Personal Use licensing

[John Mitchell]

"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."

 

Doesn't this mean that the faculty member must first lease the image from somewhere (e.g. Alamy)?

[Martin P Wilson]

"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."

 

Doesn't this mean that the faculty member must first lease the image from somewhere (e.g. Alamy)?

 

That surely means they must have at least sought and been granted permission to copy the work specifically for that purpose; it would not normally be included in some other licence unless perhaps they had licenced the image for an article or paper and its use in any presentations of that work might then be implicit?. A request would allow the creator or their agent to refuse presumably. Just grabbing it from a photographer's or some others licenced user's website,  Facebook or w.h.y. could not be considered a legally obtained copy of the work.

 

That wording seems aimed more at traditional print materials where there are rules about photocopying printed work (purchased or library book or magazine) for educational purposes usually  (in the UK at least) for a fee paid by the school or college to a collection agency who distributes the monies to authorsm artists and musicians - DACS, ALCS and PRS in UK.

[Ed Endicott]

"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."

 

Doesn't this mean that the faculty member must first lease the image from somewhere (e.g. Alamy)?

 

Martin is correct - essentially, if you think of it from the old days, if a teacher is teaching a civics course and finds an article in Time Magazine that they feel is relevant, it allows the teacher to photocopy that article and distribute it to the class as part of an instructional activity.

 

That is the spirit of the law, that's what it's intended to do - allow teachers to distribute, use images in presentations, etc. as part of their class.  It's a way out so the teacher or school does not get sued for the use of the image.  Yesterday evening I tried to find the article/web page, but there is a recent case where a University 'liberated' a photographer's photo and the photography attempted to go after the university.  The lawyers for the school hid behind this law....I'll try to find it and post up a link

[Martin P Wilson]

 

"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."

 

Doesn't this mean that the faculty member must first lease the image from somewhere (e.g. Alamy)?

 

Martin is correct - essentially, if you think of it from the old days, if a teacher is teaching a civics course and finds an article in Time Magazine that they feel is relevant, it allows the teacher to photocopy that article and distribute it to the class as part of an instructional activity.

 

That is the spirit of the law, that's what it's intended to do - allow teachers to distribute, use images in presentations, etc. as part of their class.  It's a way out so the teacher or school does not get sued for the use of the image.  Yesterday evening I tried to find the article/web page, but there is a recent case where a University 'liberated' a photographer's photo and the photography attempted to go after the university.  The lawyers for the school hid behind this law....I'll try to find it and post up a link

 

Did the University succeed? I do not see how a faculty member could get an image unless they first licence it. Copying it from a web page is substantively different from photocopying it. It potentially creates an exact duplicate (not a lower grade copy) and the photographer loses control of their creatiive work (control and benefit is the essential purpose of copyright law) as it can easily become an orphan and be liberated into the free for all that is cyberspace.

 

Many courses and presentations are published electronically after being given live (in person or online) - is this publication included in fair use?

[Ed Endicott]

Did the University succeed? I do not see how a faculty member could get an image unless they first licence it. Copying it from a web page is substantively different from photocopying it. It potentially creates an exact duplicate (not a lower grade copy) and the photographer loses control of their creatiive work (control and benefit is the essential purpose of copyright law) as it can easily become an orphan and be liberated into the free for all that is cyberspace.

 

Many courses and presentations are published electronically after being given live (in person or online) - is this publication included in fair use?

 

 

Martin, I did find the story - it was different than what I'm describing.  An image was used on a University Facebook Page (not in a class) and the photographer billed the University.  In the end, the photographer prevailed

 

http://www.crusadeforart.org/blog/copyright

 

With relation an electronic copy or a photo copy, it simply doesn't matter.  You will have to read the law yourself for specifics but if I remember right, if it is online, it does fall under the "Teach Act" but there are stipulations surrounding the online use and distribution.  This is the trouble with copyright law (at least in the U.S.).

[John Mitchell]

Just for the sake of comparison, I checked PhotoShelter's "personal use" license, and it include the following uses:

 

- school projects

- individual prints

- classroom use

- electronic devices and screen savers

 

The only one I have an issue with is "electronic devices" because it might be interpreted as Web use by some people.

[dustydingo]

All this speculation is rather moot surely?

 

In reality, anyone can buy a license of whatever type they want and then go and mis-interpret the licenses conditions in whatever way suits their devious plots. They can then do anything they want with the image. There is no real way to prevent this, and there are very restricted ways of detecting it has happened. To try to prevent it from happening in the first place by trying to manipulate restrictions etc is a very effective recipe for going mad . . . and taking folk to court is an effective recipe for penury.

 

The only way to truly protect your images from all this is to not make them available . . . which defeats several purposes of course. So, the next best thing is to  . . . well, sort of accept that it might happen and get on with uploading the next batch of images.

 

Or so it seems to me . . .

 

dd

[Martin P Wilson]

Sort of like shops accepting a certain level of shoplifting ("shrinkage"); if it is too low they get worried their displays are not attractive enough ...

[Andy Holmes]

"In reality, anyone can buy a license of whatever type they want and then go and mis-interpret the licenses conditions in whatever way suits their devious plots. They can then do anything they want with the image. There is no real way to prevent this,"

 

This is true, but placing restrictions blocking the cheapest of those licence options, means that at least you are better compensated for each misuse. 

[dustydingo]

"In reality, anyone can buy a license of whatever type they want and then go and mis-interpret the licenses conditions in whatever way suits their devious plots. They can then do anything they want with the image. There is no real way to prevent this,"

 

This is true, but placing restrictions blocking the cheapest of those licence options, means that at least you are better compensated for each misuse.

Well, I've been on this forum and its predecessor for many years, and I've seen many, many discussions on this very issue, but I've yet to see the slightest shred of evidence that your assertion (that restrictions on Alamy have affected a compensatory outcome for the misuse of an image represented on Alamy) has ever actually come to pass for an Alamy contributor.

 

Would like to see instances showing otherwise, but frankly I can't be bothered with the constant angst of worrying about misuse of an image in this environmnet of online shenanigans. If it happens, it happens. If I find out about it, I find out about it. Life goes on.

 

EDIT: but I'd still never post an image on FB :-)

 

dd

[Andy Holmes]

"Well, I've been on this forum and its predecessor for many years, and I've seen many, many discussions on this very issue, but I've yet to see the slightest shred of evidence that your assertion (that restrictions on Alamy have affected a compensatory outcome for the misuse of an image represented on Alamy) has ever actually come to pass for an Alamy contributor."

 

I think that you miss my point.

 

Without restrictions, someone can buy a personal use licence for say $10, and misuse it.

 

By placing a restriction on personal use, whether it's to avoid you undercutting yourself elsewhere, concerns over the end use of the image, or just because you don't believe that it values your work sufficiently, the cheapest way to acquire that image becomes more expensive, and your commission rises for each potential misuse.

 

If chasing infringements  is a waste of time and money, you can at least console yourself that you received a reasonable sum in the first place. 

[dustydingo]

"Well, I've been on this forum and its predecessor for many years, and I've seen many, many discussions on this very issue, but I've yet to see the slightest shred of evidence that your assertion (that restrictions on Alamy have affected a compensatory outcome for the misuse of an image represented on Alamy) has ever actually come to pass for an Alamy contributor."

 

I think that you miss my point.

 

Without restrictions, someone can buy a personal use licence for say $10, and misuse it.

 

By placing a restriction on personal use, whether it's to avoid you undercutting yourself elsewhere, concerns over the end use of the image, or just because you don't believe that it values your work sufficiently, the cheapest way to acquire that image becomes more expensive, and your commission rises for each potential misuse.

 

If chasing infringements  is a waste of time and money, you can at least console yourself that you received a reasonable sum in the first place. 

 

Sorry mate, you're right, I did miss your point :-)

 

I get it, remove the cheapest option and at least you'll earn a few quid more when it's licensed--as to whether or not it's still going to be "a reasonable sum", well . . . :-)

 

dd

[Andy Holmes]

"as to whether or not it's still going to be "a reasonable sum", well "

 

Just like beauty, that's in the eye of the beholder.

[John Mitchell]

All this speculation is rather moot surely?

 

In reality, anyone can buy a license of whatever type they want and then go and mis-interpret the licenses conditions in whatever way suits their devious plots. They can then do anything they want with the image. There is no real way to prevent this, and there are very restricted ways of detecting it has happened. To try to prevent it from happening in the first place by trying to manipulate restrictions etc is a very effective recipe for going mad . . . and taking folk to court is an effective recipe for penury.

 

The only way to truly protect your images from all this is to not make them available . . . which defeats several purposes of course. So, the next best thing is to  . . . well, sort of accept that it might happen and get on with uploading the next batch of images.

 

Or so it seems to me . . .

 

dd

 

True. C'est la vie. But it's a truly wacky world in which someone can sell an image for 6.5 million dollars and then conceivably lease the same photo for ten bucks.

[Brasilnut]

Old thread alert, I know.

 

I just had a personal use license sale which is a bit suspect. I mean why would someone use this image as a wall print (strictest definition of Personal Use)? 

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Personal use
Media: Non-commercial, one time, personal/home use
90 MB
4894 x 6425 pixels 
5 MB compressed
Start: 07 June 2018
End: 07 June 2023

 

Very suspicious stuff, any thoughts?

 

 

 

[York Photographer]

Given the option, I would Opt out of these sales. Open to abuse, Impossible to know the actual usage, and all for tiny amounts.

[Southpole]

I had a scene of crime image sold as personal use most bizarre as it was a scene of a death 

 

[spacecadet]

1 hour ago, Brasilnut said:

Old thread alert, I know.

 

I just had a personal use license sale which is a bit suspect. I mean why would someone use this image as a wall print (strictest definition of Personal Use)? 

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Personal use
Media: Non-commercial, one time, personal/home use
90 MB
4894 x 6425 pixels 
5 MB compressed
Start: 07 June 2018
End: 07 June 2023

 

Very suspicious stuff, any thoughts?

 

 

 

Perhaps it's him.

[Dyn Llun]

2 hours ago, Brasilnut said:

Old thread alert, I know.

 

I just had a personal use license sale which is a bit suspect. I mean why would someone use this image as a wall print (strictest definition of Personal Use)? 

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Personal use
Media: Non-commercial, one time, personal/home use
90 MB
4894 x 6425 pixels 
5 MB compressed
Start: 07 June 2018
End: 07 June 2023

 

Very suspicious stuff, any thoughts?

 

 

 

Like 99% of all so-called 'personal use' sales they are no such thing. I had a few that were obviously not so I opted out ages ago. It's a way of letting clients have a full size file to do with what they want without any checks for peanuts. Alamy e mailed me the other day to ask whether I might lift my opt out for one particular image as a charity hospice wanted to use it. When I checked the image, it would have been no use for any such thing, only for editorial, tourism or text book use. I said yes anyway as Alamy said 'hospice' but I'm not sure if it wasn't a scam. 

[spacecadet]

1 hour ago, Dyn Llun said:

Like 99% of all so-called 'personal use' sales they are no such thing.

Do you have any actual evidence for that conclusion? I ask because I've never found an online use of any of mine and they're all plausible- though I suppose almost anything is.

Alamy has said they have processes to check for misuse and I tend to trust them. Obviously they're not going to reveal what they are.

[Allan Bell]

21 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Do you have any actual evidence for that conclusion? I ask because I've never found an online use of any of mine and they're all plausible- though I suppose almost anything is.

Alamy has said they have processes to check for misuse and I tend to trust them. Obviously they're not going to reveal what they are.

 

Sometimes, and I say only sometimes, that process seems to fail.

 

Allan

 

 

[spacecadet]

Just now, Allan Bell said:

 

Sometimes, and I say only sometimes, that process seems to fail.

 

Allan

 

 

Do you have any evidence?

[losdemas]

1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

Do you have any evidence?

 

I do. I have found commercial usages of PU sales. Many months later, I'm still awaiting resolution of this from Alamy. 

[spacecadet]

15 hours ago, losdemas said:

 

I do. I have found commercial usages of PU sales. Many months later, I'm still awaiting resolution of this from Alamy. 

Good. Proof is better than evidence. So we can probably say it's unusual rather than prevalent.

[Allan Bell]

19 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Do you have any evidence?

 

Only from others comments on the forums.

 

Allan

 

As you may know from my comments in the forums, I am not in the PU scheme.

 

ITMA