Received a claim from CopyrightAgent for my own photo

[ShakeIt258]

Hi all, this was a first for me: yesterday, a website of a friend, to which I provided a photo which I also sell on Alamy, received an email from CopyrightAgent demanding the payment of compensation for the use of said photo.
Since I gave him the photo myself (even before I made it available on Alamy), of course the "transaction" didn't happen through Alamy hence I can understand where the misunderstanding came from. I emailed CopyrightAgent explaining that I, the author, granted permission to said website so I'm hoping the won't bother him anymore.

 

Still, I wonder if there's a way to avoid similar situations in the future, for I sometimes give permission to use certain photos of mine which I also sell on Alamy. Since I sell them only on Alamy I always select that they are "Exclusive to Alamy", but I'm thinking that deselecting that might help with this?
I'm hoping anyone can advise me on this issue.

[spacecadet]

As I interpret the contract, if you're granting licenses of any kind, even free, outside Alamy the images are not exclusive. The only exception is your own use or your own print sales. You also run the risk of being charged a fee for Alamy's expenses for chasing non-exclusive images that are incorrectly annotated. This has happened to contributors to the forum and it's $50 and up IIRC.

[geogphotos]

My understanding is that Alamy exclusive does not mean never used or licensed previously.

 

It means only available currently for stock licensing on Alamy.

 

I have all my images on Alamy marked as non-exclusive simply so that I can control what happens to them in relation to infringements ( in other words they are not marked as Exclusive to Alamy - I have this set as my default).

Edited Wednesday at 17:45 by geogphotos

[Lynchpics]

1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

As I interpret the contract, if you're granting licenses of any kind, even free, outside Alamy the images are not exclusive. The only exception is your own use or your own print sales.

 

So if i licence an image to a newspaper / magazine etc myself, Alamy can come after me if i have marked the image as exclusive to Alamy?  Can Alamy please confirm if that is true because if that is true then i will be marking ALL my images as non exclusive. 

[Avpics]

On 15/10/2024 at 16:51, ShakeIt258 said:

Still, I wonder if there's a way to avoid similar situations in the future

A similar situation has happened to me twice with images of mine on an airshow website where I've written and illustrated the show reports. I've subsequently uploaded those images to Alamy once I discovered stock agencies. Alamy accepted and closed each case, but having asked I was told that they don't have the capability to mark the site as 'innocent' to avoid a repeat in the future.

[Lynchpics]

1 hour ago, Lynchpics said:

So if i licence an image to a newspaper / magazine etc myself, Alamy can come after me if i have marked the image as exclusive to Alamy?  Can Alamy please confirm if that is true because if that is true then i will be marking ALL my images as non exclusive. 

 

From the How to sell images on Alamy page. 

 

Selling direct

Images can be sold through your own website or directly to customers and still be marked as Exclusive on Alamy.

[ShakeIt258]

1 hour ago, Avpics said:

A similar situation has happened to me twice with images of mine on an airshow website where I've written and illustrated the show reports. I've subsequently uploaded those images to Alamy once I discovered stock agencies. Alamy accepted and closed each case, but having asked I was told that they don't have the capability to mark the site as 'innocent' to avoid a repeat in the future.

 

This is a bit annoying as I imagine it might happen in the future again.
My situation is very similar to yours, the photos are originally shot for a report of a certain type of events, and only subsequentially sold on Alamy.

I interpreted the "exclusive on Alamy" as "they are SOLD exclusively on Alamy", but thought a previously licensed (and btw, not even sold but provided for free) image wouldn't cause any issues.

I just wondering now if marking all my photos as non exclusive would prevent any future claim.

[BidC]

3 hours ago, spacecadet said:

As I interpret the contract, if you're granting licenses of any kind, even free, outside Alamy the images are not exclusive. The only exception is your own use or your own print sales. You also run the risk of being charged a fee for Alamy's expenses for chasing non-exclusive images that are incorrectly annotated. This has happened to contributors to the forum and it's $50 and up IIRC.

 

Thats a very good point - I always let Alamy know, but it never occurred to me to untick 'Exclusive' in AIM. Looks like perhaps this isn't necessary according to the except form the 'How to sell Images' description cited by 'Lynchpins'

Edited Wednesday at 20:38 by BidC

[BidC]

50 minutes ago, Lynchpics said:

 

From the How to sell images on Alamy page. 

 

Selling direct

Images can be sold through your own website or directly to customers and still be marked as Exclusive on Alamy.

 

So - this is suggesting that we have control as to whom we sell to, and whom we allow to market. If an agency other than Alamy was to licence an image, the image then must be 'non exclusive'.

[spacecadet]

13 hours ago, Lynchpics said:

 

So if i licence an image to a newspaper / magazine etc myself, Alamy can come after me if i have marked the image as exclusive to Alamy?  Can Alamy please confirm if that is true because if that is true then i will be marking ALL my images as non exclusive. 

I must be wrong about that then. You must be allowed to do that. Exclusive only prevents you using another agent.

 

 

Edited 19 hours ago by spacecadet

[ShakeIt258]

11 hours ago, BidC said:

So - this is suggesting that we have control as to whom we sell to, and whom we allow to market. If an agency other than Alamy was to licence an image, the image then must be 'non exclusive'.

I wonder if, had I marked the photos as "non exclusive" and sold them somewhere else, the people who bought them from another agency could receive compensation claims from Alamy.
It seems a very confusing and aggressive practice.

 

Perhaps, this all happened because I marked the photos as exclusive to Alamy, and I'm hoping it's the case so that I can just unmark them and avoid going through this again in the future.

[spacecadet]

9 minutes ago, ShakeIt258 said:

I wonder if, had I marked the photos as "non exclusive" and sold them somewhere else, the people who bought them from another agency could receive compensation claims from Alamy.
It seems a very confusing and aggressive practice.

 

Perhaps, this all happened because I marked the photos as exclusive to Alamy, and I'm hoping it's the case so that I can just unmark them and avoid going through this again in the future.

You're in the clear, but Alamy has said that if you mark as exclusive it can't prevent misunderstandings such as this. After Alamy broke its promise to give higher commission on exclusive images there's no incentive other than possible infringement fees.

[ShakeIt258]

1 minute ago, spacecadet said:

You're in the clear, but Alamy has said that if you mark as exclusive it can't prevent misunderstandings such as this. After Alamy broke its promise to give higher commission on exclusive images there's no incentive other than possible infringement fees.

 

So you're saying that this happen only because I marked them as exclusive and it shouldn't happen again if I unmark them?

[spacecadet]

Just now, ShakeIt258 said:

 

So you're saying that this happen only because I marked them as exclusive and it shouldn't happen again if I unmark them?

Yes.

[ShakeIt258]

Just now, spacecadet said:

Yes.

 

That's exactly what I wanted to know, thanks a lot!

[geogphotos]

1 minute ago, ShakeIt258 said:

 

So you're saying that this happen only because I marked them as exclusive and it shouldn't happen again if I unmark them?

 

 

I don't think that will completely solve your problem. None of mine are marked as Exclusive to Alamy yet I have had some infringement payments arrive that I knew nothing about.

 

When you are non-exclusive you are required to check with Alamy before chasing any infringements - they want to see if there are any downloads, or any knowledge of the user.

 

So it appears that the contributor is contractually obliged to check with Alamy but that does not apply the other way around.  

[spacecadet]

My second best ever 'licence' was an infringement though, so bear in mind you would lose these.

[Avpics]

6 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

My second best ever 'licence' was an infringement though, so bear in mind you would lose these.

I'm on track to receive my largest ever cleared payment from Alamy on [sic] 1 November due in part to five very nice infringement incomes. I'd say that it's worth stating that images are exclusive with Alamy unless they are actually available for licencing elsewhere rather that just trying to save complications with images published online via other methods.

[Matt Ashmore]

16 hours ago, spacecadet said:

As I interpret the contract, if you're granting licenses of any kind, even free, outside Alamy the images are not exclusive. The only exception is your own use or your own print sales. You also run the risk of being charged a fee for Alamy's expenses for chasing non-exclusive images that are incorrectly annotated. This has happened to contributors to the forum and it's $50 and up IIRC.

 

I got hit by $150 a couple of months ago.

[Brasilnut]

I had a similar situation happen to me within the past week for a blog post where I used a non-exclusive RF image belonging to a friend with his consent.

 

Copytrack went after me/my blog demanding a ridiculous $383 for me to purchase a license.

 

Here's the blog post with the full story - From Interview Series to Legal Battle: YAY Images and Copytrack Come After the Brutally Honest Blog

 

I'm really concerned with agencies hiring these unprofessional and aggressive collection agencies.

Edited 17 hours ago by Brasilnut

[Matt Ashmore]

11 minutes ago, Brasilnut said:

 

I'm really concerned with agencies hiring these unprofessional and aggressive collection agencies.

 

On the flip side though, people on the forum have complained about Alamy not doing enough to pursue stolen images in the past... can't really have it both ways...

But if the photographer has given permission for the images to be used, then there should be a relatively simple process for the photographer to inform Alamy/the collection agency of this when such a query occurs.

Edited 17 hours ago by Matt Ashmore

[ShakeIt258]

3 minutes ago, Matt Ashmore said:

 

On the flip side though, people on the forum have complained about Alamy not doing enough to pursue stolen images in the past... can't really have it both ways...

But if the photographer has given permission for the images to be used, then there should be a relatively simple process for the photographer to inform Alamy/thee collection agency of this when such a query occurs.

 

Exactly, it would save time and resources for these collection agencies, and the "scare" to those receiving these compensation claims.

Edited 17 hours ago by ShakeIt258

[Brasilnut]

2 minutes ago, Matt Ashmore said:

 

On the flip side though, people on the forum have complained about Alamy not doing enough to pursue stolen images in the past... can't really have it both ways...

But if the photographer has given permission for the images to be used, then there should be a relatively simple process for the photographer to inform Alamy/thee collection agency of this when such a query occurs.

 

I agree with you and copyright theft is a real problem nowadays. What you have suggested would work well if Alamy were an exclusive agency. I'm sure many on here, including myself, send the same image to multiple agencies. 

 

Therefore, it's unfortunate that Copytrack and others are exploiting the confusing nature of non-exclusive RF images and going after clients who legally purchased licenses at another agency (that was also at their client's agency), sometimes years ago leading to unecessary stress and administration. 

[Matt Ashmore]

1 minute ago, Brasilnut said:

 

I agree with you and copyright theft is a real problem nowadays. What you have suggested would work well if Alamy were an exclusive agency. I'm sure many on here, including myself, send the same image to multiple agencies. 

 

Therefore, it's unfortunate that Copytrack and others are exploiting the confusing nature of non-exclusive RF images and going after clients who legally purchased licenses at another agency (that was also at their client's agency), sometimes years ago leading to unecessary stress and administration. 

 

As I understand it, if you tick the 'Exclusive to Alamy' box in AIM ... then you are telling Alamy that for that image they ARE an exclusive agency and so they can legitimately send agencies like Copytrack to claim monies for infringements. Where this all falls apart though is, as stated further up in this thread is that the contract says:

 

Selling direct

Images can be sold through your own website or directly to customers and still be marked as Exclusive on Alamy.

.. which kind of says that they aren't exclusive... and hence problems can arise.

[Michael Ventura]

I love that Alamy has been tracking down infringements. I am exclusive, for stock, with Alamy, but some of my photos are used by clients before going into my collection at Alamy.  I had one client complain that they were be badgered by Alamy or maybe Copytrack, about my photos on their website.  So, I only wish they would I would get a quick email to check first if the use was legitimately acquired from me. 

[Matt Ashmore]

3 minutes ago, Michael Ventura said:

I love that Alamy has been tracking down infringements. I am exclusive, for stock, with Alamy, but some of my photos are used by clients before going into my collection at Alamy.  I had one client complain that they were be badgered by Alamy or maybe Copytrack, about my photos on their website.  So, I only wish they would I would get a quick email to check first if the use was legitimately acquired from me. 

 I agree.. this should probably be the process... Alamy present a list of potential infringements to the contributor to ask if they did supply the photo directly before going off to pursue the infringer if the contributor confirms that the image(s) are infringements.