Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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 post
Share on other sites

Exclusive and ditto, no e-mail

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, gvallee said:

Exclusive and ditto, no e-mail

Ditto

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exclusive and no email. Alamy, please put the email information in the forum. I’d love to read it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

Exclusive and no email. Alamy, please put the email information in the forum. I’d love to read it.

 

Betty, Ian posted in on page 2 of the forum.  I have tried to quote him here, but since the two posts I'm trying to quote are on two different pages, it puts them in two different responses, so I will just paste it. 

 

w660_1133130_alamynavywhitebg214x104px.j

New Alamy Infringements Team

s.gif

We know how important it is to protect the use of your images against unauthorised use. Here at Alamy, we now have a dedicated Infringements Team in place who will shortly start working with multiple Partners to maximise our potential and secure payments for these images that are being used without a valid licence.    

  

 

We'll pro-actively be looking for any usages that we believe may be an infringement.

     

This work will primarily be happening for the images in our collection marked as 'exclusive to Alamy'. You're receiving this email because you have at least one image marked as such. 

 

Please can you confirm your preferences below.

 

 

 

Select your preferences here

s.gif

Preferences:

   

You give Alamy permission to chase any potential infringements that we find from this group in your collection without notifying you first.

           

or 

              

You also license the use of your images outside of Alamy (from your own website for example) and Alamy need to advise you first regarding a potential infringement before we pursue it, so you can confirm that an existing valid licence is not already in place.   

         

We look forward to working more closely with you on this important work.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The excuse that they (the end user) didn't understand copyright is probably the most common excuse for small website infringers, but they often PAY social media influencer/website or content providers to deal with their websites and social media platforms, and it's these people who are genuinely clueless chancers who use very simple, easy to use template driven programs to make a living and really don't have a clue about copyright , and, because they found it online it must be free.

Thieves who run websites etc, should be made to pay more than the standard licence fee as a deterent because they will write about it (sob story) and it will inform others.

Edited by mickfly
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Bill Brooks is pretty clued up and we hope the Alamy infringement team will also be experienced and knowledgeable. Pursuing infringers differs tremendously from Country to country; N.America and Germany are pretty bold in their approach and settlements can be eye-watering. Russia and China: forget it! In the UK: we don't do punitive damages so courts may seem a bit lenient, but not so much that litigation doesn't hurt. Small businesses have gathered together a bit and even consider themselves "Victims" of copyright enforcers. This is an attitude that has to change. Getty is seen as some kind of ogre while Alamy is perhaps a soft touch. Let's hope we can achieve "No more Mr nice guy" without rocking the boat too much. When we see the sign "Shoplifters will be Prosecuted" do we blame the shop or the shoplifter?

Edited by Robert M Estall
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/04/2021 at 17:31, Alamy said:


It was only sent in the last hour so may not have got to you yet.

 

Let us know if this hasn’t arrived by tomorrow so we can investigate.

 

Best

 

Alamy

 

Thanks for the response Alamy. I do receive Alamy emails and I am exclusive to Alamy. But still haven't received this email. Not in my spam folder either.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Bill Brooks said:

 


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.

 

 

 

 

All I know is that copyright enforcement companies I have experience of - Pixsy and Copytrack - do not pursue social media users such as bloggers or any infringer that they do not consider to be 'commercial'.  Their experience has found that it is just not cost effective. Likewise with infringers in many jurisdictions where copyright laws and copyright enforcement is lax. I think what happens is that none of their staff want to engage with a case that is unlikely to pay them much when more lucrative options are available - they probably work on a percentage basis. 

 

And another one ImageRights does not feel it worth dealing with most stock photographers, especially those who don't have all their images registered with the US Copyright Office and who licence direct and exclusively.

 

On the other extreme there are excessively litigious lawyers in USA that give copyright enforcement a bad name. Not long ago there was an Alamy photographer being threatened after taking a picture of a mural in Buffalo, and it came to light that the artist and his lawyer were well known for this. A public artwork, a tourist attraction, then you sue anybody who takes a stock photo of it! 

 

If Alamy is going to be serious about copyright infringement in USA they will need to think about whether images are registered there. 

Edited by geogphotos
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

My guess would be that Alamy will not be trying to claim these huge fees that some mention. All that they have done up until now seems to be to charge the regular fee for a retrospective licence. My understanding is that in UK you can't claim for punitive costs, and what can Alamy do when the regular fee published on the homepage for web use is only around £30?

 

Anyway, this is all speculation. It is good news that this team is being created and we will learn more in due course. I just have this sneaking concern that it may rebound on contributors and make us less able to pursue high value claims through other channels. 

 

 

Edited by geogphotos
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thank you, Jill. I can’t sign up without the email.

Edited by Betty LaRue
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steve F said:

 

Thanks for the response Alamy. I do receive Alamy emails and I am exclusive to Alamy. But still haven't received this email. Not in my spam folder either.

Steve

The email is below.  There, problem solved, panic over.

 

w660_1133130_alamynavywhitebg214x104px.j

New Alamy Infringements Team

s.gif

We know how important it is to protect the use of your images against unauthorised use. Here at Alamy, we now have a dedicated Infringements Team in place who will shortly start working with multiple Partners to maximise our potential and secure payments for these images that are being used without a valid licence.    

  

 

We'll pro-actively be looking for any usages that we believe may be an infringement.

     

This work will primarily be happening for the images in our collection marked as 'exclusive to Alamy'. You're receiving this email because you have at least one image marked as such.

 

Please can you confirm your preferences below.

 

 

 

Select your preferences here

s.gif

Preferences:

   

You give Alamy permission to chase any potential infringements that we find from this group in your collection without notifying you first.

           

or

              

You also license the use of your images outside of Alamy (from your own website for example) and Alamy need to advise you first regarding a potential infringement before we pursue it, so you can confirm that an existing valid licence is not already in place.   

         

We look forward to working more closely with you on this important work.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Colblimp said:

The email is below.  There, problem solved, panic over.

 

w660_1133130_alamynavywhitebg214x104px.j

New Alamy Infringements Team

s.gif
 
   

Select your preferences here

s.gif

 

Thanks, didn't realise the link worked.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Betty LaRue said:

Thank you, Jill. I can’t sign up without the email.

my understanding is you are signed up by default with a validation first as our contributor contract.  All the email adds is the option for Alamy to proceed without contacting you in first place.

 

Alamy above have stated you can change your option by sending them an e-mail, so you should be able to do it even without the e-mail if you want to elect the direct no verification route.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steve F said:

 

Thanks, didn't realise the link worked.

 

link might not refer to your e-mail address, so not sure it would work.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, meanderingemu said:

 

link might not refer to your e-mail address, so not sure it would work.  

You enter your email addy into the box...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, meanderingemu said:

 

link might not refer to your e-mail address, so not sure it would work.  

 

It asked me to enter my email address for Alamy so assume it worked.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The full email message has now been posted repeatedly several times.

 

It would help if people at least scanned through the pages of a thread before commenting. 

 

The answer might already be there. 🙂

Edited by geogphotos
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Colblimp said:

You enter your email addy into the box...

I did it. Thanks to all. 😁

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

The full email message has now been posted repeatedly several times.

 

It would help if people at least scanned through the pages of a thread before commenting. 

 

The answer might already be there. 🙂

Should people read the thread?  Definately 😉

Edited by Mr Standfast
.
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Mr Standfast said:

  Definately 😉

Crap, are YOU 'H'?!!! #LineofDuty

  • Haha 4
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Colblimp said:

You enter your email addy into the box...

OK.  i guess because i already answered i have a cookie somewhere that says so, when i click the link it says "Thank You"

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mr Standfast said:

No comment. 😶

 

11 hours ago, Colblimp said:

Crap, are YOU 'H'?!!! #LineofDuty

It was the donkey😂

 

Phil

  • Haha 4
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.