Ed Endicott 269 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I'm not one to usually complain about a license...but.... Country: WorldwideUsage: EditorialMedia: Editorial websitePlacement: Single PlacementImage Size: up to full areaStart: 01 November 2014End: 01 November 2017Use on website and social media, worldwide for 5 years. for $6.00 gross ($3.00 net to me)? What's this all about? Is this Alamy or a microsite? There has to be an error in the terms...it states three years but goes further to detail 5 years. But seriously, $6.00? I'm hoping it's a novel use license even though we don't do those anymore. Link to post Share on other sites
Sultanpepa 978 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I had a $6 license today too in what is obviously a bulk deal. It was an image I never expected to see a sale from so not too distressed about the fee however had it been one of my better images and let's face it it could have been, I would have had a face. Link to post Share on other sites
John Mitchell 4,674 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I'm not one to usually complain about a license...but.... Country: Worldwide Usage: Editorial Media: Editorial website Placement: Single Placement Image Size: up to full area Start: 01 November 2014 End: 01 November 2017 Use on website and social media, worldwide for 5 years. for $6.00 gross ($3.00 net to me)? What's this all about? Is this Alamy or a microsite? There has to be an error in the terms...it states three years but goes further to detail 5 years. But seriously, $6.00? I'm hoping it's a novel use license even though we don't do those anymore. Not sure if it's the new norm, but I've also had a few low sales (along with some decent ones, thankfully) this month, including a distributor sale that will net me the price of a small cup of coffee. Link to post Share on other sites
Ed Endicott 269 Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) Yeah....unfortunately, this is an image that was also pirated from another agency by a local photographer here in Colorado and used in a YouTube video that his company produced in 2012. Image starts to appear at 1:32 (with watermark) http://youtu.be/raC-bxSx2QQ?t=1m34s This is the image licensed.... I certainly hope that Alamy licensing this image at $6.00 doesn't establish the "commercial value" of the image from a copyright perspective or I'm screwed - and that's EXACTLY why I left microstock. Edited October 31, 2014 by Ed Endicott Link to post Share on other sites
John Mitchell 4,674 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Bummer. If the image is going to be used on social media, you'll probably see it mysteriously popping up elsewhere as well. Symptom of our times, unfortunately. Link to post Share on other sites
Ed Endicott 269 Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) Yep - that's not the only place it was found...but that's where it originated from. I've sent a DMCA takedown notice to YouTube, and I've sent a message to the photographer/videographer that created the video (no telephone number listed and a P.O. box listed for an address). I've also notified the agency that it was lifted from to see if they can pursue it. I've determined if there is no response then I will pursue their client for the infringement....but again, if I am limited to 3x commercial value, I'm stuck at $18 if Alamy is making these deals....and I don't know of an attorney out there that would pursue this for $18. It's frustrating and disheartening. Edited October 31, 2014 by Ed Endicott Link to post Share on other sites
CMEckert 17 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) I'm down but not out. Edited November 10, 2014 by CMEckert Link to post Share on other sites
John Mitchell 4,674 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Yep - that's not the only place it was found...but that's where it originated from. I've sent a DMCA takedown notice to YouTube, and I've sent a message to the photographer/videographer that created the video (no telephone number listed and a P.O. box listed for an address). I've also notified the agency that it was lifted from to see if they can pursue it. I've determined if there is no response then I will pursue their client for the infringement....but again, if I am limited to 3x commercial value, I'm stuck at $18 if Alamy is making these deals....and I don't know of an attorney out there that would pursue this for $18. It's frustrating and disheartening. I see your point now. Hadn't thought of that. Link to post Share on other sites
Olivier Parent 748 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Got 2 of those $6.00 this morning. Link to post Share on other sites
Peter Jordan 185 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I have had four of those at $6.33 each this month (Daily Mail on Line) Link to post Share on other sites
Mark Baigent 158 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Those $6.33 are getting more common :-( Link to post Share on other sites
Inchiquin 886 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I certainly hope that Alamy licensing this image at $6.00 doesn't establish the "commercial value" of the image I'm sure it will if people keep insisting on publishing the details of their low fees Alan 6 Link to post Share on other sites
Foreign Export 295 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Hope it's not the norm - I had 9 of them in one day earlier this month Link to post Share on other sites
Paulstw 237 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I had one last week too. Busts my gut. Link to post Share on other sites
Martin P Wilson 1,140 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Hardly new! Been all too common for far too long. Link to post Share on other sites
Olivier Parent 748 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) I know it has already been discussed on the forum but I still think we should be able to define a price under which an image can not be sold. This could easily be added to the "restrictions" fields. Then, when we think an image is worth it, we could set a minimum price for it to be licensed. That would not have been relevant a few years ago, when prices were still high enough. Now, there are some of my images I would not want to see on the web at full size, licensed for peanuts. I would rather not sell it at all. But I do not want to delete them either. Anyway, what would Alamy collection look like if we all delete our best images in order not to have them sold for pennies? So, a "minimum price" option seems the most reasonable feature to me. What do you (contrbutors and Alamy staff of course) think of it? Edit: I just started a new topic about that request, please leave your comments. Edited October 31, 2014 by Olivier Parent 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Robert Brook 361 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 "Hello there. Is that Alamy? This is the Daily Fart here. I see you are charging our competitor rag $6. How do we know? It's all over that whingers' forum you run. How come you've been charging us $8??! From now on it's $4 ($2 less to make up for all the overcharging you've been doing. What's that you say? Sorry, we’re not in a mood to haggle". Slam. 3 Link to post Share on other sites
Ed Endicott 269 Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) "Hello there. Is that Alamy? This is the Daily Fart here. I see you are charging our competitor rag $6. How do we know? It's all over that whingers' forum you run. How come you've been charging us $8??! From now on it's $4 ($2 less to make up for all the overcharging you've been doing. What's that you say? Sorry, we’re not in a mood to haggle". Slam. That's perfectly fine. CNN licenses their images from Shutterstock. I'm perfectly happy to pass up a low paying customer to continue to provide value to those willing to pay more. Oh wait, you mean Shutterstock doesn't have that same newsworthy image from that one event 7 years ago? I guess you're going to have to loosen that pocket book a little bit aren't you? Edited October 31, 2014 by Ed Endicott Link to post Share on other sites
vpics 660 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) I also had two of those. Not happy either. I'd be grateful if someone from Alamy could clarify. Looks a bit dodgy to me. Edited October 31, 2014 by vpics Link to post Share on other sites
colin paterson 21 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Hi ALL. 1 here don't really care !! Colin. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Pearl 982 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I know it has already been discussed on the forum but I still think we should be able to define a price under which an image can not be sold. This could easily be added to the "restrictions" fields. Then, when we think an image is worth it, we could set a minimum price for it to be licensed. That would not have been relevant a few years ago, when prices were still high enough. Now, there are some of my images I would not want to see on the web at full size, licensed for peanuts. I would rather not sell it at all. But I do not want to delete them either. Anyway, what would Alamy collection look like if we all delete our best images in order not to have them sold for pennies? So, a "minimum price" option seems the most reasonable feature to me. What do you (contrbutors and Alamy staff of course) think of it? Edit: I just started a new topic about that request, please leave your comments. Why don't you restrict them so they can't be used for editorial websites? Pearl Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now