colin paterson Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Hi All. Not in the scheme but just got a sale through today. When I search Google images it shows as last updated in Oct. 2008. That was a LONG time ago! Am I doing something wrong ??? Regards, Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vpics Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Not all sales to newspapers are via the newspaper scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin paterson Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share Posted April 25, 2014 I know this vpics as I am NOT in the scheme !! However is 6 years ok. for reporting or am I doing something wrong on Google images ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I don't know where your date comes from. I don't see one in image search, just on the webpage with the images. Are you suggesting that the sale took 6 years to report? Show us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Yup, I'm with Mark: totally confused as to what you are saying! What date, where? Give us a link to show what you mean, please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin paterson Posted April 26, 2014 Author Share Posted April 26, 2014 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-616102/Six-things--Glasgow.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Crean Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Someone reported recently that sales were being reported from older dates due to Alamy auditing some customers and discovering old unreported uses. Could this be one of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famousbelgian Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Yep, I've had a few old sales reported recently, it looks like Alamy are systematically auditing customers (at long last!) and finding quite a few instances where "self-reporting" has not worked ...... Marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Yep, I've had a few old sales reported recently, it looks like Alamy are systematically auditing customers (at long last!) and finding quite a few instances where "self-reporting" has not worked ...... Marc I hope that means they will taking a tougher line going forward. I bet they are not charging the higher rate that applied at time of publication or a penalty for having the use of our money for several years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-616102/Six-things--Glasgow.html Thank you. All clear now. Wow. Quite. 2008?! Yep, I've had a few old sales reported recently, it looks like Alamy are systematically auditing customers (at long last!) and finding quite a few instances where "self-reporting" has not worked ...... Marc Yes, it would appear that this is the case - and not before time. I hope that means they will taking a tougher line going forward. I bet they are not charging the higher rate that applied at time of publication or a penalty for having the use of our money for several years. I would hope that, yes they are planning on toughening up rules. I imagine that they are likely offering some kind of amnesty in return for the acceptance that this will not apply in the future - at least this would seem to be the sensible line to take, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Todd Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Yep, I've had a few old sales reported recently, it looks like Alamy are systematically auditing customers (at long last!) and finding quite a few instances where "self-reporting" has not worked ...... Marc I hope that means they will taking a tougher line going forward. I bet they are not charging the higher rate that applied at time of publication or a penalty for having the use of our money for several years. Or paying the photographer at the 60/40 split or whatever was in force at the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.