BILD infringements?

[Phil Robinson]

I still haven't had a reply to the email I sent on Tuesday.

 

I have sent another.

[NYCat]

33 minutes ago, Nick Hatton said:

You don't want a toxic air freshener 🤣

 

Maybe it freshens toxic air???? 😃

 

Paulette

[Harry Harrison]

33 minutes ago, Nick Hatton said:

You don't want a toxic air freshener 🤣

Well quite. I almost think I shouldn’t mention it as all pictures had to be removed and all mentions on here expunged. Let’s just say that they were small, they hung up, and they were shaped like t-r-e-e-s!

 

Unless I just dreamt it all up.

[Jansos]

On 17/04/2024 at 18:46, Phil Robinson said:

Still waiting for a reply to my email.

Me too! 

[John Mitchell]

Deleted. Dumb question.

 

 

Edited April 19 by John Mitchell

[Harry Harrison]

Is this just a pre-emptive attack on Alamy I wonder, another site has plenty of close-ups of the Bild logo under Editorial but not in Creative. Seems reasonable.

[Mr Standfast]

22 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Well quite. I almost think I shouldn’t mention it as all pictures had to be removed and all mentions on here expunged. Let’s just say that they were small, they hung up, and they were shaped like t-r-e-e-s!

 

Unless I just dreamt it all up.

 

 

Nope, it was real, but best not eat Gherkins before bed.

[wiskerke]

Google Vexatious or Frivolous litigation.

It's a common business tactic.

 

wim

[John Mitchell]

14 hours ago, wiskerke said:

Google Vexatious or Frivolous litigation.

It's a common business tactic.

 

wim

 

Same thought crossed my mind. A quick look at Measures shows that there is certainly no shortage of "logo" searches by clients. Surely they couldn't all be "frivolous" as well?🙃

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 20 by John Mitchell

[Harry Harrison]

10 hours ago, Mr Standfast said:

Nope, it was real

Phew, thanks, I was beginning to think that I couldn't see the wood for the, er, tiny conifers.

[Rebecca Ore]

On 17/04/2024 at 20:31, John Mitchell said:

 

I don't know anything about this kind of thing, but I'd guess it's a trademark issue. Copyright is meant to protect the original creator. No?

 

Titles can't be copyright protected.  Trademark issue is more likely.   Also, trolling for $$ from companies who expect settlements rather than the companies they're complaining to actually meeting them in court. 

[Bryan]

I have a vague memory of one of the UK high street banks objecting to photos of their buildings/logos, I seem to recall that it came to nothing, Then wasn't there  something about UK rail stations, again it faded away. Maybe in those days Alamy had a stronger sense of what was and was not legal and wasn't prepared to be bullied.

Edited April 22 by Bryan

[Brasilnut]

I've had 2 of my image flagged and will now have some 20odd quid deducted for legal expenses and perhaps more depending on the outcome of the case.

 

FML, i thought editorials (capturing real people and real things) is the way to go from now until the end of the century as opposed to creating commercial images which will soon be all but redudant due to AI, but this frivilous lawsuit just makes me question what is the upside, if any, of doing street photography.

[spacecadet]

Seems the only way to get a comment from Alamy is to say something provocative and read the explanation of why the thread has been shut down.  I'm considering it.

As explained, Alamy seems to be dipping into the accounts of contributors to pay its business expenses- contributors who have followed its guidelines.

[geogphotos]

It does seem bizarre that a newspaper publisher wants to restrict the rights around publishing photography. 

Edited April 23 by geogphotos

[John Mitchell]

On 21/04/2024 at 06:29, Bryan said:

I have a vague memory of one of the UK high street banks objecting to photos of their buildings/logos, I seem to recall that it came to nothing, Then wasn't there  something about UK rail stations, again it faded away. Maybe in those days Alamy had a stronger sense of what was and was not legal and wasn't prepared to be bullied.

 

The world has gotten more complicated, but I can't help feeling that there's more to all this than meets the eye (so to speak). It might not be just about perceived infringement. However, chances are we'll never know the whole story.

[Klinger]

On 16/04/2024 at 07:20, Jansos said:

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. 

 

Since this started and I don't see anyone else has answered, but there are plenty of other comments and conjecture about other issues and questions.

 

This fee is for the defense against the claim, not to pay a claim, not a lost case, not a determination by the courts. Alamy and all the artists involved have not been convicted of anything.

 

The removal of all images with the metadata "Bild" is, I presume, to prevent further claims and would be done, no matter what the image or contents or marking as commercial or Editorial. Everything related that has been removed, as a precaution.

 

[Jansos]

5 hours ago, Klinger said:

 

Since this started and I don't see anyone else has answered, but there are plenty of other comments and conjecture about other issues and questions.

 

This fee is for the defense against the claim, not to pay a claim, not a lost case, not a determination by the courts. Alamy and all the artists involved have not been convicted of anything.

 

The removal of all images with the metadata "Bild" is, I presume, to prevent further claims and would be done, no matter what the image or contents or marking as commercial or Editorial. Everything related that has been removed, as a precaution.

 

Thanks for that clarification. That makes more sense. :-)

[spacecadet]

10 hours ago, Jansos said:

Thanks for that clarification. That makes more sense. 🙂

More sense but no more justified.

[Allan Bell]

I would have thought that Alamy would carry insurance against this sort of thing or is that not possible.

 

Allan

 

[John Mitchell]

7 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

I would have thought that Alamy would carry insurance against this sort of thing or is that not possible.

 

Allan

 

 

Apparently we are their insurance. 😨

[Phil]

On 16/04/2024 at 21:03, Nodvandigtid said:

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.

 

In May 2021 there was considerable contributor concern expressed at the indemnify clause in the contributors contract.   A forums Search shows that thread is still available.

 

It appears that despite some assurances to the contrary ("...don’t worry if you don’t have a property release as all of these images can be sold editorially.") the fears expressed then have become reality. 

Edited April 25 by Phil
typo

[M.Chapman]

12 hours ago, Phil said:

 

Iin May 2021 there was considerable contributor concern expressed at the indemnify clause in the contributors contract.   A forums Search shows that thread is still available.

 

It appears that despite some assurances to the contrary ("...don’t worry if you don’t have a property release as all of these images can be sold editorially.") the fears expressed then have become reality. 

Yes indeed. If Alamy continue with this approach (charge up front for costs, irrespective of likely validity of the complaint) I'm concerned any images I've submitted which contain unreleased property or people are now a liability because Alamy are likely to charge me costs irrespective of whether the complaint has any merit. IMO this really isn't a viable approach for a photo library selling largely editorial images to take because contributors will simply stop submitting and/or remove the very images they need. I've no problem with paying costs once it's proven I've done something wrong, but not "up front" on a "just in case basis". I deleted a significant number of images when Clause 5.1 was introduced (images featuring unreleased artworks or focussing on individuals). Now I'm thinking of removing any images with logos in them.

 

It reminds me of the assurances we were given that Alamy wasn't going to change the commission levels...

 

Mark

Edited April 26 by M.Chapman

[Betty LaRue]

I feel Alamy might slowly go down the tubes as a result of their stance.
Oh, well. I sold two of my watercolors this afternoon for more than I get here, and 100% of it is mine. 
Of course I have materials expenses, but they aren’t as much as camera equipment, a computer to develop the pictures on & software costs. Plus fuel for one’s car. These expenses we take upon ourselves to be a stock photographer seems to be disregarded by Alamy with the pittance we get these days.

I could supply 50 watercolor artists with paints & paper for what I spent on one of my cameras.

I can make a painting in the time it takes me to develop, keyword, upload & ready 10 images for sale in AIM. Add shooting the images to that, especially if I leave the house on a shoot, and I could make two paintings.

 

[Steve F]

3 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

I feel Alamy might slowly go down the tubes as a result of their stance.
Oh, well. I sold two of my watercolors this afternoon for more than I get here, and 100% of it is mine. 
Of course I have materials expenses, but they aren’t as much as camera equipment, a computer to develop the pictures on & software costs. Plus fuel for one’s car. These expenses we take upon ourselves to be a stock photographer seems to be disregarded by Alamy with the pittance we get these days.

I could supply 50 watercolor artists with paints & paper for what I spent on one of my cameras.

I can make a painting in the time it takes me to develop, keyword, upload & ready 10 images for sale in AIM. Add shooting the images to that, especially if I leave the house on a shoot, and I could make two paintings.

 

 

Wow...!! Takes me 20-60 hours for a watercolour and 100+ hours for acrylic... 🙈