didn't think of that. Problem is that many people are ignorant about the copyright law. Although that's not an excuse in the UK at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geogphotos Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 8 minutes ago, Steve F said: Hmmm... been a long week, didn't think of that. Problem is that many people are ignorant about the copyright law. Although that's not an excuse in the UK at least. The reality is that those very many people who have no idea about copyright are the ones getting hammered for their ignorance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 2 hours ago, geogphotos said: As to deterrence. I don't think so. That is a much, much bigger story. The people who get clobbered aren't media billionaires. They are small businesses who don't know anything about copyright. Considering how little so many newbies know about stock photography it is hardly surprising that your typical small tree surgery, builder, guest house, carpet company, local builder etc etc gets caught up in a net that they didn't know existed. Plus widows and orphans because of their Facebook pages. Sad because they could have purchased a Personal Use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geogphotos Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Bill Brooks said: Plus widows and orphans because of their Facebook pages. Sad because they could have purchased a Personal Use. Not true. What nonsense. None of these copyright chasers go after widows and orphans. It would make no financial sense. Edited April 30, 2021 by geogphotos 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MizBrown Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 2 hours ago, Bill Brooks said: Plus widows and orphans because of their Facebook pages. Sad because they could have purchased a Personal Use. I know people who think Royalty Free means free (one guy uses a different agency's photo of a thumbs up fist with a Nicaraguan flag on it, complete with that agency's watermark. And a lot of people who think if it's posted on-line, it's not protected by copyright. I don't trust that eventually, the TOS will allow the social media companies to have some rights more over the photos. They can already use them for promoting the site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regis Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 Despite having many of my photographs on Alamy, exclusive to Alamy, I have not received the email from Alamy about the new infringement team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvallee Posted May 1, 2021 Share Posted May 1, 2021 Exclusive and ditto, no e-mail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted May 1, 2021 Share Posted May 1, 2021 On 30/04/2021 at 15:58, geogphotos said: Not true. What nonsense. None of these copyright chasers go after widows and orphans. It would make no financial sense. It does make financial sense, as the amount demanded is not for an image license but for a copyright violation. The price demanded for a copyright violation has nothing to do with the price calculator for an image license. In my knowledge for an image on a personal facebook page, personal blog, church newsletter, small business website, the demand is $900 per image. If the copyright violator responds, then the $900 could be reduced to $450 per image for a quick settlement. If a settlement is made and the user wants to keep using the image, then a license is issued for a license fee on top of the settlement for the copyright violation. If there is no settlement a kind of bill collecting operation ensues. If the user does not respond to emails and telephone calls, then the claim goes to litigation. For USA violations a select group of lawyers in the USA will take the claim to court for a flat fee of $4000. The ensuing claim in court is for the legal costs of $4000, plus the original $900 claim or maybe more. Usually the collector wins the court case and gets a judgment of legal costs plus the original claim. I know this has also been done in Germany as, before the EU, I filled out special photographer's declarations for the German courts. When the agency photographer's invoice for a copyright violation came through, there would be settlement amount, less cost, your 50% of remainder after costs. I know of one case against a small sized USA business that resulted in a judgement of $90,000. The judgement was not enforceable however because, in the years the case dragged on, the business had gone bankrupt and the major shareholder had died. The collector goes to court not necessarily for money attached to one claim, but because the collector wants to cause a chilling effect on other copyright violators that may be inclined to ignore their original $900 claim. It is well worth it financially for the collector to sue widows and orphans. Good publicity, if you are trying to collect your other $900 claims. To understand what has gone on in past days, browse this now defunct website put up by the other side, and follow the links to the discussion forums. https://www.extortionletterinfo.com Alamy is a special place, so I have no idea in how Alamy will arrange it's copyright affairs. In the agency that I know of, the copyright collection operation always earned it's keep and more. It might make sense for Alamy to handle the entire copyright operation all on it's own, and operate with outside partners in the sense of offering Alamy's copyright enforcement services to other copyright holders. Corbis tried to do it in their last few years. Getty also did it, and then sold the division a few years ago. Quality newspapers are going behind internet paywalls. The internet is no longer free for quality content. It is a trend. So the time may be right for Alamy to offer their copyright services to their newspaper owners first, and then expand that service to other newspapers and stock agencies. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sally Posted May 1, 2021 Share Posted May 1, 2021 18 hours ago, gvallee said: Exclusive and ditto, no e-mail Ditto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now