Jump to content

Question re unauthorised use of images...


Recommended Posts

Thanks to the poster who mentioned how to use Google images for searching for usage of photos - I did a search for the first time and have found various images of mine that were not purchased via Alamy. I have a question - I have searched the forum, but can't see the answer, so apologies if I've missed anything.

 

An example is an image that has been sold twice, but when I searched for it, there are several publications who have used it...

 

- I think I can work out who were the genuine ones who purchased via Alamy, and who are the ones that nicked it. One of them is in the Guardian and is credited to Alamy so that's obvious. None of the others are credited. Here is the Guardian link http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2012/may/05/art-rides-water-rail-way-lincoln

 

- There was also a sale for "Corporate Package Use - Internal and External non advertising use" and there is a publication that has used the image - see here: http://www.opm.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/3103_Empowering_leadership_broch_2012.pdf. So I think this looks like the actual buyer.

 

- The Guardian article has been reposted by a couple of websites. They've used the Guardian article and have simply copied and pasted with no credit to me, Alamy or the Guardian. I'm assuming they have no right to do this? Here is the link - scroll to the bottom http://www.coolcountrynews.com/page/57/ also http://www.nbtamirpoint.com/the-water-rail-way-lincoln-to-woodhall-spa/ and http://www.uship-online.com/?p=447 and http://www.sigmacourier.com/the-water-rail-way-lincoln-to-woodhall-spa/

 

These websites appear to be the ones who have used without purchasing. Can they legally rehash / repost articles and if not, do you think it's worth the effort to contact them.

 

This is the first search I did, so very pleased that you are able to search for photos this way!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are all content aggregators and you're right all ways- they haven't paid and they are breaching your copyright and no, it isn't worth contacting them (if indeed you can- spot the contact details!)

US sites can be sent a DMCA takedown notice (or get-out-of-jail-free-card, as I like to call it) and UK sites can be billed or taken to court, but these are pretty untouchable unless you can get at them.

Most images from the Guardian, Telegraph, etc. are ripped off by the likes of these. It's why some come out of the newspaper scheme.

Edited by spacecadet
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've collected from more than 200 such sites in the past 18 months so if the contact info is in the USA,it could be worth a try.

I've also recently collected from one of those sites that think they are a photo search engine like google.

The owners words,not mine!

L

 

***JUST ADDED THIS*** When chasing down people that should be paying you for infringements.Try to do some homework on who they are.Google is a start,so is Facebook and Linkedin,

Your safety really is the most important thing. You can always give cases to imagerights.com.

They of course take 50% and will only chase after sites that have the means to pay and not ones that are contributed by the general public.

Edited by Linda
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think you have a likely one in the UK but you have a reported sale which might cover the use, do check with MS first. They will tell you if that particular use is licensed.

Edited by spacecadet
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think you have a likely one in the UK but you have a reported sale which might cover the use, do check with MS first. They will tell you if that particular use is licensed.

Be aware that Alamy sometimes has 'special deals' with special customers - and your Images Sold record may register a single license sale to a single client, who, because of the terms of the deal are allowed to use the image on any number of their client websites with no additional fee to Alamy - or you.

 

The initial deal is rubbish as well, with a tiny license fee - so ALWAYS check with MS first that the sale is not subject to this strange arrangement otherwise you will be upsetting all manner of folk by chasing up 'legit' license holders - it is not their fault - they are just taking advantage of the system.

 

The Scheming Newspapers deal also allows the images to be effectively syndicated around the world and used in all members of a newspaper group for the single license - chasing up infringements is becoming harder and harder - I have had good success by handing over cases to a professional license compliance company - they have recovered more than three times my gross Alamy sales in the past year - and not a single death threat from a nutty website owner !!!!

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never had any luck in chasing these sort of aggregators and re-posters.

 

Maybe if the newspapers themselves were a bit more proactive in chasing them down we'd have more chance as photographers.

 

Why would they bother?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Same reason as we would. Their content being misused.

 

Hard-pressed editorial staff taking time out to pursue anonymous aggregators and content-scrapers? Really??

 

 

Missed the point - they can use the copy in most cases in fair use and by crediting the newspaper - and by syndication which Alamy allows for your images. The newspapers themselves don't give a stuff if your image is taken because it is YOURS not theirs and there are no bucks to be had for them.

 

Not that it matters a jot, but I am a little fascinated to understand the mind-set of someone who thinks that the posting above requires a red arrow - it is no secret that Alamy and all other stock outlets have special deals for special customers - hardly commercially sensitive is it ?  The answer might be to bury your head in a bucket of sand  because you just don't want to know......

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

I don't think the thieves hiding behind internet anonymity are relying on 'fair use'- they're relying on being unfindable.

Of course we don't have a fair use provision- is this why there seem to be fewer UK infringements?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the thieves hiding behind internet anonymity are relying on 'fair use'- they're relying on being unfindable.

Of course we don't have a fair use provision- is this why there seem to be fewer UK infringements?

No, ours is called 'Fair Dealing' but still stinks - don't like nicking from Wiki but their assessment is very tight, clear and accurate - I quote it here under the provisions of 'Fair Dealing' (!!!)

 
15px-Symbol_support_vote.svg.png

Fair dealing in United Kingdom law is a doctrine which provides an exception to United Kingdom copyright law, in cases where the copyright infringement is for the purposes of non-commercial research or study, criticism or review, or for the reporting of current events. More limited than the United States doctrine of fair use, fair dealing originates in Sections 29 and 30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

 

Oh Gawd ! We're off in Weasel World again.........

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you think you have a likely one in the UK but you have a reported sale which might cover the use, do check with MS first. They will tell you if that particular use is licensed.

Be aware that Alamy sometimes has 'special deals' with special customers - and your Images Sold record may register a single license sale to a single client, who, because of the terms of the deal are allowed to use the image on any number of their client websites with no additional fee to Alamy - or you.

The more I think about this, the worse it seems . . . what if the original customer has 100 clients . . . or 1,000? So 100 different clients could use your photo because they . . . what, purchased it? . . . from the original customer? So the original customer could sell or in  some other way bequeath your pic to 100 clients, after paying a single licensing fee . . . is it just me, or is there something fundamentally wrong with that scenario?

 

dd

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If you think you have a likely one in the UK but you have a reported sale which might cover the use, do check with MS first. They will tell you if that particular use is licensed.

Be aware that Alamy sometimes has 'special deals' with special customers - and your Images Sold record may register a single license sale to a single client, who, because of the terms of the deal are allowed to use the image on any number of their client websites with no additional fee to Alamy - or you.

The more I think about this, the worse it seems . . . what if the original customer has 100 clients . . . or 1,000? So 100 different clients could use your photo because they . . . what, purchased it? . . . from the original customer? So the original customer could sell or in  some other way bequeath your pic to 100 clients, after paying a single licensing fee . . . is it just me, or is there something fundamentally wrong with that scenario?

 

dd

 

 

Er !- Yes on all counts........was afraid that this one was weaseling away without being noticed again....

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a couple of cases and asked Alamy to follow up on this, and in all cases I got a variation of this as a reply:
 

Regarding the use of your image XXXX in the in the website www.flights.co.uk.

We did not provide this image for Flight.co.uk and they are not one of our client’s or end users.

The image was licensed by AOL/Huffington Post and used on the internet in a similar story.

The company more than likely retrieved the image online, therefore this is considered third party use.

Unfortunately we will not be able to follow up any third party uses, however you are free to pursue this from your end.

 

So even if the image was nicked after being used in the Huffington Post, Alamy can't be bothered chasing infringement.
I'm wondering why they even have a legal department, if they don't want to chase unauthorized use...

Link to post
Share on other sites

What surprises me in the current climate, is that agencies don't bother doing more chasing up of infringers.  Personally, I would be more than happy to let Alamy (or whoever) take 50% of whatever they got.  I guess that they don't want to get involved as there are other organisations out there doing the same thing and (primarily) as one's images here are not exclusive, so it becomes more difficult to prove where the image theft originated from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What surprises me in the current climate, is that agencies don't bother doing more chasing up of infringers.  Personally, I would be more than happy to let Alamy (or whoever) take 50% of whatever they got.  I guess that they don't want to get involved as there are other organisations out there doing the same thing and (primarily) as one's images here are not exclusive, so it becomes more difficult to prove where the image theft originated from.

 

I had 2 different infringers use a $6 Daily Mail picture. I sent them both an invoice for my usage fee and they paid me £100 each. 

 

So I ended up with £200 instead of $6.

 

I am happy to chase up the infringers myself. I have another one for multiple usages of the same image outstanding for £300.

 

Andrew

  • Upvote 1
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.