Jump to content
  • 0

After 10 months informed that a non-cleared sale was refunded, when it was actually used


mwakeling
 Share

Question

I had an image published in Canada's largest news magazine in December 2021, both in print and online. The article has two Alamy credited photos, one mine. It never cleared. I kept notifying CR, with the same "we're chasing it" response each time. This time I was told that the sale was refunded.  I was told, "When we say “refunded” technically this term’s not accurate as very rarely does money actually change hands.  Most common refund reasons are: incorrect invoice, customer’s price agreement not factored in or occasionally a customer’s project cancelled."

The photo was published, and is archived online. The article was picked up by news organizations and used worldwide. There seems to be no reason for "refunding" when the image was used extensively.

 

Edited by mwakeling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Submit infringement now, it was used and has no licence. DO it quick so that the infringement team can get hold on it before the CS allows clients to do some retroactive stuff. 

 

 

use the front page submission form, it goes to Infringement team.  Do not deal with CS who can undermine actions of the Infringement team 

Edited by meanderingemu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Done. They wasted no time posting the refund after dragging their heels for 10 months. I have thought all along it was an accounting error on Alamy's part, and they just could not be bothered looking into it.

Edited by mwakeling
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 20/09/2022 at 12:45, mwakeling said:

Done. They wasted no time posting the refund after dragging their heels for 10 months. I have thought all along it was an accounting error on Alamy's part, and they just could not be bothered looking into it.

No answer from Infringement Department. This is just bad form on Alamy's part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
17 minutes ago, mwakeling said:

No answer from Infringement Department. This is just bad form on Alamy's part.

 

I guess today is 11th business day since you wrote.  That's beyond the standard time as per the automated reply, so you would be in right to write back to them directly at infringements@alamy.com, 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
9 hours ago, mwakeling said:

Thanks for the advice.

 

good luck.  Really hoping they can help.  But at least they how you a response, even if it means saying they won't pursue, so you can go through other avenue to go after the infringement. 

@Alamyat what point can we deem a lack of answer as a refusal to pursue from your part as per 16.7 of the agreement.  Delay in providing even that simple part may  damage our claim to infringement as creditor from the stealing party.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 06/10/2022 at 04:18, meanderingemu said:

 

good luck.  Really hoping they can help.  But at least they how you a response, even if it means saying they won't pursue, so you can go through other avenue to go after the infringement. 

@Alamyat what point can we deem a lack of answer as a refusal to pursue from your part as per 16.7 of the agreement.  Delay in providing even that simple part may  damage our claim to infringement as creditor from the stealing party.  

I did hear back from the Infringement Department, and they are going to try an get some answers.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Well, the saga continues. CR states that they "cleared" the sale as they had not collected payment, and that I was free to chase payment on my own or possibly pursue an infringement case. As Alamy licenced the image, they should be chasing infringement as the image was used and still is in use "for perpetuity". I guess that I was just supposed to forget about it after so long; not easy to do under the circumstances.

 

 

 

  • Love 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
48 minutes ago, mwakeling said:

Well, the saga continues. CR states that they "cleared" the sale as they had not collected payment, and that I was free to chase payment on my own or possibly pursue an infringement case. As Alamy licenced the image, they should be chasing infringement as the image was used and still is in use "for perpetuity". I guess that I was just supposed to forget about it after so long; not easy to do under the circumstances.

 

 

 

 

wow this is really bad.  This is from a Canadian buyer, ie.one of Alamy's Infringement covered countries, from a large publisher that still is in existence.  

 

@Alamy how can this not be pursued by the Infringement team?  this is why we gave away 20% of our commission to finance this. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:

 

wow this is really bad.  This is from a Canadian buyer, ie.one of Alamy's Infringement covered countries, from a large publisher that still is in existence.  

 

@Alamy how can this not be pursued by the Infringement team?  this is why we gave away 20% of our commission to finance this. 

Perhaps the infringement team will pursue it; I can only hope for a resolution, but I do not feel too optimistic. There were two Alamy images used in the article; one wonders if the other contributor (Richard Ellis) has had their sale refunded as well? I was so excited when this sale happened as I am Canadian; hence my disappointment and frustration. It is not like this is some small company that skips out on paying or is based in a country where infringment is treated lightly. My gut feeling all along is that there must have been an accounting error.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

A couple of suggestions.

I assume you already have screenshots, but the link to the infringement has been posted here for a few weeks- remove it in case the publisher finds it.

Get a clear statement from Alamy as to whether they will pursue. If not, remove the image from Alamy temporarily, so that the publisher can't use the price calculator to counter your claim for a much higher fee.

Alamy deprecate this but you can change the caption to "xxxxx" and delete all the tags. When you settle, you can put them back.

Then prepare your letter. There's plenty of advice out there but this

http://www.epuk.org/opinion/stolen-photographs-what-to-do?pg=4

should mostly apply to Canada.

If the publisher won't settle, see if you can sue in the small claims court. You don't have a specific IP small claims track as we do so you might need advice about whether you can do this.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
21 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

A couple of suggestions.

I assume you already have screenshots, but the link to the infringement has been posted here for a few weeks- remove it in case the publisher finds it.

Get a clear statement from Alamy as to whether they will pursue. If not, remove the image from Alamy temporarily, so that the publisher can't use the price calculator to counter your claim for a much higher fee.

Alamy deprecate this but you can change the caption to "xxxxx" and delete all the tags. When you settle, you can put them back.

Then prepare your letter. There's plenty of advice out there but this

http://www.epuk.org/opinion/stolen-photographs-what-to-do?pg=4

should mostly apply to Canada.

If the publisher won't settle, see if you can sue in the small claims court. You don't have a specific IP small claims track as we do so you might need advice about whether you can do this.

Great advice.  The other option if OP doesn't want to go the direct route, is that Canada is within the jurisdictions that Pixsy will pursue claims. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
4 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

Great advice.  The other option if OP doesn't want to go the direct route, is that Canada is within the jurisdictions that Pixsy will pursue claims. 

Didn't know that. I agree that's a better option first time round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

After a year of non payment for photos used on the same news story I once emailed the editors of two famous national UK papers to ask them to pay. They paid immediately. So writing to the top person can work. The third paper that used my photo, the Guardian, paid in a normal time frame. As two out of three well known papers hadn't paid I considered it deliberate non payment. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
11 hours ago, zxzoomy said:

After a year of non payment for photos used on the same news story I once emailed the editors of two famous national UK papers to ask them to pay. They paid immediately. So writing to the top person can work. The third paper that used my photo, the Guardian, paid in a normal time frame. As two out of three well known papers hadn't paid I considered it deliberate non payment. 

 

I've too have always found the Guardian pays in a reasonable time, but I only wish their license fees were reasonable as well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 12/10/2022 at 03:49, zxzoomy said:

After a year of non payment for photos used on the same news story I once emailed the editors of two famous national UK papers to ask them to pay. They paid immediately. So writing to the top person can work. The third paper that used my photo, the Guardian, paid in a normal time frame. As two out of three well known papers hadn't paid I considered it deliberate non payment. 

I wrote to the publisher, and did not get a response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

An update on this situation. Infringements staff got to the bottom of what happened, to their credit. (Why CR could not over 10 months is puzzling) The company that licensed the image closed its account and opened another. They have now been rebilled. I must give top marks to communication and action on the part of the infringement department. Now we shall see if it clears. Thanks to all for your suggestions.

  • Love 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
20 minutes ago, mwakeling said:

An update on this situation. Infringements staff got to the bottom of what happened, to their credit. (Why CR could not over 10 months is puzzling) The company that licensed the image closed its account and opened another. They have now been rebilled. I must give top marks to communication and action on the part of the infringement department. Now we shall see if it clears. Thanks to all for your suggestions.

Following... let us know if it clears.

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.