Richard Baker Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Dear All, The Economist licenses a picture: Country: WorldwideUsage: EditorialMedia: Editorial websiteIndustry sector: Media, design & publishingImage Size: Any sizeStart: 30 June 2015End: 30 June 2020Archival rights included in perpetuity $44.74 But they also tweet the picture and so, after 21 retweets, it can now be found on 5 pages of Google Images search results. https://twitter.com/econbizfin/status/606606710892077056 Does 'Editorial website' and 'Archival rights included in perpetuity' include social media - and should we care? Thoughts welcome. Rgds, Richard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 I have had licences which state social media use is included but it's explicitly stated. So ask about it I contacted MS about some tweets but they don't seem to regard it as an infringement which doesn't help. I am considering pursuing some commercial tweeters though. Twitter will take them down if told to. The hospital is private- that's definitely a commercial use. Another one is an Irish university- might be pursuable. It must be annoying to find your own site down on page 3! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Baker Posted July 2, 2015 Author Share Posted July 2, 2015 Mmm. I'll ask MS about this and seek clarification. Rather ironically, I know one of their picture editors and bumped into him the other week so I do wish he came to me direct (ahem, sorry for infringing forum rules, Alamy). Richard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reciprocity Images Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 When I license direct, Social Media is definitely an additional license that would incur an additional fee (usually discounted when in combination with standard editorial web-use). However, this particular use may fall under the dreaded 'fare-use' since they have tweeted (twitted?) the image in promotion of the article it is illustrating. My direct web licenses explicitly reserve that right unless agreed to in advance. You will have to query MS to see if this was included in the license in this case or perhaps the customer agreement on file. -Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 However, this particular use may fall under the dreaded 'fare-use' since they have tweeted (twitted?) the image in promotion of the article it is illustrating No such thing in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Baker Posted July 2, 2015 Author Share Posted July 2, 2015 Here's the rapid response from MS: "Yes, the twitter usage is covered under the original license on 30 June 2015. Social media usage is covered for editorial usage if any placement links back to the article. Most customers are now asking for these rights to be included." So, Reciprocity, you were right: Fair Use, it seems to be. Richard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 If by 'fair use' you mean it's covered by the licence, yes. i assumed Rec was referring to the American copyright doctrine of 'fair use' which we don't have. The retweets are still infringements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Don't forget that all social media stakes claim to any shared images, so once there, facebook, twitter etc have the rights to use your photo or sell it if they wish. And if anyone can think of a way to control social media, let me know. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Don't forget that all social media stakes claim to any shared images, so once there, facebook, twitter etc have the rights to use your photo or sell it if they wish. And if anyone can think of a way to control social media, let me know. Jill No, you don't give up any rights if you end up there via a third party. Sublicensing is specifically excluded from the user agreement. 3. Grant of rights and restrictions Alamy grants to you a non-exclusive (unless otherwise stated on invoice), non-sublicensable and non-assignable right to Reproduce the Image(s) solely in the manner and for the purposes set out in the Invoice. The licence FB and TW purport to claim aren't the Alamy licensee's to grant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Don't forget that all social media stakes claim to any shared images, so once there, facebook, twitter etc have the rights to use your photo or sell it if they wish. And if anyone can think of a way to control social media, let me know. Jill No, you don't give up any rights if you end up there via a third party. Sublicensing is specifically excluded from the user agreement. 3. Grant of rights and restrictions Alamy grants to you a non-exclusive (unless otherwise stated on invoice), non-sublicensable and non-assignable right to Reproduce the Image(s) solely in the manner and for the purposes set out in the Invoice. The licence FB and TW purport to claim aren't the Alamy licensee's to grant. Recheck your facebook agreement. If someone shares your photo, and its on their page which does not have privacy settings, then your image is up for grabs. Even if you closed your facebook account, any of your images that ended up on other people's pages are fair game. Twitter is the same. I believe Instagram backed off though. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 I don't use FB. That isn't what the OP is asking about. He's asking about retweets of an image for which the Economist has a licence for Twitter. it can't sublicense so it cannot grant a licence to Twitter. and Twitter cannot claim it has one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 When you post on twitter, you give them a license. Same with facebook. So sites that have your images with all the social media links below, are basically sublcensing your photo out to facebook or twitter. To me I can't understand that as the person who shares doesn't have the right to give them the license, but I know in facebook's agreement it even stipulates that your images are theirs to use if shared by others. Be interesting to see how something like this would all work out in a court of law, becasue many of the images shared on facebook did not originate from a facebook account, therefore the copyright holder is powerless as although they don't have a facebook account, with their license through Alamy they allow it to be shared on social media. So so confusing. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 When I post, yes. But the user agreement does not permit sublicensing. So when the Economist put the OP's image on Twitter, as it was licensed to do,it dd not give Twitter a licence because it had none to give. I've repeated this three times now. The sites which put a 'share' button on an Alamy image are purporting to sublicense but they are not doing so in fact because they can't. So when you do share, you infringe. IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.