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

 

 

[Skyscraperfan]

39 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

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?  

 I just claim and can prove that an image was sold via the distribution scheme although I opted out of that scheme in 2008. And that it was sols for editorial use although I restricted that use. I would not use the word "criminal". It is likely just an error in the system that can be corrected. Alamy already wrote back to me that they forwarded my email to the responsible department.

I once bought a week ticket for the metro in Vienna on a Sunday. I used it for five days and thought it was valid. Later I learned that week tickets in Vienna can't start at any random day, but always start on the Monday after you bought them. So technically I used the metro without a valid ticket on that Sunday. I still do not feel like a criminal though, as I still bought a full week ticket. If my ticket was checked on that Sunday though, they would still have had the right to impose a fine. So even if you have good intentions like paying for a whole week although you only use the metro for five days, you can still do something illegal. That's why I do not blame anybody unless there was a real intention.

[spacecadet]

4 hours ago, CarloBo said:

Contributor: asks questions about license details.

Alamy forumers: pedantic over English grammar.

Not really grammar but vocabulary. OP is still using "illegal" in a way native speakers usually don't, even after the ambiguity has been pointed out.

The examples I can find for the use of the German word "illegal" don't refer to the possible tor of a breach of condition in a contract. My understanding is that under English law, and it's English law that governs the contributor's contract with Alamy, a tort only turns into a criminal offence under very narrow circumstances defined by an act of parliament.  It's a subtle difference but the OP appears unwilling to accept it.

Edited June 7, 2022 by spacecadet

[geogphotos]

Thanks to the OP for raising this. If true, I find it very worrying that affliates can override restrictions placed by contributors on the use of  their images. 

 

Since Alamy offers this option it makes a nonsense of it should it not be applied rigourously - and, in fact, can be overruled by a third party who is anonymous and unknown to the contributor.

 

It doesn't affect me directly but I can imagine that some contributors have contracts with other agencies that give territorial exclusivity.

 

Hopefully, Alamy will clarify this and provide reassurance.

Edited June 7, 2022 by geogphotos

[CarloBo]

11 hours 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

Whether you sell photos, books, music, prints, art etc I can name several  sites where content creators get   > 50%.

Some of these companies even share part of their profits with contributors. I believe stock photography is an  anomaly not the standard.

[Cal]

7 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Thanks to the OP for raising this. If true, I find it very worrying that affliates can override restrictions placed by contributors on the use of  their images. 

 

Since Alamy offers this option it makes a nonsense of it should it not be applied rigourously - and, in fact, can be overruled by a third party who is anonymous and unknown to the contributor.

 

It doesn't affect me directly but I can imagine that some contributors have contracts with other agencies that give territorial exclusivity.

 

Hopefully, Alamy will clarify this and provide reassurance.

 

It also puts us in an even worse position with regards to the Alamy contributor agreement. If restrictions are being ignored, then (for example) an editorial-restricted image that is marked that way for good reason which ends up being sold commercially could be disastrous should legal action be taken. Would Alamy stand by the contributor whose image has been misused entirely outwith their control or would they wash their hands of it and leave us to sort out the mess?

[Allan Bell]

11 hours ago, Cal said:

 

It also puts us in an even worse position with regards to the Alamy contributor agreement. If restrictions are being ignored, then (for example) an editorial-restricted image that is marked that way for good reason which ends up being sold commercially could be disastrous should legal action be taken. Would Alamy stand by the contributor whose image has been misused entirely outwith their control or would they wash their hands of it and leave us to sort out the mess?

 

You are on your own. It is your responsibility.

 

Allan

 

[Brian Yarvin]

On 07/06/2022 at 01:52, 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.

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".

 

Sky, In my opinion, there's nothing to be sorry for. I will certainly remember and respect this German understanding of the word. What I am asking is that you do the same for us. Those of us who spend time on these forums were trying to explain how we understand these things. Did we do a good job? Only you can answer.

 

There is also a very different question that needs to be addressed. "Can you expect the sales teams of stock image vendors around the world to fully understand and enforce the restrictions you impose?" My personal answer is "No. They will try, but still, no." There is a very long history of mistakes like these being made and like almost everything else in the stock photo industry, they're tough to enforce in courts. 

 

In the American system, if you accuse a company of doing something illegal, you'll have to prove it in court. The judge might say yes, or maybe not. Before the judge decides, it's "alleged to be illegal" and nothing more. Everybody has the right to their day in court.

[Cal]

1 hour ago, Allan Bell said:

 

You are on your own. It is your responsibility.

 

Allan

 

 

I've perused the contributor agreement again and spotted what I think is the bit you are referring to.

 

7.1: Alamy agrees to use its reasonable commercial endeavours to grant Licences in accordance with your instructions. Alamy will not be liable if it (or a Distributor) sells or otherwise makes available an item of Content outside the instructions specified by you.

 

Personally I'm not sure that'd stand up legally. I don't see how any reasonable judge would declare that it is indeed the contributor's fault that their agency mis-licenced an image and caused legal grief to land at the contributor's feet. 

[DJ Myford]

22 minutes ago, Cal said:

 

I've perused the contributor agreement again and spotted what I think is the bit you are referring to.

 

7.1: Alamy agrees to use its reasonable commercial endeavours to grant Licences in accordance with your instructions. Alamy will not be liable if it (or a Distributor) sells or otherwise makes available an item of Content outside the instructions specified by you.

 

Personally I'm not sure that'd stand up legally. I don't see how any reasonable judge would declare that it is indeed the contributor's fault that their agency mis-licenced an image and caused legal grief to land at the contributor's feet. 

I certainly won't be uploading any additional images: it isn't worth risking losing my house for the amounts that are being paid. When I've received my final payment I'll be terminating my contract.

[spacecadet]

1 hour ago, Cal said:

Alamy will not be liable if it (or a Distributor) sells or otherwise makes available an item of Content outside the instructions specified by you.

 

1 hour ago, DJ Myford said:

I certainly won't be uploading any additional images: it isn't worth risking losing my house for the amounts that are being paid. When I've received my final payment I'll be terminating my contract.

I don't think that term is attempting to escape liability for any consequences whatever to a third party- merely liability to the contributor for going outside licensing instructions. It's not well worded IMO- we've seen this before.

But as I suggested to the OP, it does make a nonsense of his claim, whatever it was. He's not the only contributor who hasn't read his contract, I'm sure.

It's not clear how anything in your port could possibly put your assets at risk. But then taking down 200 images is easier than taking down 10,000!

Edited June 8, 2022 by spacecadet

[Skyscraperfan]

2 hours ago, Brian Yarvin said:

 

Sky, In my opinion, there's nothing to be sorry for. I will certainly remember and respect this German understanding of the word. What I am asking is that you do the same for us. Those of us who spend time on these forums were trying to explain how we understand these things. Did we do a good job? Only you can answer.

 

There is also a very different question that needs to be addressed. "Can you expect the sales teams of stock image vendors around the world to fully understand and enforce the restrictions you impose?" My personal answer is "No. They will try, but still, no." There is a very long history of mistakes like these being made and like almost everything else in the stock photo industry, they're tough to enforce in courts. 

 

In the American system, if you accuse a company of doing something illegal, you'll have to prove it in court. The judge might say yes, or maybe not. Before the judge decides, it's "alleged to be illegal" and nothing more. Everybody has the right to their day in court.

Something already is illegal when you do it. Otherwise the court could not put you into jail, because you did not do anything illegal. If you murder someone, you already have committed the crime, even before you the court sent you to jail. If your understandig is right, a murderer is not jailed because of the murder, but because of the court. Maybe the American understanding of the word is wrong. It is not the courts that define what is legal, but the law. The law already exists when the crime happens. If it does not exist at that point, it also isn't a crime. For example, if you are not allowed to drive a car, while you are drunk, driving drunk already is illegal when you do it. A court will later confirm that and send you to jail or whatever.

And the "stock image vendors around the world" should not have had any access to my image in the first place, because I did not agree to the "Distribution" scheme that allows Alamy to give my image to other stock image vendors around the world. I opted out of it back in 2008 and the image was taken in 2017.

[geogphotos]

Alamy allow contributors to set restrictions so they should be honoured.  If Alamy are not able to do that then there is no point having them. 

Edited June 8, 2022 by geogphotos

[meanderingemu]

39 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Alamy allow contributors to set restrictions so they should be honoured.  If Alamy are not able to do that then there is no point having them. 

 

Agreed.  Also Alamy should have some negative impact when they don't.  Still doesn't make it illegal, but it should be handled under their error and omission provisions provided the selections were made in good faith.  

[Cal]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

Alamy allow contributors to set restrictions so they should be honoured.  If Alamy are not able to do that then there is no point having them. 

 

Simple as that, really. Some clarification from @Alamy probably wouldn't go amiss although I do appreciate spacecadet's input regarding the contributor agreement wording.

[Michael Ventura]

On 06/06/2022 at 12:23, 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.

I finally joined the Red Arrow club with this post.

[Michael Ventura]

On 06/06/2022 at 12:23, 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.

I finally joined the Red Arrow club with this post.

[Michael Ventura]

Deleted…double post
 

Edited June 11, 2022 by Michael Ventura

[gvallee]

28 minutes ago, Michael Ventura said:

I finally joined the Red Arrow club with this post.

 

Have a greenie to cancel it out.

[gvallee]

28 minutes ago, Michael Ventura said:

Deleted…double post
 

 

 

 

And a double greenie because you're such a nice person.

[spacecadet]

7 hours ago, Michael Ventura said:

I finally joined the Red Arrow club with this post.

Nice flying weather today😀

[Michael Ventura]

9 hours ago, gvallee said:

 

 

 

And a double greenie because you're such a nice person.

Thank you Gen! ☺️  And others who sent greenies!

[Rebecca Ore]

On 06/06/2022 at 11:02, 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.

 

I had some 1100 images up when Alamy changed the contract.  At that point, I closed my account.  I decided several months ago to reopen with what I thought were my better photos.  Points of honor and photos sitting on one's hard drive tend to earn one hundred percent of zero.   If you don't want to sell until Alamy raises contributor percentages, download your portfolio information and close the account.  Alamy will pay money due, and paid me some money that came in after I closed my first account.   Find, if you can, a stock company that pays better. 

 

To CarloBo, I think Alamy forumers couldn't believe that someone who had architectural photos was blocking the most common use of them and were trying to figure out why he was upset with a sale.   This strikes me as closing his account without closing his account, and trying to make a statement without it being at all clear what the statement was.

[CarloBo]

4 hours ago, Rebecca Ore said:

 

 

To CarloBo, I think Alamy forumers couldn't believe that someone who had architectural photos was blocking the most common use of them and were trying to figure out why he was upset with a sale.   This strikes me as closing his account without closing his account, and trying to make a statement without it being at all clear what the statement was.

 

We live in strange times, some complain about lack of sales, some complain because they have sold. To each his own 😉

 

[Skyscraperfan]

14 hours ago, CarloBo said:

 

We live in strange times, some complain about lack of sales, some complain because they have sold. To each his own 😉

 

If somebody else gets more money for a sale of YOUR photo, it is like a negative income.

[Skyscraperfan]

19 hours ago, Rebecca Ore said:

 

I had some 1100 images up when Alamy changed the contract.  At that point, I closed my account.  I decided several months ago to reopen with what I thought were my better photos.  Points of honor and photos sitting on one's hard drive tend to earn one hundred percent of zero.   If you don't want to sell until Alamy raises contributor percentages, download your portfolio information and close the account.  Alamy will pay money due, and paid me some money that came in after I closed my first account.   Find, if you can, a stock company that pays better.

100% of zero is better than 40% of something. What sense would it make to close my account?