Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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!

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites

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.   

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to know how this is going to be used for Live News

Specially  the selective memory of some periodicals to only report when and what they like 😞😒

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Case in point

A MailOnline image just dropped in from the 28-02-2021

What they failed to do was report a second usage of the image in a different article and failed to report images used on the 21-02-2021 and 20-02-2021! 🙄

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 by geogphotos
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 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.