Protecting Alamy content against copyright infringements

[Alamy]

Hi All, 

 

Learn about copyright infringement and how Alamy is helping to ensure our contributor's photographs are protected. 

 

Protecting Alamy content against copyright infringements - Alamy Blog

 

Thanks, 

 

Alamy. 

[geogphotos]

5 times the normal fee for an infringment?

 

That could bring me 20 pence 😄

 

Seriously I've been impressed with the infringement team so far.

Edited July 19, 2022 by geogphotos

[BobD]

My largest net sale this year was an infringement😁

[shearwater]

On 19/07/2022 at 12:49, BobD said:

My largest net sale this year was an infringement😁

Same for me. Happy with their work so far.

Unfortunately they don't work with any copyright agency in Spain or Malta.

[geogphotos]

"So far this year, we’ve already paid out hundreds of thousands of pounds of infringement revenue to our contributors, so if your images are marked as exclusive"

 

Great, and if you have paid out that amount Alamy has made at least that amount.

 

So, who knew? - exclusive content does have commercial value. 

 

If you want more of it then, since it only accounts for 7% of your content, it would make sense to pay a premium to attract it.

 

Restore the 50%, build the Exclusive offering, and make more from 1) unique content and 2) infringements.  

Edited July 22, 2022 by geogphotos

[shearwater]

Just now, geogphotos said:

"So far this year, we’ve already paid out hundreds of thousands of pounds of infringement revenue to our contributors, so if your images are marked as exclusive"

 

Great, and if you have paid out that amomunt Alamy has made at least that amount.

 

So, who knew? - exclusive content does has a commercial value. 

 

If you want more of it then, since it only accounts for 7% of your content, it would make sense to pay a premium to attract it.

 

Restore the 50%, build the Exclusive offering, and make more from unique content and infringements.  

+1!!

[meanderingemu]

On 19/07/2022 at 07:49, BobD said:

My largest net sale this year was an infringement😁

My largest net sale was refunded after it had cleared 🤨.  My 2nd largest was an infringement- lets hope Alamy doesn't refund those. 

[meanderingemu]

On 19/07/2022 at 07:16, Alamy said:

Hi All, 

 

Learn about copyright infringement and how Alamy is helping to ensure our contributor's photographs are protected. 

 

Protecting Alamy content against copyright infringements - Alamy Blog

 

Thanks, 

 

Alamy. 

 

Can you explain why many infringements are not included in meeting Gold level?  You would think such a significant part would be valued by Alamy. 

[meanderingemu]

On 19/07/2022 at 07:16, Alamy said:

Hi All, 

 

Learn about copyright infringement and how Alamy is helping to ensure our contributor's photographs are protected. 

 

Protecting Alamy content against copyright infringements - Alamy Blog

 

Thanks, 

 

Alamy. 

 One more thing, when will we have a modified reporting process directly to the infringement team as promised?  I already had one that the contributor support team undermined the infringement claim when they received the report. 

[MB Photography]

I guess that Alamy is trying to get contributors to take part in finding their images that have not been paid for.
 

It would be good if we could find out which images have been downloaded by image buyers. Just because someone zooms on an image doesn’t mean it’s been downloaded.

 

[Phil Crean]

40 minutes ago, MB Photography said:

I guess that Alamy is trying to get contributors to take part in finding their images that have not been paid for.
 

It would be good if we could find out which images have been downloaded by image buyers. Just because someone zooms on an image doesn’t mean it’s been downloaded.

 

And if we were given more info on actual usages in the sales report then we'd know which uses were genuine and which were potential infringements. @Alamy

Phil

 

[meanderingemu]

48 minutes ago, MB Photography said:

I guess that Alamy is trying to get contributors to take part in finding their images that have not been paid for.
 

It would be good if we could find out which images have been downloaded by image buyers. Just because someone zooms on an image doesn’t mean it’s been downloaded.

 

great point.  @Alamyplease note

[geogphotos]

I get sales reports from another agency - most of the sales are through Getty and I am told each client's name. Nearly all the clients are large media companies. It certainly makes it much easier to trace infringements. 

 

If Alamy want contributors to report infringements it is just common sense that it makes it far easier if we know who the legitimate user is. 

Edited July 22, 2022 by geogphotos

[meanderingemu]

30 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

I get sales reports from another agency - most of the sales are through Getty and I am told each client's name. Nearly all the clients are large media companies. It certainly makes it much easier to trace infringements. 

 

If Alamy want contributors to report infringements it is just common sense that it makes it far easier if we know who the legitimate user is. 

 

 

I think i will start playing it safe and report most of what i find, since I am nowadays "suspicious" of any usage, and Alamy states I must then immediately advise them (section 16.4)

[Sally]

Ok, having read that, I am reconsidering making those images which I have not sold directly, exclusive. Luckily I have kept track of  my own direct sales so I should be able to easily change this using the Alamy Lightroom Bridge plugin. 

Edited July 22, 2022 by Sally

[meanderingemu]

17 hours ago, Sally said:

Ok, having read that, I am reconsidering making those images which I have not sold directly, exclusive. Luckily I have kept track of  my own direct sales so I should be able to easily change this using the Alamy Lightroom Bridge plugin. 

 

the Definition of Exclusive is and always was punctual (it could have been licenced elsewhere before), and does not include your own personal offering, so you technically do not have to set this limit.  Which is why Alamy needs to respect the Agreement and "  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," (16.7)

 

Exclusive

means any item of Content that you have only made available to Alamy which is not also available via any third party licensing, sales or distribution channel, including without limitation via any other stock agency or image site, but excluding the Contributor’s personal website and print sales.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sally]

On 23/07/2022 at 12:20, meanderingemu said:

 

the Definition of Exclusive is and always was punctual (it could have been licenced elsewhere before), and does not include your own personal offering, so you technically do not have to set this limit.  Which is why Alamy needs to respect the Agreement and "  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," (16.7)

 

Exclusive

means any item of Content that you have only made available to Alamy which is not also available via any third party licensing, sales or distribution channel, including without limitation via any other stock agency or image site, but excluding the Contributor’s personal website and print sales.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, you’re right, I had forgotten that. But I have sold images through other agencies - those are the ones I need to exclude.

[meanderingemu]

3 minutes ago, Sally said:

Yes, you’re right, I had forgotten that. But I have sold images through other agencies - those are the ones I need to exclude.

 

actually not according to the contract, if they are not for sale now you can they meet the definition of exclusive, which is why Alamy should abide by their own agreement of promptly inform us of suspected infringement, the fact they don't is on them, and the buyer will show them a valid licence from the past.  What i'm curious is what if thief stole from another agency, will Alamy's agent pursue?  I have no problem with it, I get paid and if it helps Alamy's bottom line good on them for doing the work

[M.Chapman]

On 23/07/2022 at 12:20, meanderingemu said:

the Definition of Exclusive is and always was punctual (it could have been licenced elsewhere before), and does not include your own personal offering, so you technically do not have to set this limit.  Which is why Alamy needs to respect the Agreement and "  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," (16.7)

 

Exclusive

means any item of Content that you have only made available to Alamy which is not also available via any third party licensing, sales or distribution channel, including without limitation via any other stock agency or image site, but excluding the Contributor’s personal website and print sales.

 

1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:

 

actually not according to the contract, if they are not for sale now you can they meet the definition of exclusive

 

Are you sure? The contract definition "Exclusive means any content that you have only made available to Alamy" would appear to cover the past tense too?

If the contract definition said

Exclusive means content that you currently only have available on Alamy

I'd agree with your conclusion, but the wording doesn't say that, so where does the "punctuality" assumption come from?

Apologies if I've misunderstood or missed something.

 

Mark

Edited July 25, 2022 by M.Chapman

[meanderingemu]

21 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

 

Are you sure? The contract definition "Exclusive means any content that you have only made available to Alamy" would appear to cover the past tense too?

If the contract definition said

Exclusive means content that you currently only have available on Alamy

I'd agree with your conclusion, but the wording doesn't say that, so where does the "punctuality" assumption come from?

Apologies if I've misunderstood or missed something.

 

Mark

 

but then "which is not also available "  Present tense.  

 

 

 If they meant at anytime in the past the contract would read "which is, and has never been, also available.."

 

 

The thread below has the original e-mail to contributor reminding about "Exclusivity"  and again

 

 “Exclusive” images cannot be available through any other third-party licensing, sales or distribution channels (where not supplied through Alamy). 

 

again present tense, nothing about in the past.  When they introduced the idea of "Exclusivity", many of us went, and documented it on the forum, through the process of removing images from other Agencies.  At no point has Alamy ever hinted this would not meet the definition.  

 

 

 

[M.Chapman]

Thanks for clarifying. Although IMO it's yet another instance of an ambiguous clause in the contract? I suggest the word "only" could be omitted then.

 

Exclusive

means any item of Content that you have only made available to Alamy which is not also available via any third party licensing, sales or distribution channel, including without limitation via any other stock agency or image site, but excluding the Contributor’s personal website and print sales.

 

Mark

[meanderingemu]

22 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

Thanks for clarifying. Although IMO it's yet another instance of an ambiguous clause in the contract? I suggest the word "only" could be omitted then.

 

Exclusive

means any item of Content that you have only made available to Alamy which is not also available via any third party licensing, sales or distribution channel, including without limitation via any other stock agency or image site, but excluding the Contributor’s personal website and print sales.

 

Mark

 

 

I agree, and not the first ambiguity, which leaves us at a disadvantage.  Even though jurisprudence would go against the writer in these cases, it would not be easy for many of us to take Alamy to court. 

 

[meanderingemu]

On 19/07/2022 at 07:22, geogphotos said:

5 times the normal fee for an infringment?

 

That could bring me 20 pence 😄

 

Seriously I've been impressed with the infringement team so far.

 

 

the one thing not mentioned about the "5 times the normal fee" it's it appears to be 5 times the current rate, not the rate at the time of usage. 

 

I just had one reported that was misappropriated  in 2019 by one of the regular news site, and i am not even getting 3 times what i would have gotten had it been reported then..

 

Still good to see some penalties, but lets not over represent the impact. 

[wilkopix]

On 20/07/2022 at 19:00, geogphotos said:

So, who knew? - exclusive content does have commercial value. 

 

If you want more of it then, since it only accounts for 7% of your content, it would make sense to pay a premium to attract it.

 

Restore the 50%, build the Exclusive offering, and make more from 1) unique content and 2) infringements. 

Agreed, almost all of my images were exclusive to Alamy until the recent drop in commission. I then marked them all as non exclusive so that I could then put them with multiple agencies to make up the shortfall. Unless they restore the 50% for exclusive content it makes much more finacial sense as a contributor to be non exclusive.

Seems counterproductive for Alamy to lose their 7% exclusive content, not to mention alienating those who supply it, many of whom have now gone elsewhere to manitain an income from it.