Alamy legal complaint

[Phil]

Of course many contributors may realize that we signed up for this exposure, but some may not.

 

Scroll down to "Alamy legal complaint!"

 

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2023/01/31/january-2023-brutally-honest-earnings-report/

 

[John Mitchell]

Thanks for posting this, Phil. Very disturbing. It looks as if it might be time to do some more proactive deleting... 😬

[John Mitchell]

P.S. Hopefully, rather than deleting this thread, Alamy will give us some guidance regarding what types of images we should be deleting in light of this development.

[Phil]

1 hour ago, John Mitchell said:

P.S. Hopefully, rather than deleting this thread, Alamy will give us some guidance regarding what types of images we should be deleting in light of this development.

 

If I recall correctly there was considerable discussion on the forums here about this provision when the contributor agreement was last changed or thereabouts.

 

Gives one pause to consider their portfolios.

[Mr Standfast]

Same issue as this thread.

 

 

[John Mitchell]

13 minutes ago, Mr Standfast said:

Same issue as this thread.

 

 

 

Thanks, somehow I missed that. 

[Cal]

Typical heavy handedness by someone/an organisation who, I suspect is either unaware of or doesn't care about laws surrounding photography in public places etc. Alamy has of course reacted out of self preservation. I'd put money on it not even getting to court, or being immediately thrown out if it did. Still, no-one wants to go through that.

 

Personally I mark almost everything I upload as editorial, except for very generic scenes/unrecognisable locations. There are certain things I just won't shoot and upload, precisely because the returns do not even nearly warrant taking the risk. 

 

Unfortunately a huge amount of people have a really poor understanding of photography laws, seemingly thinking the only legal place to use a camera is in one's front living room with the curtains closed.

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

If I recall correctly there was considerable discussion on the forums here about this provision when the contributor agreement was last changed or thereabouts.

 

Gives one pause to consider their portfolios.

 

For sure, I deleted quite a lot of images when the new contract appeared. Now I've begun a new cull.

 

Don't need any legal headaches...🤕

[Phillip]

5 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

Thanks for posting this, Phil. Very disturbing. It looks as if it might be time to do some more proactive deleting... 😬

How can I delete images, I have tried to find a way to delete images that were rejected, but can't seem to be able to find it

 

[gvallee]

12 minutes ago, Phillip said:

How can I delete images, I have tried to find a way to delete images that were rejected, but can't seem to be able to find it

 

 

You cannot delete a failed submission but can filter it out (Quality control filter, Passed).

 

To delete an image for sale, go to the Image Manager, select the image, go to the optional tab, scroll down, there is a delete icon at the bottom.

 

Edited February 8, 2023 by gvallee

[Mr Standfast]

9 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Thanks, somehow I missed that. 

Easy done 👍

[Cal]

9 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

For sure, I deleted quite a lot of images when the new contract appeared. Now I've begun a new cull.

 

Don't need any legal headaches...🤕

 

Out of interest, what's getting the cut? Checked my port and have no photos that I can find of newspapers on stands, phew. But where does one draw the line. People on the street, politicians, logos on buildings? When does one ask "what is the point?"

Edit: Just thought I'd add, something I've never noticed before. I've dug through my port and changed a few more images to editorial only. Noticed that the change happens immediately on the customer side. I'm sure that previously required a database update like all the other changes. I guess it's nice knowing one doesn't have to be potentially "vulnerable" for another 24+ hours in that aspect, then. Now if only deletions could be immediate, like they are in other places. 🤔

Edited February 8, 2023 by Cal

[CarloBo]

They wouldn't  have a leg to stand on in a court case, yet they  send  threatening email. A nonsense.

[John Mitchell]

8 hours ago, Cal said:

 

Out of interest, what's getting the cut? Checked my port and have no photos that I can find of newspapers on stands, phew. But where does one draw the line. People on the street, politicians, logos on buildings? When does one ask "what is the point?"

Edit: Just thought I'd add, something I've never noticed before. I've dug through my port and changed a few more images to editorial only. Noticed that the change happens immediately on the customer side. I'm sure that previously required a database update like all the other changes. I guess it's nice knowing one doesn't have to be potentially "vulnerable" for another 24+ hours in that aspect, then. Now if only deletions could be immediate, like they are in other places. 🤔

 

I've started by deleting images of newspapers, magazines and books on stands. Several have licensed at good prices, but I'm not in the mood for possible legal hassles in the future. Am wondering if I shouldn't delete logos next. 

[Phil]

31 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

IAm wondering if I shouldn't delete logos next. 

 

As long as we tick "Sell for editorial only" in AIM I've assumed logos, pictures, content, rtc. that could be copyrighted would be ok..   Maybe not. 

 

Apparently newspaper/magazine stands are the focus of the current legal issue - assume because their front pages contain copyrighted content/pictures.

 

It this is in essence the case - why would photos of them not be ok if marked as "editorial":?  

 

Some clarity from Alamy is needed regarding the situation.

 

 

 

[AlanW]

1 hour ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I've started by deleting images of newspapers, magazines and books on stands. Several have licensed at good prices, but I'm not in the mood for possible legal hassles in the future. Am wondering if I shouldn't delete logos next. 

Same here, not worth the hassle and with falling prices it'll be no great loss!

[John Mitchell]

52 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

As long as we tick "Sell for editorial only" in AIM I've assumed logos, pictures, content, rtc. that could be copyrighted would be ok..   Maybe not. 

 

Apparently newspaper/magazine stands are the focus of the current legal issue - assume because their front pages contain copyrighted content/pictures.

 

It this is in essence the case - why would photos of them not be ok if marked as "editorial":?  

 

Some clarity from Alamy is needed regarding the situation.

 

 

 

 

Yes, that's my impression -- copyrighted images on the front page or cover seem to be the problem. Alamy chases possible infringements, so I guess what goes around comes around as they say. I usually tick "editorial use only" for logos, but I guess that wouldn't necessarily stop some parties from getting "ticked off" and complaining. It's a bit of a quandary...😕

[John Mitchell]

6 minutes ago, AlanW said:

Same here, not worth the hassle and with falling prices it'll be no great loss!

 

Interestingly, a number of years ago, Alamy contacted me and asked me if I would mind lifting the "editorial use only" restriction on a photo of a logo to accommodate a possible buyer. I agreed, but the client never licensed the image.

[AlanW]

23 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Interestingly, a number of years ago, Alamy contacted me and asked me if I would mind lifting the "editorial use only" restriction on a photo of a logo to accommodate a possible buyer. I agreed, but the client never licensed the image.

Yes, I've had a similar experience 2 or 3 times and like you no sale came from any of them.

[Brasilnut]

On 07/02/2023 at 20:18, Phil said:

Of course many contributors may realize that we signed up for this exposure, but some may not.

 

Scroll down to "Alamy legal complaint!"

 

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2023/01/31/january-2023-brutally-honest-earnings-report/

 

 

Thanks for sharing the link.

 

I'll update on this thread and on my blog if/when I receive any news on this frivolous complaint. 

[Sally]

Interesting. So what would the position be for image 2K02K80, for example? Marked as editorial only, property Yes.

 

[Bryan]

Has anyone here actually been sued or had to pay damages as a result of a photo upload? I've been asked to remove images a few times, which I have generally done, one of a public artwork, others taken in/on private property, but no further action ensued.

[Doc]

13 hours ago, Bryan said:

Has anyone here actually been sued or had to pay damages as a result of a photo upload? I've been asked to remove images a few times, which I have generally done, one of a public artwork, others taken in/on private property, but no further action ensued.

No. (Touch wood!)

 

Kumar

 

[John Mitchell]

Fortunately, I've never had to deal with the s-word either. I have had people contact me through my own website with complaints. Usually, I don't respond. I just remove the offending images, and I never hear from them again.

[Charles Stirling]

I took some on an inaugural airline flight, asked by cabin crew to take them, they posed for many then when put up they complained and Alamy asked to take them down. Wasn't the airline by the individuals who wanted the photos taken that wanted them removed after I sent them complimentary copies.