Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sorry if i've missed this elsewhere, but I've had an education image used by the Guardian in November. It's popped up again in another different education story again on the Guardian last week - Am I right to assume this is a separate sale as it's a rights managed image?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't licensed any newspaper images (I'm not in the UK Newspaper Scheme), so I can't say with any authority, but...

 

I'd say that would depend upon the specific agreement Alamy have with the newspaper in question, and the terms of the UK NS scheme.  Have a good look at the licensing terms displayed along with your sale and if they seem at all unclear, contact MS.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Am I right to assume this is a separate sale as it's a rights managed image?

 

yes

 

km

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you may have to chase it up - and the best of luck - all newspapers have a habit of retaining the image file in their own libraries and taking it from there for a subsequent use - so there will probably not be a recorded download for the second use from Alamy...........the Scheming Newspapers Arrangements need an urgent and close review - the arrangement still seems to allow onward syndication around the world, and use by ALL titles (newspapers, dailies and Sundays in all types - i.e. digital and print) in a Group.

 

Most newspapers have many titles, national, provincial and weekly, in their group so these group things can be an amazing deal - but not for you.....)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll find that after the first time the picture appears on the Guardian page, it will be retained in their system which lets them slot it into secondary screens and then use it for further usage in the following months/years. This has happened to me many times but seeing as Alamy and Corbis have the same material, it may have been sourced from either so it's hard to track down if there's no agency credit. 

 

I have in the past emailed them asking from where they've obtained the file but I'd liken it to wading through mud.

 

 

Richard.

Edited by Richard Baker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll find that after the first time the picture appears on the Guardian page, it will be retained in their system which lets them slot it into secondary screens and then use it for further usage in the following months/years. 

 

The Daily Mail do this a lot. I have one picture that has been used by the DM over 20 times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sold about 5 images to the Guardian a few weeks ago. A day later they popped up on various web news channels without a tag line. Your heart just falls, as you realise you're being taken for a very long ride. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well watch out for them. If you can track any of them down to the UK you can sue.

It's worth an image search now and again- I've just settled an infringement which started with a photocopy four years ago.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where we need a faster method of reporting. Then we get to see who licensed the image and can act faster. Longest I've waited now is nearly 6 months lol. I really don't know how you guys manage to cover as much as you do, track the usages and deal with infringements. It's not an easy job and I take my hat of to you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I (or the forum) often find images with GIS long before they've been reported. There#s no need to wait. Some pop up in a couple of days- Google does an awful lot of crawling.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a word of caution - I found seven 'infringements' from a single image on seven different commercial websites - traced back to a single website design company who had a special deal allowing them to do this for a single license fee from an Agency - the agency concerned was affronted when I suggested that this was a pretty rubbish deal as the initial (and only) fee was ridiculously small and were unhappy that I had contacted one of their clients while trying to find the source of the image. The agency would not in any case have been able to confirm the license status of the seven suspected infringements because the download was registered to the design company.

 

So - check with our own dear MS before accusing a company who might be enjoying a 'special deal'  - of infringement or tardy reporting......

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a word of caution - I found seven 'infringements' from a single image on seven different commercial websites - traced back to a single website design company who had a special deal allowing them to do this for a single license fee from an Agency - the agency concerned was affronted when I suggested that this was a pretty rubbish deal as the initial (and only) fee was ridiculously small and were unhappy that I had contacted one of their clients while trying to find the source of the image. The agency would not in any case have been able to confirm the license status of the seven suspected infringements because the download was registered to the design company.

 

So - check with our own dear MS before accusing a company who might be enjoying a 'special deal'  - of infringement or tardy reporting......

 

I think this highlights why holding off till its reported is probably and sometimes the only option. Going in all guns blazing to a company that has licensed an image might end up putting that company off using the agency again, thus meaning a drop in sales for many others.  It's a very messy business.

 

On a more general point

 

I for one have literally just stopped uploading to the news. I covered the Clutha tragedy in Glasgow for the couple of days and that was enough for me. I worked quite hard to get different angles, a different perspective and all the media were interested in was the pictures that Getty had because they had a photographer camped in the high flats across the river from the scene. Big money, big lenses, and exclusivity of the scene. Getty can wipe out anyone that illegally uses their images. However, the small guys need to do their own battling on the front line. We'll just copy this guys pics, he's only an Alamy contributor. 

 

Who uses the images legitimately is one thing, however, its when we get told about it that annoys me. If you were submitting stuff everyday, which some people are managing, then, I can only imaging it being a full time job trying to keep track of every usage of that image, and making sure it ties up when its reported. It's probably another stress fighting the case with those who have not licensed it. 

 

As I said, I applaud those who can do it. It's definitely up there with the most stressful of photography work. Sorry for the rant though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, you never go in with all guns blazing - the first approach is along the lines of a polite request to ask if they have a license for the use of the image as you have been unable to locate one - then, in my case I no longer handle the 'messy' bit myself - having found it is far more effective to use an established license compliance company - and far less stressful.

 

Don't knock the Getty guy because experience had told him that a high viewpoint was needed and he had the kit to do the job - that is what it is all about I'm afraid.

 

....and yes, it IS a time consuming job trying to keep on top of infringements - I've just finished putting ALL my publications from Alamy over nearly ten years through Google Image Search for the third time this year - each time there are new results. The next job is REX......but I'll tell you this, it pays better than normal sales even after sharing with the compliance company and you have the satisfaction of putting a company off doing it again !

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update to my original post.

The original Guardian sale was refunded and two separate sales for almost half the original appeared. 

So they must have an agreement that allows them to use an image additionally on another story at a reduced rate. The total of the two separate sales is only marginally more than the original single sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about the Guardian, they used a couple of mine mid October and promptly reported one, but the other is still outstanding. I know that the DM takes an age to pay, but my experience with the Gruniad is that they generally cough pretty quickly. Wondering if I should leave this for the moment or pursue?

Edited by Bryan

Share this post


Link to post
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

×
×
  • 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.