Jump to content
  • 0

Alamy Infringement Team - any news?


geogphotos
 Share

Question

Anybody have experience of the new improved Alamy infringement team reporting payments? 

 

Have you reported any potential infringements - and if so have they been treated successfully?

 

What are the fees like - an improvement on the previous system which seems to be essentially retrospective licensing?

 

At the moment I have labelled all images as non-exclusive so as to pursue infringement myself but am open to persuasion if the Alamy team is making headway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Has anyone licensed an image to https://www.nytimespost.com/ through Alamy and received payment. I had a news image show up there but looks like has been lifted from the Sun. I'm not holding out much hope of it being reported but it is early yet. The Alamy form states that they won't follow up on images that have been copied in full from a licensed source Hmm! ☹️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
16 minutes ago, Sultanpepa said:

Has anyone licensed an image to https://www.nytimespost.com/ through Alamy and received payment. I had a news image show up there but looks like has been lifted from the Sun. I'm not holding out much hope of it being reported but it is early yet. The Alamy form states that they won't follow up on images that have been copied in full from a licensed source Hmm! ☹️

Don't get your hopes up. I've had several on there but though the name looks official it's just another regurgitator of news from other places. I don't think you'll see any money for that one.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
23 minutes ago, Phil Robinson said:

Don't get your hopes up. I've had several on there but though the name looks official it's just another regurgitator of news from other places. I don't think you'll see any money for that one.

 

 

That's why I asked, I was sure someone would have had dealings with them before. I don't expect anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 hour ago, Phil Robinson said:

Either that has stopped or whoever does it needs to go to Specsavers.

 

Specsavers. NAH!  Boots are better. One up the backside.

 

Allan

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
20 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

Interesting.  I did follow up with Infringement team, and they said they will issue a licence for an existing client upon settlement,  but someone off the street will have to pay the infringement cost and be asked to delete the image,  if they want a licence also they would need to go through normal process in addition.  So I guess this was the difference

As far as I know, mine was from an existing client. And as the image was editorially published, I suppose Alamy issued a proper license (In perpetuity, by the way).

Regards

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 hour ago, Sultanpepa said:

 

That's why I asked, I was sure someone would have had dealings with them before. I don't expect anything.

considering their contact info are a Gmail address, and a +90 Turkey country code i pretty much assume they were just another that "borrows" from other published sites. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
10 minutes ago, Gallery5 said:

https://ibb.co/ncGrFL8

https://ibb.co/ryzyW28

https://ibb.co/j48rB7Q

 

Thanks to everyone who gave me advice and comments. Surprised that so much attention is paid to
1 / black and white photo, but just here I have almost no questions.
2 / The advice to use the archive department is logical, but only applies to old photos. I have sent several hundred archival BW photos to Alami, but sales here are exceptionally rare and discounted.
3/ I was advised to send a photo with an artistic effect to the POD, but I don't know what it is.
4/ In recent months, several of my offspring did not pass QC. I send examples of failures - the reason is under the pictures. Your opinion? Thanks.

 

Posted in wrong thread???

 

Mark

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
21 hours ago, Phil Robinson said:


I was also told to be sure to report any more unpaid uses I find and they will look into them. I certainly will, but is that really my job? 
Almost time to chase up the front page of the Independent from December that has not yet appeared. .

 

but don't report them too early, Alamy has different unpublished guidelines depending on distribution methods, because you will then be told the request will be ignored and you will have to resubmit again even for 7 days early. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
21 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

but don't report them too early, Alamy has different unpublished guidelines depending on distribution methods, because you will then be told the request will be ignored and you will have to resubmit again even for 7 days early. 

Nationals can take well over 3 months before showing so I wouldn't be in any hurry about a December usage just yet.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Just now, aphperspective said:

Nationals can take well over 3 months before showing so I wouldn't be in any hurry about a December usage just yet.

 

the be honest after fee I got from infringement team i would delay as much as possible for reporting to increase chance they can't get away with late reporting with no penalty  😉

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
12 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

the be honest after fee I got from infringement team i would delay as much as possible for reporting to increase chance they can't get away with late reporting with no penalty  😉

Yep the penalty on that 67 cent will be massive,🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
10 minutes ago, aphperspective said:

Yep the penalty on that 67 cent will be massive,🙄

 

this is why it would be nice for Alamy to give us an update on the results of the infringement team. Considering i got triple digit fee for a licence i would expect to struggle to exceed $ net, but from a non client, it would be nice to get more information if we were partners.  Alamy asked us to accept the latest contract change to support these efforts, but again we get no input back on results.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Infringement Clause.  

 

  So as per the contract section 16.7 I

 

  1. Each party will promptly inform the other party of any actual or suspected third party infringement of copyright or any other intellectual property right or third party right, loss of Content, breach of moral rights or any other matter giving rise to threat of proceedings, claims or demands in respect of any of the Content. Alamy, in its sole discretion, may either take action itself against the third party or may notify you that it will not be taking action and you may then do so at your option.

My interpretation of this clause is Alamy has 2 options, and Only 2 Options, Pursue the Infringement OR decline and allow Us to do it ourself.  

 

Why does Alamy think they have a third option, to just retroactively issue a licence, regardless of time period? If client used image without a proper licence, it is infringement. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:

Infringement Clause.  

 

  So as per the contract section 16.7 I

 

  1. Each party will promptly inform the other party of any actual or suspected third party infringement of copyright or any other intellectual property right or third party right, loss of Content, breach of moral rights or any other matter giving rise to threat of proceedings, claims or demands in respect of any of the Content. Alamy, in its sole discretion, may either take action itself against the third party or may notify you that it will not be taking action and you may then do so at your option.

My interpretation of this clause is Alamy has 2 options, and Only 2 Options, Pursue the Infringement OR decline and allow Us to do it ourself.  

 

Why does Alamy think they have a third option, to just retroactively issue a licence, regardless of time period? If client used image without a proper licence, it is infringement. 

 

Is there a (legal) definition of what "taking action" means?

Could it cover contacting the infringer and agreeing to issue a retrospective licence? I think that's typically what happens when the infringer is a valued Alamy client. (It's not a good idea to sue valued customers if they occasionally fail to procure a licence). But there is now some evidence that, in other circumstances, Alamy's infringement service is getting better infringement fees. It will be great if they could tell us more about the progress they've made so far. 

 

Mark

  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
16 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Is there a (legal) definition of what "taking action" means?

Could it cover contacting the infringer and agreeing to issue a retrospective licence? I think that's typically what happens when the infringer is a valued Alamy client. (It's not a good idea to sue valued customers if they occasionally fail to procure a licence). But there is now some evidence that, in other circumstances, Alamy's infringement service is getting better infringement fees. It will be great if they could tell us more about the progress they've made so far. 

 

Mark

 

 

Interesting question.  Would be interesting to get a legal view.  

 

As for "not suing valued customers", i don't believe sending an infringement notice is suing.  When my credit card company charges me extra for not paying in time they are not suing me. 

And I do understand that Alamy may want to preserve a relationship by giving the client a break, but that should be on them to pay, not on the contributor.   When a company gives a discount to keep customer happy, do they turn back to the goods provider and say we will pay you less than you are entitled?   

 

I think the big issue is the lack of definition from Alamy in their agreements with image users what constitute Infringement.  Add the more than lax tracking of usage, which results in images being used for significant periods without a licence, which is Infringement by definition. 

 

the other issue, to use Alamy's own terms, is the lack of Transparency in many of these process. 

 

Edited by meanderingemu
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

As expected latest infringement lead to nothing.  Alamy allowed the culprit to just pay now ridiculous fee even though they downloaded the image 14 months ago, had no intention of paying for it and Alamy was letting them do it and made no effort to bill them.   

 

It's funny to me this feels like a much bigger betrayal than the 12 cents fees, which at least is based on a contributor decision to allow Distributor.  This goes against the essence of the partnership, there was no attempt to charge the client for usage, and no impact for the client for trying to get away with it.  Worse i get cheated by the change of contract in between, and the dropping in fees, and i am not sure it respect section 16.7 since Alamy themselves never took actions, which should have lead to me being able to take separate action.  I guess Alamy finally loses benefit of my cooperation.  

  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
13 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

As expected latest infringement lead to nothing.  Alamy allowed the culprit to just pay now ridiculous fee even though they downloaded the image 14 months ago, had no intention of paying for it and Alamy was letting them do it and made no effort to bill them.   

 

It's funny to me this feels like a much bigger betrayal than the 12 cents fees, which at least is based on a contributor decision to allow Distributor.  This goes against the essence of the partnership, there was no attempt to charge the client for usage, and no impact for the client for trying to get away with it.  Worse i get cheated by the change of contract in between, and the dropping in fees, and i am not sure it respect section 16.7 since Alamy themselves never took actions, which should have lead to me being able to take separate action.  I guess Alamy finally loses benefit of my cooperation.  

  

 

 

 

 

 

 i am just reviewing the details of the licence and it looks like it actually infringes on the actual usage if i understand the publication properly.  Not sure why Alamy tolerates this from "preferred" clients 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
46 minutes ago, Michael Ventura said:

I had a very welcomed infringement payout, today, for a misuse that I was not aware of, for low $$$.  My first infringement reported by Alamy and I hope they can pursue many more, we know they are out there! 

 

27 minutes ago, Matt Ashmore said:

Like Michael, I had an infringement drop in today too.

 

 

Curious, was this one that You reported, or one that Alamy found? 

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • 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.