Eric Nathan Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Is anyone else bothered by the fact that Alamy is incorrectly (and unlawfully?) appending their name to the copyright field of every single image? I am the sole copyright holder of every one of my images and yet under each and every image on Alamy (once you click on a thumbnail for more info) there is a field that reads "Copyright: © Photographer name (or Agency) / Alamy". And for images that have been submitted by agencies the photographer's name is usually completely removed from the copyright field. I have images on Alamy (submitted by another agency I supply) that are listed as "Copyright: © Agency / Alamy" and my name is absent despite the fact that I am the sole copyright holder. This is clearly incorrect and yet the three emails I have submitted to member services in this regard have simply been met by a total lack of understanding of the issue with their initial response being "copyright: © Photographer name or agency / Alamy – This just means that the photographer/agency have submitted the image via Alamy" Pardon? This certainly means no such thing and if that were the case then what does the line further below (for images submitted by agencies) that states "Contributor: Photographer and/or agency name" refer to?? To this I was told "As the images were submitted to us by the agency Loop, we’ve marked their name as copyright." So member sevices are telling me whoever or whatever agency submits the image suddenly holds copyright?? It's clear that the two different member services people who have responded to my email simply don't understand what they are talking about and appear not to have sought advice from anyone more informed. My last email to member services requesting the removal of the Alamy name and other agency names from the copyright field has not received a response after 2 days... Here is one example of an image I have submitted directly:http://tinyurl.com/o6548lz And here is an example of an image of mine submitted by the Loop agency: http://tinyurl.com/nnhfu82 Notice in the latter case that my name is absent from the copyright field. Perhaps I'm missing something here (and if so could someone please correct / educate me) but whatever name follows "Copyright ©" infers copyright of that image is held by that person or agency does it not? Incidentally, I am fully aware that each image is ostensibly required to include a credit line when used which may or may not include the photographer's name, agency name and/or Alamy name. This is the credit line and not the copyright. They are two different things altogether. Eric Nathan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 All libraries and image users need to be aware of the difference between credit and copyright. They should really credit as: Alamy/ © Photographer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Robinson Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 I don't have a big problem with this. It's not technically correct, and nobody on THIS side of the business is in any doubt where the real ownership lies, but it does let people know where the image is available from if they want to use it. It might even be a greater deterrent to infringement if people know they are dealing with a big company rather than an individual photographer. What I do not like is when the credit is given to Alamy alone - especially common among news pictures, despite the fact that the correct attribution is given in the caption of live news feed pix. And I agree that if the images come via another agency, the photographer's name needs to be in there, even if end users are reluctant to have a long string of credits under every photo they use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 In my opinion if the agency/Alamy does not have access to the RAW file of the image in question they cannot prove they own the copyright. That is why I have stated in the past that I keep all of the RAW files to my images on my hard drives as that is the only true proof of copyright. All my images with Alamy and elsewhere are my copyright and no one else's no matter what they say/print or think. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reimar Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 I think this is a big problem. With all the sub-distribution going on it has some importance. My name and copyright should not be removed from an image offered by a distributor - but this is routine. I don't know about legalities, but it's not right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 In the UK newspapers are exempt from the obligation to have a proper byline with a photograph. Legal aspects aside, how do you think it looks in the newspaper when the byline reads: NULL/Alamy Unknown/Alamy Set Pseudonym/Alamy Unknown photographer/Alamy Unknown Spectrum photographer/Alamy Unknown Impact Photographer/Alamy Unknown Spectrum photographer / Imagestate Media Partners Limited - Impact Photos/Alamy Credit/IMAGE_IMAGES_PhotoimagepicturePicturesphotographer © / Alamy Land of Lost Content/Alamy Zie aanvullende informatie (6)/Alamy bin/Alamy gtzx/Alamy ED Torial/Alamy My Childhood Memories/Alamy All actual bylines or Alamy contributor pseudos. Are these mistakes or funny/stupid pseudos proper copyright info? Don't think so. Now I think of it, is any pseudo proper copyright info? wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 FYI...When images are not properly credited they can end up orphaned down the line. When only the agency is credited and not the photographer,this makes it very difficult to get photos removed from Pinterest,blogs and other sites.If you leave Alamy down the line and photos are just credited to Alamy,you will really be pulling your hair out trying to get images removed from sites. Been there,done that with google and other sites who tried to tell me since the agency put their credit on the photo,only they can have it removed. Thirty emails later it was removed.But if you have many images,this is tedious and really stacked against US,the copyright holders and not the agencies who in their wildest dreams do not own your copyright. L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Let's be realistic. Alamy are not asserting that they own the copyright. The annotation is a bit of shorthand and they're not going to change it for one contributor. As wiskerke says, in the UK there is an attribution exemption in the law for news images. The Guardian is quite good about it, most of the others quite bad, but it's probably not going to change much. The Germans are the best creditors IME. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Let's be realistic. Alamy are not asserting that they own the copyright. The annotation is a bit of shorthand and they're not going to change it for one contributor. As wiskerke says, in the UK there is an attribution exemption in the law for news images. The Guardian is quite good about it, most of the others quite bad, but it's probably not going to change much. The Germans are the best creditors IME. I never stated or assumed Alamy would make a change in a contract for me. I've been in the UK papers many times from various agencies as well as licensing on my own in the 80s and 90s. I just stated my experience about credits,lacks of credits and credits to agencies. I left on the advice of my legal team as the contract is not in my companies best interest. L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Let's be realistic. Alamy are not asserting that they own the copyright. The annotation is a bit of shorthand and they're not going to change it for one contributor. As wiskerke says, in the UK there is an attribution exemption in the law for news images. The Guardian is quite good about it, most of the others quite bad, but it's probably not going to change much. The Germans are the best creditors IME. I never stated or assumed Alamy would make a change in a contract for me. I was referring to the OP wanting his attributions changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Nathan Posted March 25, 2015 Author Share Posted March 25, 2015 Let's be clear here: my post primarily concerns the copyright field, NOT the credit line. These are similar but infer quite different things legally. The copyright field should undeniably feature the photographer's name only (except in rare cases where the photographer has ceded their copyright or copyright is shared). Alamy either need to rectify their error by ensuring the photographer's name always appears alongside the copyright logo/field OR they need to rename that particular field as the "requested credit line". The latter would probably take less than 5 minutes for their website coding team to do. It goes without saying that the photographer's name ought to feature in the credit line (and Alamy should be fighting for this on behalf of all their photographers) but the credit line is, as we all know, difficult to police and subject to (largely unfounded) exemptions. Again, lest anyone is confused my post primarily concerns the copyright field, NOT the credit line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Let's be clear here: my post primarily concerns the copyright field, NOT the credit line. These are similar but infer quite different things legally. The copyright field should undeniably feature the photographer's name only (except in rare cases where the photographer has ceded their copyright or copyright is shared). Alamy either need to rectify their error by ensuring the photographer's name always appears alongside the copyright logo/field OR they need to rename that particular field as the "requested credit line". The latter would probably take less than 5 minutes for their website coding team to do. It goes without saying that the photographer's name ought to feature in the credit line (and Alamy should be fighting for this on behalf of all their photographers) but the credit line is, as we all know, difficult to police and subject to (largely unfounded) exemptions. Again, lest anyone is confused my post primarily concerns the copyright field, NOT the credit line. The copyright notice field now has pseudo / Alamy in it. The credit field at this moment only has Alamy. This is the image that goes out to the client afaik. To me it looks like that makes us responsible for our own copyright notice. Choose your pseudo wisely. I don't like it that the credit field now only has Alamy, but looking at my small list (there are many many more) of silly pseudos, I do understand the decision very well. wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.