skylineboy Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 i was looking back through some old sales recently. some sales i wasnt looking for specifically, so omitted them. i was reading a publishing story on a news site, and it reported the circulation that a certain magazine i know i have sold to (through alamy), is currently at, and also historic circulations for the latest year / quarter etc. its usage from me was: Country: GermanyUsage: EditorialMedia: Magazine - print, digital and electronicPrint run: up to 10,000Placement: InsideImage Size: 1 pageStart: 01 September 2014End: 01 October 2014 but the circulation that i have found for this company / publisher's title - at the lowest has been in the 100's of thousands so i have a few questions. the same usage today (even though i cant select 1 month, the lowest it will allow is 5 years) would cost near double the 10000 print run. surely if i have read their circulation is in the 100's thousands they have mis-represented their usage for the image ? and also i get that it was for a monthly timeframe, which makes sense as the mag is monthly, do they have continued, in perpetuity use online? eg as a archive? and the strange thing is after reading a bit on refunds on another thread, this one was indeed changed a lot and refunded 2-3 times, the info above was the latest date and therefore the one i got paid for im sure. many thanks Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Robinson Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 I had one recently for online edition only, but I had already found it in the print version of the paper. I've contacted member services, still waiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vpics Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Could the one you're referring to be an unreported one? Maybe Alamy have billed for a different usage. I'd ask MS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylineboy Posted November 2, 2015 Author Share Posted November 2, 2015 im pretty sure the usage above was paid correctly, however, i feel it could be mis-represented, as i say, 10000 run, when its a pretty big mag that used it! and i have a good evidence that i have found that they havent dipped below 100k! i shall make a little "case" and email MS. has anyone else had similar issues? or am i perhaps expecting too much, and its a quirk of the alamy / buyer relationship. Could the one you're referring to be an unreported one? Maybe Alamy have billed for a different usage. I'd ask MS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlbertSnapper Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Mis-reporting (cheating) by customers.... One image of mine, licenced just the once, pops up as a sale for editorial book use in the UK. Several months later I find the way in which the image was used....not in a book, but in a glossy brochure for a luxury property developer. My sales report pricing matched the Alamy price calculator for an editorial book. However, when I changed the price calculator's details, ie. from editorial book to brochure for the property industry, there was quite a hike in the fee. A nice £££ saving there for the PR design company who produced the brochure. I did inform MS, to no avail. edit. Had I not found the way in which the image was used, I'd be falsely (unknowingly) claiming with the DACS Payback scheme (thinking it was used in a UK published book). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arletta Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Albert, why to no avail? I've found few of my images missing the licencing goal. I don't know if should get used to it or what... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Mis-reporting (cheating) by customers.... One image of mine, licenced just the once, pops up as a sale for editorial book use in the UK. Several months later I find the way in which the image was used....not in a book, but in a glossy brochure for a luxury property developer. My sales report pricing matched the Alamy price calculator for an editorial book. However, when I changed the price calculator's details, ie. from editorial book to brochure for the property industry, there was quite a hike in the fee. A nice £££ saving there for the PR design company who produced the brochure. I did inform MS, to no avail. I think I'd be after that one for breach of copyright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylineboy Posted November 4, 2015 Author Share Posted November 4, 2015 i have reported this issue to MS now, and they have asked for my evidence of circulation of the mag, one report from the industry shows 400-odd thousands, and another from the mag themselves qoute 660K !! (i found a page where they themselves say how good they are and how much advertisers can reach if they pay for ad's etc) much more than the paid for use of 10k plus web i was given! maybe a warning for others if you feel you have been underpaid. i shall let you know what MS say and any outcomes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Halberstadt Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 One of the issues that's tricky with Alamy is they don't tell you who used the image AND that usages don't show right away. So it's possible for example that one publication has correctly licenses for their obscure magazine then you find that image in Der Spiegel or something and think you've been had. Yet the Der Spiegel sale might not post for months. I'm having real trouble figuring out what uses are actual infringements because it's quite common for Alamy to issue a really vague license a couple times for an image and then I find the same image used a dozen times on the web. Which 10 stole the image and which two actually licensed it? I think Alamy would be wise to try and come up with a system to try and insure their (perhaps I should say our) clients are being straight. For web use one idea that might work is requiring end users to include credits with Alamy and the photographer's name or pseudonym. In addition, perhaps Alamy should require users NOT to strip the metadata of photos they use. I just did a test and searched for "alamy" and "credit" in the news. I found one disturbing use that might warrant another thread. But I downloaded five images from different news articles and looked at their file info in Photoshop. One actually had the metadata in tact including a link to the clients order summary (didn't work for me but might have for them if they logged in.) Four of the five sample images had their metadata stripped. At least for web uses, what if the license the end user paid for be automatically inserted into exif and required to stay as part of the license? Maybe that could include the paying publications name too. Then if we found our photo on a website we'd know right off if it were a violation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Which 10 stole the image and which two actually licensed it? Alamy will tell you if a particular use is licensed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arletta Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Michael, maybe this thread will be also interesting for you? http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/4617-credit-and-copyright/#entry77244 I my opinion it's a serious problem and Alamy should take more care about our rights (credit, usage, details on licensing...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 One of the issues that's tricky with Alamy is they don't tell you who used the image AND that usages don't show right away. So it's possible for example that one publication has correctly licenses for their obscure magazine then you find that image in Der Spiegel or something and think you've been had. Yet the Der Spiegel sale might not post for months. I'm having real trouble figuring out what uses are actual infringements because it's quite common for Alamy to issue a really vague license a couple times for an image and then I find the same image used a dozen times on the web. Which 10 stole the image and which two actually licensed it? I think Alamy would be wise to try and come up with a system to try and insure their (perhaps I should say our) clients are being straight. For web use one idea that might work is requiring end users to include credits with Alamy and the photographer's name or pseudonym. In addition, perhaps Alamy should require users NOT to strip the metadata of photos they use. I just did a test and searched for "alamy" and "credit" in the news. I found one disturbing use that might warrant another thread. But I downloaded five images from different news articles and looked at their file info in Photoshop. One actually had the metadata in tact including a link to the clients order summary (didn't work for me but might have for them if they logged in.) Four of the five sample images had their metadata stripped. At least for web uses, what if the license the end user paid for be automatically inserted into exif and required to stay as part of the license? Maybe that could include the paying publications name too. Then if we found our photo on a website we'd know right off if it were a violation. Are you sure Alamy is not stripping the metadata itself? The zoomed images have no metadata anymore like they used to have before the new page layout. wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Halberstadt Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 No, I'm not sure who strips the metadata. One quick search of Alamy images on the web showed 1/5 had some metadata. If Alamy strips all the metadata I think that's bad for them and us. It might be in Alamy's interest to remove anything that would ease the client going directly to the photographer and skipping the middleman. But beyond that stripping EXIF just makes infringement enforcement nearly impossible! Alamy and contributors have a strong interest in not giving away to non-clients what others have paid for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.