Wikimedia, wikipedia

[Cryptoprocta]

By searching "my name" and Alamy, I found to my surprise on of my pics on Alamy on Wikipedia, via Google.

It wasn't difficult to confirm that this is my photo, not just someone standing in the same place and cropping to the pixel.

Scroll down to the bottom of the page or click Metadata

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:St_Aloysius_College_Glasgow.jpg

(The file has sold in the past, and presumably 'seanbotha' lifted it from there).

I guess I have to ask CS to deal with this under the contract?

Given how long it's taking them to deal with a unrecorded use on TLS, which has a 'contract handler', I wonder how long it will take for them to sort this out.

And will I get any money for the time it's been up there, falsely noted as CC? Lay your bets now.

Ho-hum.

Quote

 

 

[spacecadet]

You could try sending Wikipedia a DMCA takedown notice. The don't make it easy to do, and they push back, but yours seems like a slam-dunk.

Edited August 3, 2021 by spacecadet

[Cryptoprocta]

I thought about that, but thought under our contract with Alamy we had to let them do it first, or at least give them first dibs.

 

BTW, isn't it funny how, following the new contract, we're now seeing clauses we didn't see before?

On Alamy's misuse form, it says:

"By clicking submit I confirm the following, and agree to indemnify Alamy if either of the below statements turn out to be incorrect:

• This image has never been for sale or display on any other website and it’s not in the public domain / copyright free.
• I am the registered copyright holder or have the permission of the registered copyright holder to report this unauthorised use."

It has been on display on another website: it has sold at least once* (I think more than once, maybe to the same newspaper) and was on a newspaper site a few years back.

I put a note to that effect on the form to compliance, but it looks like either another loophole or a way to catch us out.

Edited August 11, 2021 by Cryptoprocta

[Mr Standfast]

My random thoughts...

If you ask customer services they may let you pursue it yourself. (Yes what are we paying them for but let's not go there!)

Putting something on Wikipedia, saying its your own work deserves to be challenged.

 

[Cryptoprocta]

Thanks, I already filled out the form. I'll probably get a reply from CS tomorrow, so we'll see what they say. I'll feed back.

Wonder how often that happens? Also interesting that Google picked it up, way up in the list of search results (page 2, and I hadn't even excluded Alamy sites!)

[geogphotos]

All I know is that Pixsy would not chase this because, to them, it is not a commercial organisation.

 

I had one which was a journalist using images on her website promoting her services. The image was used in an article by her on the BBC website. The BBC paid a licence but she didn't. And it wasn't hot linked. Anyway, Pixsy wouldn't touch it. Nor anything that is a personal blog, or non-commercial hobbyists group, and so on. 

 

I reported an image to Alamy recently used in its UK and US magazine edition. They remarked that it was one of Alamy's customers and they would look into it. A few days later a fee appeared for $4.56 gross!

 

This is what would concern me about Alamy's infringements service - they have customers to keep happy.

 

Country: United Kingdom Usage: Editorial Media: Magazine - print, digital and electronic Print run: up to 500,000 Placement: Inside Image Size: 1 page Start: 01 June 2021 End: 01 June 2026 Duration: 3 months. Any placement: Inside or cover.

$ 4.56

Edited August 3, 2021 by geogphotos

[Cryptoprocta]

If they tell me they're not going to pursue it, I'll file a DMCA.

I'm not one of the people who hate Wikipedia, I use it a lot. But if I've chosen not to make an image CC, I don't want to see it labelled as such and someone else claiming authorship.

[geogphotos]

13 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

If they tell me they're not going to pursue it, I'll file a DMCA.

I'm not one of the people who hate Wikipedia, I use it a lot. But if I've chosen not to make an image CC, I don't want to see it labelled as such and someone else claiming authorship.

 

I completely understand. I just wanted to share my experience. I also send 'takedown' notices through Pixsy when they decide not to pursue infringements. The more 'innocent' infringers take notice the more hard-nosed don't. 

 

And then there are all those infringements in countries where Pixsy ( and similar ) do not act ie ) the majority of the world's countries - so all in all copyright protection is very incomplete. 

Edited August 3, 2021 by geogphotos

[Cryptoprocta]

^^ Oh, I know, I'm still reeling from that Irish lawyer a while back, but at least that file is down now. Bizarrely, it's still just a blank space where the photo was - all he'd have to do is to take about 50 steps out of his office and he could take the same photo, more or less!

[spacecadet]

1 hour ago, Cryptoprocta said:

I thought about that, but thought under our contract with Alamy we had to let them do it first, or at least give them first dibs.

Yes and a takedown would be additional to that. It wouldn't negate the infringement. But you could just leave it up and see what happens.

Just musing as a matter of law, in the UK or EU, the false claim that it's the poster's own work is a separate infringement as a breach of moral rights (the right of attribution). Not that it helps you, but I once got a settlement on those grounds alone- the image was CC on Wikipedia but the infringer failed to credit me.

Edited August 3, 2021 by spacecadet

[Cryptoprocta]

As you all suspected, my reply from CS came back suggesting I pursue this myself.

I've taken the softly, softly approach first by "seeking resolution through the Wikimedia volunteer community", putting in all the information and more, and indicating that if a fast takedown doesn't happen I'll follow up with a DMCA.

[spacecadet]

Considering how brazen Wikipedia has been about UK copyright and asserting its God- given American right not to be held to anyone else's laws, I'd have no compunction about going to IPEC with it if I could be sure about suing the right entity.

Oh, except you're in Scotland. Too bad.

[Cryptoprocta]

10 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Considering how brazen Wikipedia has been about UK copyright and asserting its God- given American right not to be held to anyone else's laws, I'd have no compunction about going to IPEC with it if I could be sure about suing the right entity.

Oh, except you're in Scotland. Too bad.

We're still in the UK (for now?)!

But I wouldn't rush to go down that route again. The last time I saw an IP lawyer (about that Irish lawyer), essentially she told me I would certainly have a moral victory, but I'd be well out of pocket.  Would IPEC be any more effective against an American entity than a DCMA is furth of the US?

 

BTW, CS said "we can’t chase this particular usage for you because it’s on Wikipedia we aren’t to know who to contact as anyone could have put the image up. "  And indeed when I clicked on 'seanbotha', who claims to be the copyright holder, the linked page says, "Wikimedia Commons does not currently have a user page called Seanbotha."

Edited August 5, 2021 by Cryptoprocta

[spacecadet]

8 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

We're still in the UK (for now?)!

But I wouldn't rush to go down that route again. The last time I saw an IP lawyer (about that Irish lawyer), essentially she told me I would certainly have a moral victory, but I'd be well out of pocket.  Would IPEC be any more effective against an American entity than a DCMA is furth of the US?

 

BTW, CS said "we can’t chase this particular usage for you because it’s on Wikipedia we aren’t to know who to contact as anyone could have put the image up. "  And indeed when I clicked on 'seanbotha', who claims to be the copyright holder, the linked page says, "Wikimedia Commons does not currently have a user page called Seanbotha."

Obviously Scottish law is different- you can't bring a case in IPEC unless you have a business address in England or Wales. You'd need to find a UK entity to proceed against if there is one- after all the infringement has taken place in Scotland because you've seen the image on your screen and that's enough.

Maybe this one

https://wikimedia.org.uk/

Edited August 5, 2021 by spacecadet

[Cryptoprocta]

2 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Obviously Scottish law is different- you can't bring a case in IPEC unless you have a business address in England or Wales. You'd need to find a UK entity to proceed against if there is one- after all the infringement has taken place in Scotland because you've seen the image on your screen and that's enough.

Maybe this one

https://wikimedia.org.uk/

Oh, that's funny.

I looked up IPEC and the first page I saw was on gov.uk, and on that particular page it doesn't say it's just for England and Wales.

However, the Wikipedia page summary says England and Wales.

If it's not down by Monday, I'm taking out a DMCA.

I recently found one from my other place on Flickr- they took it down inside 8 hours (while I was sleeping).

(Also ironically, when I looked last night to see if it was down yet, I got an appeal for donations. Forget that!)

Edited August 5, 2021 by Cryptoprocta

[spacecadet]

It's tricky to find anything definitive, but you'll be aware that Scots law is different, and whilst a lot of things do seem to work the same way, some don't, and small claims is one of them. You can enforce a judgement from one jurisdiction to the other but you have to apply to do it. Same for the IPEC small claims track I would expect.

You can legitimately use the address of a friend or relative- as long as you can show some connection with the address in England.

Edited August 5, 2021 by spacecadet

[Cryptoprocta]

Well, $%^&*:

1. Reply from volunteers at Wikimedia:

"if anybody is using your image against your license, it it of course your right to take measures against this abuser. In our understanding this doesn't mean the we, who are using your image within the limits of the license, shall remove it.
If you disagree, please contact legal@wikimedia.org for further assistance."

 

Went right over to the DMCA page and discovered there's a substantial fee! so clearly when I've thought I was using DMCA, most recently for Flickr, I wasn't.

https://www.dmca.com/signup/createtakedown.aspx?mpi=DMCA-FRE&r=hpts

 

Not wasting money on this, it's not a valuable image; so writing to legal@wikimedia, though without much hope.
 

 

[wiskerke]

52 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Well, $%^&*:

1. Reply from volunteers at Wikimedia:

"if anybody is using your image against your license, it it of course your right to take measures against this abuser. In our understanding this doesn't mean the we, who are using your image within the limits of the license, shall remove it.
If you disagree, please contact legal@wikimedia.org for further assistance."

 

Went right over to the DMCA page and discovered there's a substantial fee! so clearly when I've thought I was using DMCA, most recently for Flickr, I wasn't.

https://www.dmca.com/signup/createtakedown.aspx?mpi=DMCA-FRE&r=hpts

 

Not wasting money on this, it's not a valuable image; so writing to legal@wikimedia, though without much hope.
 

 

 

In this case the Wiki people should have seen the copyright notice in the metadata.

It is still there. They can still see it now. So it's not an innocent mistake.

I would take screen dumps of everything btw.

And send them a hefty bill for making your image available for free download.

$10.000 will wake them up and get their attention.

It should be an open and shut case for the new legal service Alamy is using. 

 

wim

 

edit: it has been available 896 days since 21 February 2019

The Alamy order details:

order summary at: www.alamy.com/Order-summary.asp?OrderID={4538BE63-63B7-41BE-885A-1B48FA0620AC}\n Your Ref:  DY11225462 Downloaded: 18 March 2016 Alamy Ref: C357R8

Edited August 5, 2021 by wiskerke

[spacecadet]

55 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Well, $%^&*:

1. Reply from volunteers at Wikimedia:

"if anybody is using your image against your license, it it of course your right to take measures against this abuser. In our understanding this doesn't mean the we, who are using your image within the limits of the license, shall remove it.
If you disagree, please contact legal@wikimedia.org for further assistance."

 

Went right over to the DMCA page and discovered there's a substantial fee! so clearly when I've thought I was using DMCA, most recently for Flickr, I wasn't.

https://www.dmca.com/signup/createtakedown.aspx?mpi=DMCA-FRE&r=hpts

 

Not wasting money on this, it's not a valuable image; so writing to legal@wikimedia, though without much hope.
 

 

Spectacular piece of arrogance hiding behind lawyers there. They're not "using your image within the limits of the license", they don't have a licence.

That's a scam site,there's no fee for a DCMA notice.

[Cryptoprocta]

10 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

 

In this case the Wiki people should have seen the copyright notice in the metadata.

It is still there. They can still see it now. So it's not an innocent mistake.

I would take screen dumps of everything btw.

And send them a hefty bill for making your image available for free download.

$10.000 will wake them up and get their attention.

It should be an open and shut case for the new legal service Alamy is using. 

 

wim

Yes indeed. And Alamy has taken an extra 20% from us.

Yet Alamy has refused to take it on.

One of the main reasons I wanted to sell via Alamy was because I naively thought that RM misuses would be easier to chase up than RF via my other place.

This has categorically not proved to be the reality from Alamy.

Sadly.

I sent a screendump to 'volunteers' and now have sent ti to 'legal'. We shall see.

Now chasing up legit DMCA info!

Edited August 5, 2021 by Cryptoprocta

[Cryptoprocta]

Just now, spacecadet said:

Spectacular piece of arrogance hiding behind lawyers there. They're not "using your image within the limits of the license", they don't have a licence.

That's a scam site,there's no fee for a DCMA notice.

Thanks for that. Although I was confused by the mention of a fee, I didn't even think 'scam'. (idiotIZme)

[spacecadet]

Here

https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/DMCA_Policy

You can presumably google for the wording.

If that doesn't work I'd definitely be looking for a UK entity to take to IPEC. Outrageous.

[wiskerke]

The 20% reduction of our fees have been sold to us to so the new legal department could go after infringements.

(let me omit the expletives here)

 

wim 😡

[spacecadet]

1 minute ago, wiskerke said:

The 20% reduction of our fees have been sold to us to so the new legal department could go after infringements.

(let me omit the expletives here)

 

wim 😡

Yes fallen at the first fence, hasn't it?

[Mr Standfast]

Trying to start a dialogue with "seanbotha" may be more productive. There are few on social media. A DM starting are you Sean from St Aloysius may get the conversation going?

[geogphotos]

Unfortunately, it is just a fact of life that images on the internet get stolen. And many of the thieves are beyond our reach in terms of jurisdiction or ability to pay. 

 

No commercial copyright chasing company is going to waste resources pursuing an infringement that, in their wide experience, is very unlikely to lead anywhere.  They are going to look at it with cold rationality rather than the photographer's sense of annoyance and grievance.

 

When I do Google Image searches for some images I find pages of results from all over the world - often just as a result of one or two uses on a News site such as the BBC.

 

 

Edited August 8, 2021 by geogphotos