Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SFL

Email from Alamy Infringement

Recommended Posts

A few days ago, I received an email from Alamy Infringement (Team) saying that they found a possible infringement of a image of mine.    So they needed a confirmation, that I had not sold the image directly or through another agency to the company concerned, in order for them to pursue the infringement.  Thank you and well done Alamy!  


 


The irony is that two words, Law and Consulting, are included in this company’s name.  They should know better that the stealing is NOT lawful.


 


I know that Alamy are not searching through the entire internet but they must be combing through regularly within their registered buyers’ activities. 


 


Anyway, it's a good news.


 


Sung


 


 


  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The irony is that two words, Law and Consulting, are included in this company’s name.  They should know better that the stealing is NOT lawful."

 

For some reason, a quote from Charles Dickens' novel Oliver Twist comes to mind:

 

“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot.... and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm delighted to hear there exists an Alamy Infringement Team. Many infringements may look like taking more effort than feasible but if we just assume the doormat position, we allow infringers open season. As individuals, we have viable options for pursuing infringers but the weight of a bigger corporation is much more of a worry for many. In this one area, I take my hat off to Getty who have made some progress and changed attitudes to some extent. But the problem sure hasn't gone away!

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the same e-mail a week ago regarding 2 images, and a similar one about 3m ago. Good for Alamy (and for us!)

 

Kumar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had one recently, too. Not come through as a sale as yet. But I guess it'll be peanuts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a few of these as well. And have been happy to see them, as I (like nearly everyone else) have no time or resources to put into pursing likely infringers.

 

At the time the email said that any recovered royalties would be included in my December monthly Alamy payment.

 

 

I've since forwarded evidence of a few other possible infringements to this Alamy team, but as far as I know they aren't yet pursuing those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For sure, outcomes of infringement actions has to be a lot better than peanuts although in the UK, courts will not allow "Penalty fees", so only considerations such as flagrancy and consequential loss can be used to upgrade level of settlements. Unfortunately, if being caught out doesn't hurt a bit, there are many who wont worry a great deal about the niceties of copyright and Intellectual property. I remember well back in primary school often being involved in the school plays. My first triumph was as Grumpy in Snow White; type casting ever after. Our teacher made us aware that we had to pay a royalty fee to the authors or their estates for our little production. Still happening?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need permission to perform a play and royalties are due to the author, but not for Snow White as it is out of Copyright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was quite a while ago!

In a land far far away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got that kind email too, but couldn't see the stolen image in the link Alamy provided so I asked them to explain where exactly they can see my image... After few emails (long time ago) Alamy still can't reply and give me details, where they see my image in usage... Lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a similar email a while back and when payment was made it was about $7. This was from an unauthorised use of an image used extensively by a UK newspaper over a 3 year period. The earnings haven't been massive although consistent. Just as a matter of interest I did a Google reverse image and Tineye search on this image and now have recorded over 60 unauthorised uses of this image around the world. I was shocked at the blatency of some of the uses, few of which carried any sort of credit. I've filled in the requested documentation on each of these uses and, as far as I know, either the Alamy infringement dept or an appointed agency is chasing them up. What has emerged from this is we need to supply image urls and the details of the web site owners. Alamy supply a form for this. They say they've limited their jurisdiction to the UK and N.America so I'll be chasing the Cypriot, Iranian, Kuwati, Russian, Mexican and Australian infringements :-(

One of the things that I'm hearing from these infringers is that they thought as the image was on the 'net, it is free for use. We all know that's not true but when I look at the newspaper use, there is often no credit to even give a hint there is an owner. Sure the infringers could have done what I did. All roads would then lead back to Alamy as the only authorised seller of the image rights. When we sign the Alamy contract, we sign away our Moral Rights (esp. paternity) but, and I've raised with this Alamy, I think we should be working towards including credits as part of the sales contract. 

This problem of a lack of a credit gives internet users the belief that a work has no apparent owner. Of course, there will always be those who will take an image, credit or not, but at least with a visible credit innocent users will be warned and the wilful lose their excuses. From my point of view, the low income from the newspaper usage, whilst always welcome, hardly justifies the almost total loss in value caused by the widespread unauthorised uses - and I'm still counting. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Anti-Piracy Group Caught Pirating Song For Anti-Piracy Ad... Corruption Scandal Erupts In Responsefrom the wow deptThe Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN is one of the most aggressive of the anti-piracy groups out there. So there's some amusement in watching as it gets caught up in a scandal that started when it pirated music for an anti-piracy campaign. BREIN had asked musician Melchoir Rietveldt to compose a song for a video that was only to be used at a local film festival. The terms of the deal were strict: the song was only for that one anti-piracy video at that one film festival. However, Rietveldt later discovered that the anti-piracy ad was being used all over the place -- a fact he discovered when he bought a Harry Potter DVD and noticed the video... with his music. 

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111201/17275016947/anti-piracy-group-caught-pirating-song-anti-piracy-ad-corruption-scandal-erupts-response.shtml

 

Nothing surprises me 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has petered-out it seems, which is a shame . . . to repeat a post of mine in another (less relevant) thread:

 

Does Alamy simply always sic PicScout onto infringers, or does Alamy sometimes just charge infringers for the discovered use?

 

If the former, does that mean PicScout take their half of the collected fee (correct me if I'm wrong on PicScout's cut . . . ) then Alamy take their cut, then the contributor gets . . . what percentage?

 

If the answer is that the contributor gets substantially less than 50% of the collected fee, wouldn't it be better for all if Alamy simply charged for the use (perhaps at a premium, non-discounted rate), thereby collecting half for themselves and half for the contributor, sans PicScout taking half in the first place?

 

Has anyone collected a fee from an Alamy/PicScout action that seemed equal to what they would have expected from a "normal" sale, or was it obviously missing PicScout's cut?

 

EDIT (added): I have recently turned a request for free use of one of my images found at Photoshelter into that same user paying me 75% of the price as per G's price calculator, which led me to ponder what would have happened if they had used the image without asking etc etc, which in turn led me back to this and related threads :-)

 

dd

Edited by dustydingo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Infringements collected by Alamy certainly aren't going to make you rich. I've now had 6 infringement payouts (they only appear in Balance of Account and not the sales summary) and the prices are akin to standard licenses. The last one I received yesterday netted me $14.47 and others were for similar amounts - the highest being $40.

 

I imagine PicScout come into the equation because, without them, the infringements wouldn't even have been discovered. Consequently, it wouldn't be possible for Alamy to simply issue a retrospective license (unless they're acting on information provided by a contributor). Unfortunately, it's not transparent as to what percentages are being taken by the various parties and it could be that the contributors' take is a fraction of the amount collected.

 

I've got another 50 or 60 cases that Alamy have told me about but I'm not expecting to make my fortune!

 

Ian D

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Infringements collected by Alamy certainly aren't going to make you rich. I've now had 6 infringement payouts (they only appear in Balance of Account and not the sales summary) and the prices are akin to standard licenses. 

 

 

Ian D

 

Do you receive any notification Ian, or is it necessary to keep an eye on your Balance of Account?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Infringements collected by Alamy certainly aren't going to make you rich. I've now had 6 infringement payouts (they only appear in Balance of Account and not the sales summary) and the prices are akin to standard licenses. 

Ian D

 

 

Do you receive any notification Ian, or is it necessary to keep an eye on your Balance of Account?

No notifications, Bryan. You have to keep an eye on Balance of Account. In fact, I didn't know about a couple of them until I did a "Find on this Page" search for the word "infringement"!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Infringements collected by Alamy certainly aren't going to make you rich. I've now had 6 infringement payouts (they only appear in Balance of Account and not the sales summary) and the prices are akin to standard licenses. 

Ian D

 

Do you receive any notification Ian, or is it necessary to keep an eye on your Balance of Account?

No notifications, Bryan. You have to keep an eye on Balance of Account. In fact, I didn't know about a couple of them until I did a "Find on this Page" search for the word "infringement"!

 

 

I had my first infringement pop up today. As IDP says, keep an eye on Balance of Account. It will state 'Other income', then 'Infringement' with image ID, followed by the amount you have received (that has cleared, so no waiting for payment). Nothing in Summary of Images Sold.

 

Not a lot but better than a slap in the face with a wet kipper.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad I read this. I've discovered one from a month ago that I hadn't noticed - I assumed they'd show up in the net revenue sales report - they don't.

Edited by Phil Robinson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.