BILD infringements?

[Betty LaRue]

Just now, Steve F said:

 

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

You are painting tight, then. Not that tight isn’t good, it just takes so long I’m bored with it before finishing. I paint looser, more impressionistic. I want it to look like a watercolor with artist’s liberty in colors, than have it look tight & realistic. I have a camera for that.

The beauty of painting or any art is that we all have our own style & there is no wrong style, just the style that fits. I’d love to see your work, I’ll bet it’s beautiful.

[Jansos]

On 25/04/2024 at 23:46, 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.

 

All power to your elbow. Unfortunately, I have neither the talent or the patience to paint but I’m learning to blow a mean sound on the sax! 🙂

[ole999]

BILD must be completely out of gear. When I look in the magazine I see lots of pictures containing logos - also very close up. What will they do about it? Is anyone going to sue BILD? I wanted to know what the deeper meaning of the action from BILD IS? I also think it is a big mistake by Alamy to remove all the images. It’s like pleading ‘guilty’.

Edited Thursday at 07:16 by ole999

[M.Chapman]

Further interesting and concerning info on this matter in Alex's blog 

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2024/04/30/april-2024-brutally-honest-earnings-report-special-getting-sued-edition/

 

Mark

[Lynchpics]

4 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

Further interesting and concerning info on this matter in Alex's blog 

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2024/04/30/april-2024-brutally-honest-earnings-report-special-getting-sued-edition/

 

Mark

An interesting read. I popped over to read the comments on the other forum mentioned in the blog post and there is one comment there in regards to contributors and the risk of uploading content that Alamy needs to take note of. This issue could have major consequences for all of us. 

[spacecadet]

Fortunately I have a set of headphones by the PC because the silence from Alamy is deafening.

[Robert M Estall]

some German and French have attitudes about what  should be protected and not published. Most things in the UK and America are fairly trouble free although I recall some oil companies being difficult here, and in America you don't mess with the mouse!

[Betty LaRue]

On 01/05/2024 at 03:02, Jansos said:

All power to your elbow. Unfortunately, I have neither the talent or the patience to paint but I’m learning to blow a mean sound on the sax! 🙂

Love listening to the Sax!

[Phil]

6 hours ago, ole999 said:

I also think it is a big mistake by Alamy to remove all the images. It’s like pleading ‘guilty’.

 

I believe what I read was that the German court's preliminary injunction required Alamy to scan and remove any problematic images related to the legal issue.   

[spacecadet]

This is very alarming. Alamy's behaviour seems rapacious. The contributors affected may well feel like mushrooms, with the difference that they're being charged for their own manure.

From a business perspective, how can one operate when you don't know if a sudden bill is going to arrive? The paltry fees mean that no image of this type is worth the risk. The goalposts haven't so much moved as been exported.

Edited Thursday at 16:28 by spacecadet

[M.Chapman]

Yes it's a bit strange. Presumably, when Bild complained, Alamy had 2 options, out of court settlement for a fee, or contest via the courts. Given that Alamy appears to be using contributors' funds to help foot the bill, shouldn't Alamy have consulted with the affected contributors before embarking on a course of action which could end up costing contributors an unknown sum? Maybe Bild asked for a crazy settlement? Maybe Alamy are confident they can win? Who knows....

 

Mark

[spacecadet]

On reflection, this gets fishier and fishier. It's settled law that offering an image for license on a picture agency website isn't an infringement. So thousands of non-infringing images have been removed by injunction and their authors' accounts tapped by Alamy, using a dubious interpretation of the contract, to pay for an action which is a result of the risks inherent in Alamy's business model and outside the control of those contributors.

It stinks.

[John Mitchell]

Deleted by my -- answered wrong post

Edited Thursday at 18:24 by John Mitchell

[Jansos]

3 hours ago, spacecadet said:

On reflection, this gets fishier and fishier. It's settled law that offering an image for license on a picture agency website isn't an infringement. So thousands of non-infringing images have been removed by injunction and their authors' accounts tapped by Alamy, using a dubious interpretation of the contract, to pay for an action which is a result of the risks inherent in Alamy's business model and outside the control of those contributors.

It stinks.

And it is not a pleasant smell. I think more context and transparency from Alamy would be beneficial.

[Brasilnut]

4 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

Yes it's a bit strange. Presumably, when Bild complained, Alamy had 2 options, out of court settlement for a fee, or contest via the courts. Given that Alamy appears to be using contributors' funds to help foot the bill, shouldn't Alamy have consulted with the affected contributors before embarking on a course of action which could end up costing contributors an unknown sum? Maybe Bild asked for a crazy settlement? Maybe Alamy are confident they can win? Who knows....

 

Mark

 

Back in the day I worked as a paralegal for a civil litigation firm in London and got a taste of how it works.

 

The majority of Alamy's costs will undoubtely be from consulting specialised IP lawyers in Germany. The emails, meetings, negotiations will add up to considerable billable hours....right now probably more than $100,000 only from such costs.

 

Bild probably did ask for crazy amounts and Alamy are fiercely defending the claim while costs keep adding up. 

 

Why did Bild single out Alamy when there are similar images at other agencies?

 

I just did a quick search over at the Shutterstock search engine for such images and found 24. I did have some on there duplicated which were part of the claim.

 

https://www.shutterstock.com/search/bild%2c-newstand%2c-newspaper%2c-headline?release=editorial&image_type=photo

 

And 100s over at iStock.

 

https://www.istockphoto.com/en/search/2/image?alloweduse=editorialuseonly&mediatype=photography&phrase=bild%2C newspaper%2C newstand%2C street

 

Perhaps they thought Alamy had deeper pockets than the micros?

[John Mitchell]

4 hours ago, spacecadet said:

On reflection, this gets fishier and fishier. It's settled law that offering an image for license on a picture agency website isn't an infringement. So thousands of non-infringing images have been removed by injunction and their authors' accounts tapped by Alamy, using a dubious interpretation of the contract, to pay for an action which is a result of the risks inherent in Alamy's business model and outside the control of those contributors.

It stinks.

 

Good old fashioned corporate rivalry perhaps?

[Phil Robinson]

I finally got a response to my original email - after asking contributor relations to have a word and wake them up.
On 19th April I sent another and am still waiting for a reply.

It contained two questions:

 

"Given that Alamy's own submission guidelines state:

"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.
- don’t worry if you don’t have a property release as all of these images can be sold editorially."

a) do you think it is right that contributors who have followed those guidelines should be expected to contribute legal costs to a case which seems to show that such guidelines were at fault, and
b) would you recommend contributors delete all images containing a logo, no matter how insignificant in the picture, in case this happens again (a search for 'logo' currently brings up 5,419,444 results)

Looking forward to hearing from you soon"

Still awaiting a reply.

[Steve F]

Thanks for pushing this everyone. I sold a 'logo' image today....

[spacecadet]

10 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Good old fashioned corporate rivalry perhaps?

I don't know what you mean.

[M.Chapman]

3 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

I don't know what you mean.

Bild vs PA Media?

 

Mark

[spacecadet]

21 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

Bild vs PA Media?

 

Mark

OIC. Me being slow there.

[Allan Bell]

55 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

Bild vs PA Media?

 

Mark

 

As PA is now owner of Alamy. (I believe that this is the case. Correct me if I am wrong)  Then PA should paying for all this and not Alamy contributors.

 

Note: I am not affected by this as I do not have images containing Bild property.

 

Allan

 

[spacecadet]

15 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

 

As PA is now owner of Alamy. (I believe that this is the case. Correct me if I am wrong)  Then PA should paying for all this and not Alamy contributors.

 

Note: I am not affected by this as I do not have images containing Bild property.

 

Allan

 

Yes, but you may be affected by the next case, or the one after that. The point is that contributors are being tapped for something they have no control over.

There's an element of divide and rule here- the total being filleted from contributors' accounts is apparently in the tens of thousands, but no individual is going to challenge the contract in court over what can't be more than a few hundred for the worst affected. It's shabby.

[Lynchpics]

2 hours ago, Phil Robinson said:

I finally got a response to my original email - after asking contributor relations to have a word and wake them up.
On 19th April I sent another and am still waiting for a reply.

It contained two questions:

 

"Given that Alamy's own submission guidelines state:

"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.
- don’t worry if you don’t have a property release as all of these images can be sold editorially."

 

 

17 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Yes, but you may be affected by the next case, or the one after that. The point is that contributors are being tapped for something they have no control over.

There's an element of divide and rule here- the total being filleted from contributors' accounts is apparently in the tens of thousands, but no individual is going to challenge the contract in court over what can't be more than a few hundred for the worst affected. It's shabby.

 

Alamy's own submissions guidelines are clearly not correct and I find it worrying that the advice is still up because it now looks like any image even if it is marked as being editorial can face legal action from an Intellectual property holder if an image includes their Intellectual property. If that is the case and contributors end up paying the legal costs then why would anyone submit editorial images to Alamy anymore? I wonder have Alamy thought this through because it could be a Gerald Ratner moment for them. 

[M.Chapman]

5 hours ago, Phil Robinson said:

"Given that Alamy's own submission guidelines state:

"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.
- don’t worry if you don’t have a property release as all of these images can be sold editorially."

Good point. I just took a timestamped screenshot of the current Alamy Submission guidelines here

https://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/model-property-releases-stock-images/?section=7 

 

Mark