BILD infringements?

[Jansos]

Has anyone else had notification today that BILD newspaper have filed proceedings against Alamy for infringement of its intellectual property rights? I have just received a demand for payment from Alamy to recover the costs of an alleged infringement. I have written to Alamy to clarify the grounds on which BILD are claiming an infringement. 

[Phil Robinson]

Yes, I've had the same. There were some full frame straight copies of the Bild Zeitung logo on the site which I can understand the publishers objecting to. My images contain small reproductions of several newspaper logos on a newspaper stand in Munich - very much 'in context'. Someone more cynical than myself might suspect that the legal team simply did a keyword search for 'Bild' and included everything that came up in the legal action without checking to see whether each image could reasonably considered an infringement.
It's a good thing I'm not that cynical.

[Jansos]

35 minutes ago, Phil Robinson said:

Yes, I've had the same. There were some full frame straight copies of the Bild Zeitung logo on the site which I can understand the publishers objecting to. My images contain small reproductions of several newspaper logos on a newspaper stand in Munich - very much 'in context'. Someone more cynical than myself might suspect that the legal team simply did a keyword search for 'Bild' and included everything that came up in the legal action without checking to see whether each image could reasonably considered an infringement.
It's a good thing I'm not that cynical.

I’ve asked Alamy to clarify which images BILD are claiming against. If they are the same images originally referenced, the photos were of a newspaper stand with a BILD newspaper on it, amongst quite a few others. The photo was taken outside a shop and on a public throughway. I can see no IPR infringement whatsoever but am willing to be corrected.

Edited April 16 by Jansos
Typo

[spacecadet]

Very surprised that Alamy is trying to extract payment for images that a contributor wasn't warned about. I'd be surprised if it were enforceable in contract- but of course it could cost a lot to find out.

Most worrying- we must all have in context logos.. They're not infringements by any standard, but presumably Alamy is trying to defray its legal costs.

[Lynchpics]

As Phil said i can understand them going after images that use a logo full frame and not in context etc. If an image only has the logo as part of the image and are marked as editorial then this could mean that any image with a logo in it is fair game from now on, even news images. It might be time to get rid of any image with logo's etc in them. It is clearly risky to upload them because you may end up having to pay $$. Contributors having to accept licence fee % cuts and now potential legal fees is making uploading look less and less attractive. 

 

Edited April 16 by Lynchpics

[Betty LaRue]

Is this a UK thing?

[Matt Ashmore]

12 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

Is this a UK thing?

 

Bild is a German newspaper I believe.

[Phil Robinson]

Alamy's own submission guidelines.:

"If there’s recognisable property in your image you’ll need a property release in order to sell for commercial use.

Property is not just limited to buildings, it’s anything identifiable that’s copyrighted/trademarked e.g. logos and branded items. This release must be signed by the property or brand owner.
Remember what we said earlier; don’t worry if you don’t have a property release as all of these images can be sold editorially."

[Jansos]

24 minutes ago, Phil Robinson said:

Alamy's own submission guidelines.:

"If there’s recognisable property in your image you’ll need a property release in order to sell for commercial use.

Property is not just limited to buildings, it’s anything identifiable that’s copyrighted/trademarked e.g. logos and branded items. This release must be signed by the property or brand owner.
Remember what we said earlier; don’t worry if you don’t have a property release as all of these images can be sold editorially."

All of the images in question were marked as editorial and were variations of this, taken from different angles. I really can't see where the infringement of IPR is.

 

[Phil Robinson]

13 minutes ago, Jansos said:

All of the images in question were marked as editorial and were variations of this, taken from different angles. I really can't see where the infringement of IPR is.

 

No. They clearly didn't assess 6000 images to see whether or not there was an infringement case, they simply did a sweep of the keyword Bild and decided all the photographers concerned should contribute to the legal costs whether or not there was any case for liability.
Springer (the publishers) will have complained about certain images (not 6000) and Alamy decided to removed everything, in their own words, 'as a precaution'. That was their decision but it does not form the basis of a legal argument to include uninvolved photographers in the payment of costs.
As I said above, there used to be some straightforward full-frame images of just the Bild logo which the publisher would rightly have taken exception to, but unless all 6000 images were included in the original infringement complaint, there is no basis to penalise photographers of images that do not infringe copyright.

Edited April 16 by Phil Robinson

[spacecadet]

Assuming your images were submitted according to Alamy's guidelines my view would be that they can whistle for taxation of your account to pay their legal fees for an unsettled case.

I would not be standing for this. If all is as you say, and I don't doubt it, if Alamy take your money I would be knocking on the door of the small claims court.

[Lynchpics]

2 hours ago, Phil Robinson said:

Alamy's own submission guidelines.:

"If there’s recognisable property in your image you’ll need a property release in order to sell for commercial use.

Property is not just limited to buildings, it’s anything identifiable that’s copyrighted/trademarked e.g. logos and branded items. This release must be signed by the property or brand owner.
Remember what we said earlier; don’t worry if you don’t have a property release as all of these images can be sold editorially."

Well looking at the comments here and on other forums where people are also talking about this case it looks like clicking the editorial box will not prevent you from having to cough up $$. 

[Phil Robinson]

Still waiting for an answer to my email.

[Nodvandigtid]

Updated post - based on information in subsequent post by mfsavage - now added at 22.03 BST

Edited April 16 by Nodvandigtid
Additional information

[Lynchpics]

If contributors are following the rules, clicking the editorial box and not uploading full frame images of logo's / 'property' in isolation and are still liable for infringement of  intellectual property right claims then Alamy will end up with no one uploading images to them, it's not worth the risk especially for the low fees and the reduction in our %. 

Edited April 16 by Lynchpics

[Phil Robinson]

39 minutes ago, Nodvandigtid said:

My quick reading of the contract leads me to believe that unless the contributors images were the cause of the action that Bild/Springer has brought, then contractually they are not involved in such action and do not have to indemnify/defend Alamy – the hold-harmless agreement does not come into play.

My point exactly.
Still waiting for a reply to my email.

[mfsavage]

I also received the email and the one image I had removed featured a Bild newspaper stand sitting on the pavement. 

 

Several comments are concerned that Alamy have indiscrimiately removed images but the email makes it clear that those images removed were in connection to the provisions within the case.  In other words, Alamy are defending their (our?) position but... "Alamy have been required to sweep for and remove images from your collection featuring the intellectual property".  

 

No idea if that means we get the money back if the case is won by Alamy and the loser has to pay all legal fees.

 

[Phil Robinson]

9 hours ago, mfsavage said:

the email makes it clear that those images removed were in connection to the provisions within the case. 

 

There are over 6000 images involved. 
Did 

a) Bild state that all those 6000 images infringed their copyright?

or

b) Alamy check all 6000 images to see if they could be considered to infringe copyright?

Edited April 17 by Phil Robinson

[Nodvandigtid]

21 minutes ago, mfsavage said:

I also received the email and the one image I had removed featured a Bild newspaper stand sitting on the pavement. 

 

Several comments are concerned that Alamy have indiscrimiately removed images but the email makes it clear that those images removed were in connection to the provisions within the case.  In other words, Alamy are defending their (our?) position but... "Alamy have been required to sweep for and remove images from your collection featuring the intellectual property".  

 

No idea if that means we get the money back if the case is won by Alamy and the loser has to pay all legal fees.

 

Interesting information - I wonder if the message evolved during the day or was the same consistent one throughout?

Based on this latest update all I can re-iterate is 

 

 

"My quick reading of the contract leads me to believe that unless the contributors images were the cause of the action that Bild/Springer has brought, then contractually they are not involved in such action and do not have to indemnify/defend Alamy – the hold-harmless agreement does not come into play.

That would seem logical and fair.

 

Set out below are the relevant contract clauses as I see them – I have added the bold font in on the wording.

 

5. Indemnities

• 5.1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to: (i) any claim that the Content or Metadata infringes any third party’s copyright or any other intellectual property right (ii) any breach of your representations, obligations and warranties under this Contract or the System. This clause will remain in force after the termination of this Contract.

 

“Content”

• means any digitised photograph, footage, illustration, other media of whatever nature which you submit to Alamy at any time during the term of this Contract.

 

"Metadata"

• means Content information supplied to Alamy by the Contributor by any means, including but not limited to licence types, licence restrictions, Releases information, captions, keywords, descriptions, date taken, location and Pseudonyms."

 

[Jansos]

2 hours ago, Lynchpics said:

If contributors are following the rules, clicking the editorial box and not uploading full frame images of logo's / 'property' in isolation and are still liable for infringement of  intellectual property right claims then Alamy will end up with no one uploading images to them, it's not worth the risk especially for the low fees and the reduction in our %. 

Absolutely, not worth the hassle and the cost if this is to be the new approach.

[Philip Game]

Correction to my post last night under 'Infringement thoughts': in my case also, some of the images in question were simply depicting newspapers displayed for sale on a rack or stand.

[John Mitchell]

What are the takeaways from all this? Should we be deleting all images containing logos?

 

What exactly is a "full frame image of a logo"?

 

Confused...😕

 

P.S Come to think of it, what makes something a "logo"? For instance could even signs showing the name of a store, restaurant, or other types of businesses be considered types of logos?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 17 by John Mitchell

[John Mitchell]

13 hours ago, Phil Robinson said:

Alamy's own submission guidelines.:

"If there’s recognisable property in your image you’ll need a property release in order to sell for commercial use.

Property is not just limited to buildings, it’s anything identifiable that’s copyrighted/trademarked e.g. logos and branded items. This release must be signed by the property or brand owner.
Remember what we said earlier; don’t worry if you don’t have a property release as all of these images can be sold editorially."

 

EXACTLY! I've even been asked by Alamy if I would drop the 'for editorial use only' restriction on an image of this type at the request of a potential buyer. I complied, and the customer never licensed it

Edited April 17 by John Mitchell

[geogphotos]

32 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

EXACTLY! I've even been asked by Alamy if I would drop the 'for editorial use only' restriction on an image of this type at the request of a potential buyer. I complied, and the customer never licensed it

 

 

Same here:  'Client wants to use one of your images for a fee of $5000. Will you drop your restriction'. I did, they disn't!

 

I suggested that it might be better to lower expectations and report that a customer is considering an image.

 

Alamy does seem to want it both ways on restrictions.

[John Mitchell]

On 16/04/2024 at 07:57, Lynchpics said:

As Phil said i can understand them going after images that use a logo full frame and not in context etc. If an image only has the logo as part of the image and are marked as editorial then this could mean that any image with a logo in it is fair game from now on, even news images. It might be time to get rid of any image with logo's etc in them. It is clearly risky to upload them because you may end up having to pay $$. Contributors having to accept licence fee % cuts and now potential legal fees is making uploading look less and less attractive. 

 

 

Agreed, I don't have that many offenders, but it's definitely time for a logo purge. It would be helpful if Alamy could chime in and explain what their current policy is as it appears to have changed -- i.e. marking these types of images for editorial use only is no longer sufficient.