Alamy Infringement Team - any news?

[geogphotos]

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.

[Michael Ventura]

47 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

 

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

 

For me, it was one that Alamy found, I did not know about it.

[Matt Ashmore]

59 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

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

 

No.. first I knew about it was when I saw 'Other income' listed in my downloaded sales report. It was an image that has been licensed at least once in the past.

[meanderingemu]

19 minutes ago, Michael Ventura said:

 

For me, it was one that Alamy found, I did not know about it.

 

6 minutes ago, Matt Ashmore said:

 

No.. first I knew about it was when I saw 'Other income' listed in my downloaded sales report. It was an image that has been licensed at least once in the past.

 

Great to know this is actually working, and again should be something Alamy should be highlighting.

 

interestingly this actually seems to contradict section 16.7 on the contributor contract, since it seems you were not advised promptly.   

 

"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."

[Betty LaRue]

19 minutes ago, Matt Ashmore said:

 

No.. first I knew about it was when I saw 'Other income' listed in my downloaded sales report. It was an image that has been licensed at least once in the past.

I had “other income” today also, for $$$. How can you tell it is for infringement? And for which image? I can’t figure it out.

[meanderingemu]

8 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

I had “other income” today also, for $$$. How can you tell it is for infringement? And for which image? I can’t figure it out.

 

 

in my Net Revenue Sales Report download it said

 

Infringement income for {Image ID} 

 

in the licence details

 

 

 

NOTE: for cases where no Licence is issued, these never appear in the "Sales History" so for those who use that as their report source I guess they would not find out what the infringed image was. 

Edited March 31, 2022 by meanderingemu

[Betty LaRue]

1 minute ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

in my Net Revenue Sales Report download it said

 

Infringement income for {Image ID} 

 

in the licence details

Thanks. I’m on my iPad, and I did the download but don’t know where it went. I never saw the download.

[meanderingemu]

and of course mine got $2, because the infringer was allowed to just issue a regular bill.  though what submitted doesn't match usage, so i'm resubmitting a new claim. 

[Betty LaRue]

12 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

Thanks. I’m on my iPad, and I did the download but don’t know where it went. I never saw the download.

Ahh, never mind. I found it and yes, it was an infringement for one image. This is why I have not changed my images to non-exclusive. $109 is great.

 

Edited March 31, 2022 by Betty LaRue

[meanderingemu]

2 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

Ahh, never mind. I found it and yes, it was an infringement for one image. This is why I have not changed my images to non-exclusive. $109 is great.

 

 

 

 

lovely. 

The issue with Non-exclusive is that it doesn't mean the image wasn't also elsewhere, just that it wasn't available for licencing elsewhere except on you personal site, so i assume this is not the only trigger used by Alamy to pursue without "promptly informing", like fact they have record of culprit on Alamy's site. 

[meanderingemu]

Just realised one thing about my infringement that was positively resolved, it was not from a country listed in the "report an unauthorised use", so i think this has not been updated with the new team.  I'll add this to the on-going list of question, if Alamy ever feels like adding information.

 

The main thing is there is no negative impact in reporting provided there is a clear infringer for them to go after with clear contact.  

[Shergar]

The other side of the story so far!!!!!

 

 

https://copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3072  

 

 

Shergar 

[meanderingemu]

21 minutes ago, Shergar said:

The other side of the story so far!!!!!

 

 

https://copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3072  

 

 

Shergar 

 

 

thanks.  Actually fairer discussion than what i was expecting.  

[sb photos]

4 hours ago, Shergar said:

The other side of the story so far!!!!!

 

 

https://copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3072  

 

 

Shergar 

 

Made an interesting read on a forum open to all. As the last post was yesterday I will revisit.

Edited April 1, 2022 by sb photos

[spacecadet]

10 hours ago, Shergar said:

The other side of the story so far!!!!!

 

 

https://copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3072  

 

 

Shergar 

Unfortunately the resident "expert" on that site has a rather shaky grasp of the law and small claims procedure. A lot of his advice tends to be to string the case out which would risk a costs order for unreasonable behaviour. He also suggests going to court just to try to lower the fee, likewise risky in cost terms. The assertion about moral rights is flat-out wrong AFAICS- I've had settlements purely on that (lack of attribution).

Oddly enough no infringer ever comes back to the site to boast "hah, got the better of that copyright troll, didn't have to pay a penny".

Edited April 1, 2022 by spacecadet

[Sally]

On 08/03/2022 at 14:43, Phil Robinson said:

I thought Alamy used to buy the daily newspapers and check them for uses. Either that has stopped or whoever does it needs to go to Specsavers.

Yes they seemed to have stopped this. However it was rarely of use to those of us in Scotland as Alamy staff would not be able to get the Scottish versions of the printed papers which often have different Scottish-based images eg The Times and The Telegraph 

[Sally]

On 08/03/2022 at 14:43, Phil Robinson said:

 

Edited April 4, 2022 by Sally

[spacecadet]

On 01/04/2022 at 10:48, spacecadet said:

Unfortunately the resident "expert" on that site has a rather shaky grasp of the law and small claims procedure. A lot of his advice tends to be to string the case out which would risk a costs order for unreasonable behaviour. He also suggests going to court just to try to lower the fee, likewise risky in cost terms. The assertion about moral rights is flat-out wrong AFAICS- I've had settlements purely on that (lack of attribution).

Oddly enough no infringer ever comes back to the site to boast "hah, got the better of that copyright troll, didn't have to pay a penny".

I've shipped in on that thread if anyone is interested. The resident expert isn't a flamer- gave a fair reply, seems to realise some of his wilder assertions may have been a bit much.

https://copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=10567#p10567

[Allan Bell]

1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

I've shipped in on that thread if anyone is interested. The resident expert isn't a flamer- gave a fair reply, seems to realise some of his wilder assertions may have been a bit much.

https://copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=10567#p10567

 

Read your post. Well done that man.

 

Allan

 

[meanderingemu]

2 hours ago, spacecadet said:

I've shipped in on that thread if anyone is interested. The resident expert isn't a flamer- gave a fair reply, seems to realise some of his wilder assertions may have been a bit much.

https://copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=10567#p10567

 

great discussion.  thanks for sharing 

[Sally]

On 01/03/2022 at 21:55, Sally said:

Indeed. I’ve got several more in the pipeline including an unreported magazine front cover use. Beats me how a magazine could forget to report such a use and I look forward to seeing what it fetches. Should make these publications take more care.

The unreported front cover use on a magazine finally came through via the infringements team. My highest ever sale at $678. Thanks Alamy!

[Cecile Marion]

Wow! That’s wonderful, Sally. Congratulations!

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, Sally said:

The unreported front cover use on a magazine finally came through via the infringements team. My highest ever sale at $678. Thanks Alamy!

 

wonderful.  that is great news and encouraging. Well done. 

 

curious, is that a licence amount, or just reported as "other fees" and therefore not counted in level (yes the current thresholds are not really meaningful for most, more the precedent when Alamy starts playing with these.)

[Sally]

18 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

wonderful.  that is great news and encouraging. Well done. 

 

curious, is that a licence amount, or just reported as "other fees" and therefore not counted in level (yes the current thresholds are not really meaningful for most, more the precedent when Alamy starts playing with these.)

It's reported as a license fee. So very worthwhile making sure that you scan the internet for your image uses, and although it's quite a lot of work, may bring good results. I wouldn't have known about this use if I hadn't seen it on Pressreader.

[Sultanpepa]

7 minutes ago, Sally said:

It's reported as a license fee. So very worthwhile making sure that you scan the internet for your image uses, and although it's quite a lot of work, may bring good results. I wouldn't have known about this use if I hadn't seen it on Pressreader.

 

Excellent Sally 😃👍

[meanderingemu]

1 minute ago, Sally said:

It's reported as a license fee. So very worthwhile making sure that you scan the internet for your image uses, and although it's quite a lot of work, may bring good results. I wouldn't have known about this use if I hadn't seen it on Pressreader.

 

great

 

i agree, i now added an identifier KW to all images zoomed and sold, so i can sort them and do quick scans when bored, plus using infringement resources. We need to push Alamy in giving us more info on licences to make it easier to identify potential cases. 

 

 Now if only Alamy would recognise all infringement as such.  i found one from a regular client from 2+ years ago, but if i report it to support team, they will likely just let them report it as a $4 sale like last one.  So will wait until we get direct promised direct contact to infringement team to deem it suspicious.