Personal Use licensing

[John Mitchell]

One of the Alamy RM licensing options is "Personal Use." Does anyone know what this covers? I can't find any info on the Alamy website.

 

Prices for a full-size image (the only size option) vary: e.g. USA $20;  UK $15; Canada $10 (Yikes!), etc.

[Andy Holmes]

"Prices for a full-size image (the only size option) vary: e.g. USA $20;  UK $15; Canada $10 (Yikes!), etc."

 

That was exactly my reaction, when I looked too.

[Alp]

I had one a few weeks ago. I'm guessing it'll be a Christmas prezzie maybe. Details were:

 

Country: UK and Commonwealth,

Usage:   Personal use,

Media:   Non commercial one time personal/home use

 

5 year licence

[Andy Holmes]

Don't spend it all at once

 

According to the price calculator, shop / restaurant indoor decoration/ display, 1 use, full size, UK, 5 years was 765€, whereas personal / home use was 10€ under the same preconditions.

 

That's a massive difference.

[Alp]

Don't spend it all at once

 

According to the price calculator, shop / restaurant indoor decoration/ display, 1 use, full size, UK, 5 years was 765€, whereas personal / home use was 10€ under the same preconditions.

 

That's a massive difference.

 

True, but that's not home/personal use though is it? How often do you get full calculator price as well.

 

I've got to have a little trust that it's being used right as we all have to with our image licenses, otherwise insanity lies ahead, either that or we stop submitting images anywhere.

 

I was a little surprised when it popped in, but it's no worse (in fact it's better) than novel use - or so I believe, as I never was in novel use.

[John Mitchell]

I believe that when you specifically select "Personal Use" with the price calculator, you get the following usage details: "Non-commercial, one-time, personal / home use." Still, that's pretty vague. Someone might even interpret "Non-commercial" as including editorial use. Or am I missing something? How is it possible to enforce usages with this type of license?

[losdemas]

Thread already going here (in case you missed it).

 

Wasn't at all concerned at first, but not so sure now...

[John Mitchell]

Thread already going here (in case you missed it).

 

Wasn't at all concerned at first, but not so sure now...

 

I forgot about that thread. It is related. I don't understand what the value -- both to Alamy and to contributors -- of offering this type of license is. All it seems to do is devalue the entire collection. But again, perhaps I'm missing something. I guess it is a step up from Novel Use, but...

[Andy Holmes]

"True, but that's not home/personal use though is it? How often do you get full calculator price as well."

 

Alp, I appreciate that, but the difference is still astounding.

 

I wasn't trying to infer anything about fraudulent use, just pointing out the difference in cost of licencing art for a house, and for a restaurant.

[mickfly]

"True, but that's not home/personal use though is it? How often do you get full calculator price as well."

 

Alp, I appreciate that, but the difference is still astounding.

 

I wasn't trying to infer anything about fraudulent use, just pointing out the difference in cost of licencing art for a house, and for a restaurant.

It may draw a few admiring glances in your house, but in a restaurant it has much more time in the limelight,and might even attract customers, so it would have more value for the buyer.

[Andy Holmes]

"It may draw a few admiring glances in your house, but in a restaurant it has much more time in the limelight,and might even attract customers, so it would have more value for the buyer."

 

I fully accept that art in commercial premises can enhance the business, so should attract a higher licence fee.

 

It was more to do with the scale of the difference (mostly the low cost of the personal licence) that I was trying to point out.

[John Mitchell]

"It was more to do with the scale of the difference (mostly the low cost of the personal licence) that I was trying to point out."

 

Valid point IMO. The personal use prices don't make sense.

 

I offered a general low-fee "personal use" option on my photo website when I first set it up, but I changed my mind after realizing that I was essentially giving my work away with no real guarantee of how it might be used.

[Alp]

"It may draw a few admiring glances in your house, but in a restaurant it has much more time in the limelight,and might even attract customers, so it would have more value for the buyer."

 

I fully accept that art in commercial premises can enhance the business, so should attract a higher licence fee.

 

It was more to do with the scale of the difference (mostly the low cost of the personal licence) that I was trying to point out.

 

 

I'd agree it is a bit low, and there should be a way of restricting it, the current restrictions don't seem to allow this without affecting something else - unless I'm missing something? Perhaps Alamy could confirm, or add the ability to restrict just this personal use.

[Andy Holmes]

"I'd agree it is a bit low, and there should be a way of restricting it, the current restrictions don't seem to allow this without affecting something else - unless I'm missing something? Perhaps Alamy could confirm, or add the ability to restrict just this personal use."

 

I can't see a way of achieving that either. That's why I started the other thread.

 

I was hoping that someone with more experience in this area could point me in the right direction. If Alamy doesn't respond here, I'll have to contact member services for advise.

[Andy Holmes]

"Many events only give accreditation on the basis that images are used on an editorial only basis. I wish I could sell prints but I cannot. The fact that people can still buy these images for personal usage would mean a breach."

 

To date, I haven't had that problem, but it's certainly something to be aware of.

 

It certainly looks like we need more restriction options, to fine tune where our images can, and can't be used. 

[John Mitchell]

What I find especially worrisome about offering personal use downloads is that there are so many things people can do with images these days. For instance, a woman contacted me through my PhotoShelter website recently saying that she would like to download about 40 of my images and make a book to give to a friend using one of the POD book-making outfits (e.g. Blurb). Even though this was a non-commercial use, I declined because she could easily put her name on the book and claim to be the author.

 

I hate to sound totally negative about this, so can anyone think of a positive reason for having low-cost personal use downloads?

[Martin P Wilson]

What I find especially worrisome about offering personal use downloads is that there are so many things people can do with images these days. For instance, a woman contacted me through my PhotoShelter website recently saying that she would like to download about 40 of my images and make a book to give to a friend using one of the POD book-making outfits (e.g. Blurb). Even though this was a non-commercial use, I declined because she could easily put her name on the book and claim to be the author.

 

I hate to sound totally negative about this, so can anyone think of a positive reason for having low-cost personal use downloads?

 

 

Frankly, NO!

[Ed Endicott]

I hate to sound totally negative about this, so can anyone think of a positive reason for having low-cost personal use downloads?

 

• Students using images to illustrate research papers
• People wanting a print of an image for their wall
• Businesses looking for wall art
• Internal business Powerpoint presentations
• Teachers wanting images to use in class (which in the U.S., they don't need to pay you for under copyright law)

 

 

There are multiple uses for images which fall under the guise of "personal use".  The positive is you are being paid for them rather than the images simply being "liberated" from your or Alamy's website.

[Martin P Wilson]

 

I hate to sound totally negative about this, so can anyone think of a positive reason for having low-cost personal use downloads?

 

• Students using images to illustrate research papers
• People wanting a print of an image for their wall
• Businesses looking for wall art
• Internal business Powerpoint presentations
• Teachers wanting images to use in class (which in the U.S., they don't need to pay you for under copyright law)

 

 

There are multiple uses for images which fall under the guise of "personal use".  The positive is you are being paid for them rather than the images simply being "liberated" from your or Alamy's website.

 

 

None of those are personal use they have specific categories in the pricing model. I can think of no valid personal uses - if you want a print for the wall, or mobile phone case, or a screensaver or a mouse mat, ... They are products I can supply. You dont't need a 50Mb file for personal use.

[John Mitchell]

 

 

I hate to sound totally negative about this, so can anyone think of a positive reason for having low-cost personal use downloads?

 

• Students using images to illustrate research papers
• People wanting a print of an image for their wall
• Businesses looking for wall art
• Internal business Powerpoint presentations
• Teachers wanting images to use in class (which in the U.S., they don't need to pay you for under copyright law)

 

 

There are multiple uses for images which fall under the guise of "personal use".  The positive is you are being paid for them rather than the images simply being "liberated" from your or Alamy's website.

 

 

None of those are personal use they have specific categories in the pricing model. I can think of no valid personal uses - if you want a print for the wall, or mobile phone case, or a screensaver or a mouse mat, ... They are products I can supply. You dont't need a 50Mb file for personal use.

 

 

Yes, four of those look like regular and "novel" uses to me, not personal use (see below). Regarding making prints and hanging them on the wall, which is personal/home use, isn't it a bit sad that the photographer would only get $5-$10? That's not a heck of a lot better than "liberation."

 

• Students using images to illustrate research papers -- Novel Use
• People wanting a print of an image for their wall -- Personal Use
• Businesses looking for wall art -- Display
• Internal business Powerpoint presentations -- Internal Business Use (or perhaps Novel Use?)
• Teachers wanting images to use in class (which in the U.S., they don't need to pay you for under copyright law) -- Novel Use

[Ed Endicott]

My understanding is that Alamy is no longer granting a "novel use" license.  I'll agree internal business wall art - 1 poster has it's own category but the other three options fall under either "Presentation" or "Personal Use".

 

• Students using images to illustrate research papers -- The option is either "Presentation" (royalty free license) or "Personal Use" - when I use the calculator, I get $15 either way.
• People wanting a print of an image for their wall -- Personal Use
• Internal business Powerpoint presentations -- The option is either "Presentation" (royalty free license) or "Personal Use" - when I use the calculator, I get $15 either way.
• Teachers wanting images to use in class -- The option is either "Presentation" (royalty free license) or "Personal Use" - when I use the calculator, I get $15 either way.

[spacecadet]

 

• Teachers wanting images to use in class (which in the U.S., they don't need to pay you for under copyright law)

 

 

 

 

I think they need to pay you, or have a photocopying licence,they just don't need permission and  it's not infringement. Tha's the situation here anyway.

[John Mitchell]

 

My understanding is that Alamy is no longer granting a "novel use" license.  I'll agree internal business wall art - 1 poster has it's own category but the other three options fall under either "Presentation" or "Personal Use".

 

• Students using images to illustrate research papers -- The option is either "Presentation" (royalty free license) or "Personal Use" - when I use the calculator, I get $15 either way.
• People wanting a print of an image for their wall -- Personal Use
• Internal business Powerpoint presentations -- The option is either "Presentation" (royalty free license) or "Personal Use" - when I use the calculator, I get $15 either way.
• Teachers wanting images to use in class -- The option is either "Presentation" (royalty free license) or "Personal Use" - when I use the calculator, I get $15 either way.

 

 

I too am not sure if Novel Use is still around, so I guess the Powerpoint license would indeed be a $15 "Presentation" license. If you choose "Personal Use," with the price calculator, the usage details come up as "Non commercial one time personal/home use," so I don't see how this would cover classroom use. But who knows?

[Ed Endicott]

 

 

• Teachers wanting images to use in class (which in the U.S., they don't need to pay you for under copyright law)

 

 

 

 

I think they need to pay you, or have a photocopying licence,they just don't need permission and  it's not infringement. Tha's the situation here anyway.

 

 

 

In the United States, they don't need to pay you a penny, ask permission, or have any license at all.  This is part of "The Teach Act" that passed in 2002.....

 

US Copyright Law provides several exemptions for the academic use of copyrighted materials. If the requirements for an exemption are met, it is not necessary to seek permission before using the copyrighted material for the purpose outlined in the exemption.

Section 110(1) in Title 17 of the United States Code provides the following exemption:

§ 110. Limitations on exclusive rights: Exemption of certain performances and displays

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright:

(1) performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, unless, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, the performance, or the display of individual images, is given by means of a copy that was not lawfully made under this title, and that the person responsible for the performance knew or had reason to believe was not lawfully made;

This exemption means that faculty may, for the purpose of instruction, do the following:

• Show a film
• Perform or listen to a piece of music
• Perform, or show, a play
• Show slides or other images

The only requirement is that the performance or display of the work must be part of the instructional activities (e.g. not for entertainment), and the faculty member must use a legally obtained copy of the work.

 

 

Here's a link with more info from the University of Texas....

 

http://copyright.lib.utexas.edu/teachact.html

[DDoug]

I would like it if there were a clearer correlation between restrictions which the contributor can designate and 5-year licenses which the buyer can choose. One is expressed in the negative and the other in the positive and the language used can be confusing (to me, at least). For instance, does "Magazine" include textbook? Does it include websites that designate their online publications as magazines?

 

It makes sense in my opinion to keep some restrictions such as certain countries they way it is currently formatted, but for types of licenses it would be great if we had a set of radio buttons that correspond exactly to the radio buttons the buyer sees.