Live News unreported

[Sally]

Supposedly there is a standard infringement fee of around $18 for any U.K. newspaper unreported uses. That’s fine when the usual fee is around $4 or $5.

However, this is nonsense when the unreported used was a Live News print use, which normally come in around $100-$150 . I’ve had several of these which are not reported, I’ve alerted Alamy to them 4 months later and then they are billed for $18. So what is the incentive for a newspaper to make sure they report these uses??
I’ve sent several emails about the first one I got with no response as yet from Alamy, and now another has just come in at $18, and I know of yet another one I will have to wait 4 months to report and no doubt it too will be billed for $18. This is ridiculous.

Edited December 21, 2023 by Sally

[Paul Lawrenson]

THIS 👆

[Lynchpics]

A very timely post Sally as i have been chasing up a live news print usage and i have just received an infringement payment for $18 for that usage. Is it just the Guardian that are not paying the live news fee? It's very worrying to see that Alamy can not get full payment from a high profile customer even though there is physical proof of usage by them. 

[SteveFleming]

I have a live claim at the moment for an unreported print from the same newspaper, second time for me.  it staggers me that Alamy are only watching the bottom line of their contract with the newspaper and ignoring "we will get the best fee for you" for us the contributors.  Sales on the digital news seem to go through ok, so why is it different for the printed version?

[Kay]

I also had an $18 'infringement' payment earlier in the year relating to a newspaper live news in print use that I reported and have been emailing alamy about for many months.  In fairness I was receiving replies but only to repeatedly confirm that the system had changed and $18 was correct.   Finally, at the end of last month a licence came through for the image for $$$ but as I've not had an email from them confirming that it relates to the unreported use I am none the wiser.  I've chased them up again today for clarification. 

Edited December 22, 2023 by Kay

[Avpics]

1 hour ago, Lynchpics said:

 Is it just the Guardian.....

Mirror (still waiting after six months) and Star (finally, after about ten months). It doesn't seem fair for me to be giving these multi-million pound businesses such long credit terms.

[Sultanpepa]

Come on PAlamy get this sorted. It's unacceptable. The least that should be paid is what it would have cost to buy on the day of license, not a cut price as reward for non reporting.

[Sally]

Mine were Scottish Daily Mail and The Times, so it appears to apply across the board. To be fair, I have today received a response. Well two responses. 
The first from the contributor team simply restates that the infringement charge is $18. The second from the infringement team does acknowledge that there is an issue and promises to review it in the new year. We shall see. 

Edited December 22, 2023 by Sally

[Avpics]

15 minutes ago, Sally said:

 To be fair, I have today received a response...

That's my other gripe, the lack of information. On one previous unreported usage I gave up on ever hearing anything from Alamy and went direct to Reach to chase for payment. That resolved the issue but got me a telling off!

[Nodvandigtid]

The practice that Sally has flagged is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.

 

Imagine lifting a copy of The Guardian (for example), not paying and when the shopkeeper says you didn't pay, months later, you put down 20p to cover it.I genuinely thought that under PA ownership that Alamy would move away from its “honesty box” - (charitable) - approach over many years.

 

Many of those companies flagged are PA Media Group shareholders.

 

This has to be a priority fix for Alamy and contributors in 2024 – it's quite simple, it's either the agreed print/contract rate or £18 – whichever is the greater.

 

Keep flagging these examples up - “name and shame” in Fleet Street parlance but more importantly Alamy get it fixed for us all (including Alamy's revenue).

 

Oh and by the way, amongst PA Media Group Ltd directors is Emily Jane Anne Shelley – I think she would be made aware of this embarrassingly unacceptable situation. How on earth have Alamy got into this one??

[Simon]

Can't say I've heard of this before, it does sound shocking ! .. I have filed in the past with other agencies who primarily do "live news" kind of pictures, rather than stock. One advantage of filing with those guys is that they scan most of the papers daily and clock any print uses straight away in the mainstream publications. I'm sure as that is their major source of income that they aint going to let it slip.  The disadvantage is that pictures don't then fall into stock, and produce sales down the line. I will definitely be speaking with my contacts in the live news team in the new year to get clarification on this.

[Sally]

23 hours ago, Simon said:

Can't say I've heard of this before, it does sound shocking ! .. I have filed in the past with other agencies who primarily do "live news" kind of pictures, rather than stock. One advantage of filing with those guys is that they scan most of the papers daily and clock any print uses straight away in the mainstream publications. I'm sure as that is their major source of income that they aint going to let it slip.  The disadvantage is that pictures don't then fall into stock, and produce sales down the line. I will definitely be speaking with my contacts in the live news team in the new year to get clarification on this.

Yes, the big issue here is that it relies on the photographer to be alert and spot the print uses as they cannot be searched for online. There may be many more that haven’t been reported, the photographer hasn’t spotted and are never paid for. Alamy loses out more than us since they take their bigger share. I find it incredible that there is not a robust and reliable system for any legitimate photographic uses to be reported, whether Live News or stock. I am regularly reporting newspaper uses of stock images to Alamy that haven’t been reported too. It’s incredibly time consuming and wondering whether it’s really worth doing any more. I had three stock uses in the same article earlier this year in The Times, only one of which was reported. I had to alert Alamy to the other two, which were invoiced 3 months later at the same rates (ie $4/5). So no $18 infringement fee there and I am a few pennies better off.

 

I am aware that other agencies scan papers daily (though they don’t look at the Scottish versions of The Times/Telegraph/Daily Mail etc it seems so not much use to those of us North of the border) but again, it surely shouldn’t be up to others to find these uses, but up to those who use them to report them.

Edited December 24, 2023 by Sally

[Simon]

On 23/12/2023 at 22:13, Sally said:

Yes, the big issue here is that it relies on the photographer to be alert and spot the print uses as they cannot be searched for online. There may be many more that haven’t been reported, the photographer hasn’t spotted and are never paid for. Alamy loses out more than us since they take their bigger share. I find it incredible that there is not a robust and reliable system for any legitimate photographic uses to be reported, whether Live News or stock. I am regularly reporting newspaper uses of stock images to Alamy that haven’t been reported too. It’s incredibly time consuming and wondering whether it’s really worth doing any more. I had three stock uses in the same article earlier this year in The Times, only one of which was reported. I had to alert Alamy to the other two, which were invoiced 3 months later at the same rates (ie $4/5). So no $18 infringement fee there and I am a few pennies better off.

 

I am aware that other agencies scan papers daily (though they don’t look at the Scottish versions of The Times/Telegraph/Daily Mail etc it seems so not much use to those of us North of the border) but again, it surely shouldn’t be up to others to find these uses, but up to those who use them to report them.

 

I did get a free subscription with my local library to Pressreader, which used to give online scanned versions of many papers, including Mirror, Telegraph, but not the Times.  Now though the pages are greyed out, but just about good enough to spot any pictures.. a lot of my sales are random weather pictures - with people swimming in the sea etc. I mostprobably get around a 20% success rate on trips out / a sale, and rarely check to see if they make it online or into print,  one has to wonder how many slipped through the net.

[Sally]

I’m pleased to say that this problem appears to have been sorted and I am assured that any unreported Live News uses will be billed at an infringement rate, ie more than would have been the case if they had been reported. So if you have any images used like this that you only got $18 something for, let the infringement team know. I’ve yet to see any previously billed uses corrected, but hopefully that’s it sorted.

Edited February 6 by Sally

[Sultanpepa]

I still don't understand why image downloads from those entitled to credit are not automatically recorded. It's the IT age for goodness sake. Why are Alamy/PA so reticent in fixing this? 😠

[Sally]

I totally agree. I’m told that the system is usually reliable. My own experience is that it is totally unreliable as I constantly report images uses that the newspapers haven’t reported. There must be a better way.

[Avpics]

4 minutes ago, Sally said:

...... as I constantly report images uses that the newspapers haven’t reported. There must be a better way.

To be fare, they'll often reply that, yes, they do have a record of the download but, paraphrasing, don't hold your breath whilst we sit on reporting it as a licence for very many months whether you continue to chase us or not. I receive replies that it'll be billed at the end of the month, but my mistake is in not asking which month!

[Tony ALS]

I found an online Guardian use recently from 18/12/2023 which has not shown up in my figures yet.

How long should I wait before reporting this to Alamy?

Apologies if I've missed how to do this somewhere.

I'm aware of the infringement process but do I go down that route?

[Sally]

16 minutes ago, Tony ALS said:

I found an online Guardian use recently from 18/12/2023 which has not shown up in my figures yet.

How long should I wait before reporting this to Alamy?

Apologies if I've missed how to do this somewhere.

I'm aware of the infringement process but do I go down that route?

You have to wait 4 months to report it. Generally, newspaper uses are reported the end of the following month so you ought to have see this reported at the end of January. In my experience, if that doesn’t happen, it is missed and you have to report it yourself after 4 months. Make sure to keep a screenshot or photo of a print use. It’s a tiresome and tedious process to keep on top of things. A spreadsheet is the only way I can keep track of it all.

Edited February 7 by Sally

[M.Chapman]

On 06/02/2024 at 13:12, Sultanpepa said:

I still don't understand why image downloads from those entitled to credit are not automatically recorded. It's the IT age for goodness sake. Why are Alamy/PA so reticent in fixing this? 😠

Just because an image was downloaded doesn't mean it was actually used.... An article may have been written but never published. 

 

Mark

Edited February 8 by M.Chapman

[Sultanpepa]

8 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

Just because an image was downloaded doesn't mean it was actually used.... An article may have been written but never published. 

 

Mark

 

And that's fine. They can state that case to Alamy come payment time. But for Alamy to rely on a self reporting system is just plain crazy. Alamy should be aware of every download, when and by whom.

[spacecadet]

8 hours ago, Sultanpepa said:

 

 Alamy should be aware of every download, when and by whom.

It is aware, as you find out if you query a use- they say "there's a relevant download" or not. They just don't check on it unless you query a use.

Edited February 9 by spacecadet

[Sultanpepa]

7 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

It is aware, as you find out if you query a use- they say "there's a relevant download" or not. They just don't check on it unless you query a use.

 

Then it can't be that hard to have the system tweaked to notify non-payment after four months. Any programmer should cope with that easily.

[M.Chapman]

8 hours ago, Sultanpepa said:

Alamy should be aware of every download, when and by whom.

They are aware. Shame they don't tell us too though (views + zooms + downloads) - then we could focus our efforts more precisely when looking for usages.

 

Mark

[M.Chapman]

5 minutes ago, Sultanpepa said:

Then it can't be that hard to have the system tweaked to notify non-payment after four months.

You're missing the point. Download does not equal usage. In the case of Newspapers (and some other clients?) payments are only required for usages, not downloads (unlike Microstock).

 

Mark

Edited February 9 by M.Chapman