How is this for sale on Alamy?

[woody 29]

I noticed the banner Beatles image on the front page.  As far as I can see it's the cover of Beatles For Sale album but reversed left to right - surely this can't be right?

[wiskerke 2,602]

http://www.marka.it

http://www.markacollection.it

 

wim

[woody 29]

So is Marka the photographer or otherwise holder of the copyright or is ownership of copyright not necessary?

[wiskerke 2,602]

Marka e' un'agenzia fotografica con sede a Milano e dagli anni '70 propone immagini per tutte le esigenze editoriali e di comunicazione: advertising, design & corporate.

 

The front page looks remarkably like Alamy's.

They reperesent an enormous list of other agencies. Again a lot like Alamy. If you look at their collection on Alamy (100.000+), there are a many different photographers or brands as a pseudo. Within a couple of pages I have counted some 20 different ones. Mostly with archival stuff, but there are the odd half naked ladies and lovely villages as well.

 

Let's hope all their contributors have their copyrights sorted.

My guess is that at this stage, Alamy is not checking agencies for rights violation. Maybe even not any contributor. Just when there is a complaint they kick you out because of violation of your contract. (From the old forum I remember at least one such case. It may have been on the blog as well.)

 

wim

[spacecadet 2,476]

I can't imagine what rights Marka might own over it. Robert Freeman is still living and that looks like a scan of the album cover.

[woody 29]

As Wim said it's pretty inconceivable that Alamy would have it for sale if not kosher and, even more so, have it on the front page.  It's almost as inconceivable that such an iconic image is available on a stock site although I suppose Mr Freeman might have an arrangement with Marka.  But why reverse the image?

[Linda 352]

deleted

Edited September 14, 2015 by Linda

[Michael Ventura 3,854]

Is it possible that the copyright expired and was not renewed?

Edited August 19, 2014 by Michael Ventura

[spacecadet 2,476]

UK copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the photographer. Even in 1964 it was 50 and as I said he's still alive.

[Martin P Wilson 1,131]

Is it possible that the copyright expired and was not renewed?

 

Copyright doesn't expire or need renewing, at least in the UK (and I believe the EU) and I am pretty sure it is the same in the USA and all Berne Convention signatory countries. It simply lasts until 70 years after the photographer artist/ writer's's death.

[Linda 352]

 

I just noticed my photos on the marka.it site put there yet by another agency Immagine.

I don't submit to Immagine but I'm not wild about other agencies having free reign of distributing to other agencies.Fourth party distributors...  :-(

The images I have on marka.it are from age,not Alamy. Yet when I look on the Inmagine site my images do not come up.

 

L

 

Inmagine is a different agency. Based in the Far East. Nothing to do with Marka (as far as I know.)

Immagini is Italian for image. Its on all the Marka images.

 

My photos on the marka.it site say Inmagine,not Inmagini 

 

 

 

L

Edited August 22, 2014 by Linda

[spacecadet 2,476]

Immagine is the singular, plural immagini .

[wiskerke 2,602]

Pixtal

 

Codice: WE091390 Collezione: Pixtal Licenza utente: Royalty Free Fotografo:

 

wim

 

edit: removed info

Edited August 22, 2014 by wiskerke

[Linda 352]

Immagine is the singular, plural immagini .

Ok. Because I saw inmagine on a sales report from another agency I use to be with.

 

L

[Linda 352]

Pixtal

 

Codice: WE091390 Collezione: Pixtal Licenza utente: Royalty Free Fotografo: Linda Matlow

 

wim

Pixtal is part of AGE.

[wiskerke 2,602]

 

Pixtal

 

Codice: WE091390 Collezione: Pixtal Licenza utente: Royalty Free Fotografo:

wim

Pixtal is part of AGE.

 

 

I know.

 

wim

 

edit: weird things happening here

edit 2: removed info

Edited August 22, 2014 by wiskerke

[wiskerke 2,602]

btw I didn't suggest at all that it would be inconceivable.

There is a lot of not cleared content on Alamy.

In this case however Marka is a real agency that has 100.000+ images on Alamy. Lots of that with Beatles and other celebs.

They also have red carpet events; news and some micro-like stuff. In this case it's not that likely it's all nicked.

 

However on their site it says about this Beatles image:

 

Descrizione: the beatles.

Codice: MAR-W444235

Collezione: Marka

Licenza utente: Rights Managed

Fotografo: marka

 

So no real credit. Not another agency they are representing. (Or that is representing others through Marka - The Droste Effect)

I have to admit it's not all that transparent.

 

The mirroring otoh is something that is very much associated with old skool transparencies and dupes.

Hey it could even be a cool style reference ;-)

 

wim

 

 

edit: lost the link

Edited August 19, 2014 by wiskerke

[Mark 28]

I noticed the banner Beatles image on the front page.  As far as I can see it's the cover of Beatles For Sale album but reversed left to right - surely this can't be right?

 

Photographer is Robert Freeman. The image on the alamy homepage is from the same shoot, is reversed, but not the same image as that on the album cover.

 

Mark

[fotoDogue 564]

The image on the Alamy home page has obvious grain and other "film blemishes."  If it was a scan from an album cover we'd be looking at three color printing dots.

[John Mitchell 3,060]

The mirroring otoh is something that is very much associated with old skool transparencies and dupes.

Hey it could even be a cool style reference ;-)

 

wim

 

 

 

 

Or perhaps Alamy flipped the image horizontally in order to emphasize Sir Paul, whose face remains familiar even to younger folk. He would have been hidden by otherwise.

[wiskerke 2,602]

Have just pulled BEY00B and the original For Sale cover into Photoshop and after reversing BEY00B, set my layer to difference: BEY00B is all over the place. Clearly a different shot.

 

wim

 

edit:

Edited August 19, 2014 by wiskerke

[Chris E 34]

This isn't a copyright issue for the original photographer.

 

It was shoot in the early 60's when in the UK the photographer was either employed by record company in which case the company owned everything. Or was commissioned by either the band or record company as 'work for hire' and they still owned the images.

 

A long hard fought battle for many years resulted in the Copyright Act 1988.  In the record industry album covers had vast amounts of money spent on design and photography as the cover was an integral part of the whole package. This act allowed photographers to not only charge a day rate but also for usage rights.

 

For this image someone probably owns many sheets of trans from the original shoot.

 

Cheers

 

Chris E

[woody 29]

So either EMI or Macca / Ringo is selling these image on stock sites???

[losdemas 1,963]

Have just pulled BEY00B and the original For Sale cover into Photoshop and after reversing BEY00B, set my layer to difference: BEY00B is all over the place. Clearly a different shot.

 

wim

 

edit:

 

Beat me to it!  I just pasted the album image and the homepage image side-by-side in Word, then compared them visually.  Slightly different expressions; George Harrison is looking off left out of shot; foreground foliage is different, etc.  Someone clearly has the rights to this 'version' and doubtless others.

[spacecadet 2,476]

This isn't a copyright issue for the original photographer.

 

 

Cheers

 

Chris E

We can't be sure of that, can we?

If you look at Robert Freeman's bio it's clear he had considerable creative input beyond that of an employee. What isn't clear is that he didn't retain his rights. 'Work for hire' is an American term.

Another possibility is that he assigned rights only for the images used and retained the remainder. In any case there's a question- which hopefully has a ready answer unknown to us- as to whose rights are engaged if someone licenses this image from Marka.

Edited August 20, 2014 by spacecadet