Editorial sale despite restrictions?

[Skyscraperfan]

Although I have checked the "Do not sell for editorial" box almost all of my photos, one of those photos now was sold for editorial use. How can that happen?

 

Did anyone of you see also see an illegal sale of your images?

Those are the details of the sale:
Country: France
Usage: Editorial
Media: Book, print and/or e-book
Print run: up to 5,000
Placement: Inside
Image Size: 1 page
Start: 01 April 2022
End: 01 April 2027
France,Book, print and/or e-book
$ 36.53

If you visit the licensing page of that image, you can see that you can only select "Personal Use":
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-restroom-in-the-sky-170231150.html

 

 

[Allan Bell]

I have never seen an "illegal use" of my images yet.  Do not think you will get an answer to your question from the members just supposition. Suggest you take it up with Alamy and come back with their answer so we all know.

 

Allan

 

[Skyscraperfan]

I just wanted to make others aware that something like that could happen. I was quite shocked when I saw that today.

[Skyscraperfan]

PS: I just checked my account balance. It gets even more weired. The image was sold via the "Alamy Distribution" scheme, although I already opted out of that scheme in January 2008. How can an image taken in 2017 be sold under a scheme I opted out of in 2008? Of course I will contact Alamy about that.

[Michael Ventura]

I guess the bigger question is why you are with Alamy when editorial is the vast majority of what they sell.  Since joining in 2005, nearly all of my 2,600+ sales have been for editorial uses.  A few commercial sales and some presentation and personal uses make up maybe 5% of my sales.

[Skyscraperfan]

18 minutes ago, Michael Ventura said:

I guess the bigger question is why you are with Alamy when editorial is the vast majority of what they sell.  Since joining in 2005, nearly all of my 2,600+ sales have been for editorial uses.  A few commercial sales and some presentation and personal uses make up maybe 5% of my sales.

When I joined Alamy we were still paid 65% commission and promised that those 65% would stay forever. My red line was 50%. The agency should never get more money from a sale than the photographer. So when they went to 40% for most photographers, I stopped uploading and restricted my existing photos. I would really love to sell more photos, but not for 40%. 40% are just unacceptable. For that illegal sale I even only got 24% commission.

Edited June 6, 2022 by Skyscraperfan

[John Mitchell]

Perhaps Alamy thinks that you must have checked that particular restriction box by mistake because "do not sell for editorial use" suggests that you don't really want to license your images. Maybe it's best to remove your images and close your account. You might be able to find another editorial agency that still offers a 50/50 split, which I agree is much fairer than what we have now.

[Skyscraperfan]

2 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

Perhaps Alamy thinks that you must have checked that particular restriction box by mistake because "do not sell for editorial use" suggests that you don't really want to license your images. Maybe it's best to remove your images and close your account. You might be able to find another editorial agency that still offers a 50/50 split, which I agree is much fairer than what we have now.

Why should I close my account? I did not break any promise here, Alamy did. I really want my image be licensed, but I will wait until I get 50% again.

[spacecadet]

8 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

you don't really want to license your images.

OP has said somewhere else (unless I've misunderstood his ambiguous English) that he's deliberately trying to frustrate searches to upset customers. If so I rather hope Alamy take a look and close his account for him.

 

3 hours ago, Skyscraperfan said:

illegal sale

OP it's unwise to make allegations of that sort. Of course it's not "illegal" for Alamy to license outside what you've specified.

There really is no point having your images here. But I think you know that.

Must be the last straw for Alamy to have the cheek to make you some money.

Edited June 6, 2022 by spacecadet

[Skyscraperfan]

6 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

OP has said somewhere else (unless I've misunderstood his poor English) that he's deliberately trying to frustrate searches to upset customers. If so I rather hope Alamy take a look and close his account for him.

 

OP it's unwise to make allegations of that sort.

How would you call an editorial sale if I restricted the image from being sold for editorial use? And how would you call a distribution sale if I opted out of distribution 14 years ago? Distribution means that your images are uploaded to tons of other agencies and in case of a sale, both Alamy and the other agency get a big share. That is clearly illegal unless the photographer agreed.

Edited June 6, 2022 by Skyscraperfan

[spacecadet]

1 minute ago, Skyscraperfan said:

How would you call an editorial sale if I restricted the image to be sold for editorial use? And how would you call a distribution sale if I opted out of distribution 14 years ago? Distribution means that your images are uploaded to tons of other agencies and in case of a sale, both Alamy and the other agency get a big share. That is clearly illegal unless the photographer agreed.

May I suggest you check your English dictionary.

[Skyscraperfan]

What is wrong with my English? How many other languages can you speak?

[spacecadet]

7 minutes ago, Skyscraperfan said:

How would you call an editorial sale if I restricted the image to be sold for editorial use? And how would you call a distribution sale if I opted out of distribution 14 years ago?

I would call it a possible breach of condition (verletzung der bedingung?) but you would have to check the contributor contract.

Edited June 6, 2022 by spacecadet

[Skyscraperfan]

Just now, spacecadet said:

I would call it a possible breach of condition (verletzung der bedingung).

Then it is illegal, don't you think? I do not say it is a crime, because it could have happened without intent. It could have been a software glitch. How did my photo end at another stock agency although I opted out?

[spacecadet]

8 minutes ago, Skyscraperfan said:

What is wrong with my English?

I think you misunderstand the import of the English word "illegal". I see that "illegal" has some alternative meanings in German- is "unerlaubt" closer to what you believe has happened? I would translate that as "not allowed".

There's the other matter of the thread in another place where you may have been misunderstood.

Edited June 6, 2022 by spacecadet

[Skyscraperfan]

1 minute ago, spacecadet said:

I think you misunderstand the import of the English word "illegal". I see that "illegal" has some alternative meanings in German- is "unerlaubt" closer to what you believe has happened? I would translate that as "not allowed".

"Illegal" simply means "against the law". If you sell something that somebody else owns, you need his permission. You could also say that "illegal" is anything that could be sanctioned by a court. It does not have to be intentional. Most copyright violations are unintentional.

[John Mitchell]

23 minutes ago, Skyscraperfan said:

Why should I close my account? I did not break any promise here, Alamy did. I really want my image be licensed, but I will wait until I get 50% again.

 

You said that you would love to sell more images, but this won't happen if you restrict them in the way that you have. Unfortunately, the fair 50/50 split isn't going to come back. The only way to achieve it is to reach the impossible "Platinum" level. It's a sad a situation; however, there's really no point in hanging around if you can't live with it. Good luck.

[Skyscraperfan]

Just now, John Mitchell said:

 

You said that you would love to sell more images, but this won't happen if you restrict them in the way that you have. Unfortunately, the fair 50/50 split isn't going to come back. The only way to achieve it is to reach the impossible "Platinum" level. It's a sad a situation; however, there's really no point in hanging around if you can't live with it. Good luck.

I still do not give up hope. Maybe Elon Musk buys Alamy next week and everything gets better. Keeping my images does not require and effort and I still get some DACS payment each year. Restricting them to personal use is a good compromise for now.

[John Mitchell]

2 hours ago, Skyscraperfan said:

I still do not give up hope. Maybe Elon Musk buys Alamy next week and everything gets better. Keeping my images does not require and effort and I still get some DACS payment each year. Restricting them to personal use is a good compromise for now.

 

If someone else (I won't mention who) bought Alamy, we'd probably be looking at 15%. Anything goes now.

[meanderingemu]

6 hours ago, Skyscraperfan said:

How would you call an editorial sale if I restricted the image from being sold for editorial use? And how would you call a distribution sale if I opted out of distribution 14 years ago? Distribution means that your images are uploaded to tons of other agencies and in case of a sale, both Alamy and the other agency get a big share. That is clearly illegal unless the photographer agreed.

 

so if you think they broke the law, you should get the authorities involved.    

 

If you think their is a breach of contract, which is more likely, than legal is a much better option, however you may have to show that you were a good faith party to the agreement.  Putting your images for licencing and putting as many restriction as possible with a stated goal that they would not licence may be deemed that it wasn't good faith, not a lawyer so you should probably discuss with your own counsel. 

[Brian Yarvin]

If Elon Musk bought Alamy, photographer commissions would drop to ten percent and he would tweet out to his vast audience that we're a bunch of lazy, untalented bums if we complained. And clearly to a native English speaker like myself; there's an issue here with the use of the word "illegal." I'd say it was an honest mistake. Many of us who contribute to Alamy are writers too and while we may not know the details of law, we know our words and how to use them.

[Skyscraperfan]

5 hours ago, Brian Yarvin said:

If Elon Musk bought Alamy, photographer commissions would drop to ten percent and he would tweet out to his vast audience that we're a bunch of lazy, untalented bums if we complained. And clearly to a native English speaker like myself; there's an issue here with the use of the word "illegal." I'd say it was an honest mistake. Many of us who contribute to Alamy are writers too and while we may not know the details of law, we know our words and how to use them.

Sorry, I am German and if you are not allowed to do something, it is illegal. Again, that does not mean that is was more than a mistake, but even mistake are illegal. For example if you made a mistake on your tax declaration. Nobody can know all the laws and rules and in an automated system there can always be technical glitches. I really do not think that someone at Alamy intentionally ignored my restrictions. They will soon get back to me and tell me what happened. I am sure if it was a tachnical glitch, they are glad that someone told them about it, because the same might have happened with thousands of photos by other contributors.

And to some who critized me for first taking it to the forum: That is what Alamy encourages people to do: First ask the forum and after that contact the support. When you cntact the support, you even get an automated email response saying "For most questions, we encourage you to ask your knowledgeable fellow photographers over on the Alamy forum".

[Inchiquin]

15 hours ago, Skyscraperfan said:

 

The agency should never get more money from a sale than the photographer.

 

 

I don't know of many businesses where the supplier gets more than the retailer. Usually you're lucky to get 30%.

 

Alan

Edited June 7, 2022 by Inchiquin

[Skyscraperfan]

12 minutes ago, Inchiquin said:

 

I don't know of many businesses where the supplier gets more than the retailer. Usually you're lucky to get 30%.

 

Alan

Are you sure about that? If I buy a TV or a bar of chocolate, will the store get more than the supplier?

Edited June 7, 2022 by Skyscraperfan

[meanderingemu]

3 hours ago, Skyscraperfan said:

Sorry, I am German and if you are not allowed to do something, it is illegal. Again, that does not mean that is was more than a mistake, but even mistake are illegal. For example if you made a mistake on your tax declaration. Nobody can know all the laws and rules and in an automated system there can always be technical glitches. I really do not think that someone at Alamy intentionally ignored my restrictions. They will soon get back to me and tell me what happened. I am sure if it was a tachnical glitch, they are glad that someone told them about it, because the same might have happened with thousands of photos by other contributors.
 

 

 

if it wasn't intentional as you claim you might have even a harder time to prove that they broke the law.  Are you claiming criminal negligence on their part?  

[CarloBo]

Contributor: asks questions about license details.

Alamy forumers: pedantic over English grammar.