BILD infringements?

[John Mitchell]

2 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

I assume so, John, but I really don’t know.  I have a bunch of those. Some of them licensed within days-couple of weeks after uploading. It would hurt to delete them. Some are zoomed in of the name only. I have those & some of the pole signs by the street.

Like this:

 

I would assume so too but am not sure. My signs don't do very well, plus I find photographing them boring. Consequently, I've started deleting some (along with isolated logos) that I thought might (?) cause a problem in the future. A lot of contributors and images are involved in the current lawsuit, so the individual shares of the legal fees are small. However, my concern is that if another suit comes along and very few images/contributors are hit, things could get very expensive. There is also no guarantee that Alamy will reward (as Jeff suggested) or even refund contributors if the other party loses and has to pay the legal bills.

 

 

Edited May 6 by John Mitchell

[Betty LaRue]

8 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I would assume so too but am not sure. My signs don't do very well, plus I find photographing them boring. Consequently, I've started deleting some (along with isolated logos) that I thought might (?) cause a problem in the future. A lot of contributors and images are involved in the current lawsuit, so the individual shares of the legal fees are small. However, my concern is that if another suit comes along and very few images/contributors are hit, things could get very expensive. There is also no guarantee that Alamy will reward (as Jeff suggested) or even refund contributors if the other party loses and has to pay the legal bills.

 

 

John, if I didn’t photograph anything boring, I’d have a very small portfolio. 😆 It would only have birds, butterflies, bees, flowers & family. Maybe a few other animals.

[spacecadet]

On 05/05/2024 at 14:20, MarkK said:

I presume many of my photos are being sold for more then what Alamy is reporting to me.

Regardless of Alamy's poor treatment of contributors, should you be making what sounds like an allegation of fraud? Whatever Alamy is doing I am sure it is not breaking the law.

[John Mitchell]

4 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

John, if I didn’t photograph anything boring, I’d have a very small portfolio. 😆 It would only have birds, butterflies, bees, flowers & family. Maybe a few other animals.

 

Yes, boring sells, but not as well as it used to. Also, not sure it's worth the risk any longer.

The birds and the bees sound good to me.

🐝🐦

[Rebecca Ore]

On 04/05/2024 at 15:39, wiskerke said:

Following US private-equity firm KKR's majority-stake acquisition in 2020,

 

That seems a problem.  Any revenue stream matters until it doesn't.   KKR doesn't mention that it has newspaper holdings on its website.

 

In the rural Virginia county I used to live in, the founder of MicroMetrics sold the company to a Canadian firm who proceeded to lay off most of the work force about ten years ago.  Can't find recent listing for it, so what looks like what happened was the Canadians bought the company to shut down a competitor and acquire its IP.   This looks like a very deep pocket company trying to extract what it can from what it bought.

[wiskerke]

5 hours ago, Rebecca Ore said:

 

That seems a problem.  Any revenue stream matters until it doesn't.   KKR doesn't mention that it has newspaper holdings on its website.

 

In the rural Virginia county I used to live in, the founder of MicroMetrics sold the company to a Canadian firm who proceeded to lay off most of the work force about ten years ago.  Can't find recent listing for it, so what looks like what happened was the Canadians bought the company to shut down a competitor and acquire its IP.   This looks like a very deep pocket company trying to extract what it can from what it bought.

Long long ago when I was a student, I worked briefly for a tiny company that did that to an old reputable business with 150 people working there in two factories. The company was 2 or 3 people plus some interns. The main reason was the reputable brand name. All the goods were imported from then on and re-packaged.

 

wim

[geogphotos]

I am not directly involved but, of course, indiectly we are all involved. I'm sure that there valid criticisms to make about Alamy.

 

But far more important is what is at stake and over that we should all be behind Alamy in this legal challenge.

 

There are a few wild and reckless allegations being made that help nobody apart from those out to damage Alamy.

Edited May 7 by geogphotos

[M.Chapman]

On 07/05/2024 at 07:14, geogphotos said:

But far more important is what is at stake and over that we should all be behind Alamy in this legal challenge.

 

Yes, I wonder if Alamy could have "crowd sourced" voluntary donations from a significant number of contributors as it's in all our interests to protect the rights of editorial photography. I'd like to think this idea would have been received more positively than the compulsory deductions Alamy has made from the accounts of a limited number of contributors, as if they have done something wrong. GOOD COMMUNICATION and a more collaborative approach would be helpful.

 

Mark

Edited May 8 by M.Chapman

[BobD]

An interesting thread.

I am not involved but would be interested to know if Alamy win the case and are awarded costs, do they intend to refund the contributors they have deducted from.

[Jansos]

14 hours ago, geogphotos said:

I am not directly involved but, of course, indiectly we are all involved. I'm sure that there valid criticisms to make about Alamy.

 

But far more important is what is at stake and over that we should all be behind Alamy in this legal challenge.

 

There are a few wild and reckless allegations being made that help nobody apart from those out to damage Alamy.

The whole concept of editorial stock is under threat, and I’m glad that Alamy have decided to challenge BILD on this but am not over the moon about the approach they have taken; it seems manifestly unfair to seek redress from contributors who were simply abiding by Alamy’s stated rules. Nonetheless, other agencies must also be worried, especially if Alamy is found to be in breach of IPR, then they will be next.  

[Phil Robinson]

On 03/05/2024 at 09:24, 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."

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.

 

Still awaiting a reply....

[geogphotos]

8 hours ago, Jansos said:

The whole concept of editorial stock is under threat, and I’m glad that Alamy have decided to challenge BILD on this but am not over the moon about the approach they have taken; it seems manifestly unfair to seek redress from contributors who were simply abiding by Alamy’s stated rules. Nonetheless, other agencies must also be worried, especially if Alamy is found to be in breach of IPR, then they will be next.  

 

I understand your concern but what is decided in a German court will not apply globally.

[spacecadet]

3 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

I understand your concern but what is decided in a German court will not apply globally.

The concern here is not legal precedent but the liability of contributors. Alamy seems to have decided that it can tax contributors who have followed its rules. If those rules do not, in fact, protect us, then far more images containing IP will be in the frame. I have hundreds and hundreds, uploaded in good faith- not something which Alamy appears to be showing at the moment.

Incidentally, alamy.com is down at present.

Edited May 8 by spacecadet

[geogphotos]

2 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

The concern here is not legal precedent but the liability of contributors. Alamy seems to have decided that it can tax contributors who have followed its rules. If those rules do not, in fact, protect us, then far more images containing IP will be in the frame. I have hundreds and hundreds, uploaded in good faith- not something which Alamy appears to be showing at the moment.

Incidentally, alamy.com is down at present.

 

 

Maybe so but that was not the point I was responding to.  

 

 

[Phil Robinson]

Still awaiting a response to my email sent on 19th April and again 3rd May.....