India rights

[Cryptoprocta]

This sale just popped in:

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Editorial
Media: Editorial website
Industry sector: Travel & tourism
Image Size: Any size
Start: 16 August 2016
End: 16 August 2021
India Rights

 

What does that mean? Web/all rights in India are now restricted on that image?

I wasn't asked about that, and the sale only netted me $3.51, so in principle I'd have refused if asked.

In practice, I guess the chance of that particular file selling again in India is very remote, but who knows?

 

But it brings up another, more general question.

If someone has bought rights to an image for a particular country/area for web use, what does that actually mean, as any website can be viewed from almost every country.

[Pearl]

I had a similar one last month

 

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Editorial
Media: Editorial website
Industry sector: Media, design & publishing
Image Size: Any size
Start: 21 July 2016
End: 21 July 2021
Novel use, India Rights

 

 Gross price $ 1.39!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I know we aren't supposed to mention low prices on here but....

 

I thought Novel use was for licenses that didn't fit the norm whereas this is Editorial Website use.

 

Pearl

[spacecadet]

 

 Gross price $ 1.39!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I know we aren't supposed to mention low prices on here but....

 

I thought Novel use was for licenses that didn't fit the norm whereas this is Editorial Website use.

 

Pearl

The occasional indignant howl is alright. especially at that price. Never mind the cost of the film, that would hardly pay for the electricity.

[Cryptoprocta]

I have had a very prompt reply from MS. Kudo's to their efficiency.

 

Apparently the usage is legitimate under the licencing rules because the company and website are based in India.

 

I find it a poor precedent... the main company is US based. The article for the international consumption. I have an inkling where this can lead, and it isn;t advantageous.

And the answer I got was:

"License details are taken from the price calculator that has set values so it’s notalways possible to be 100% specific. Where we can, we’ll add clarifications into theadditional sales info field.So here you can see in the license details the country is given as Worldwide. Butthe rights granted to the client were for web usage in India only.It is to override the Worldwide rights that additional sales info was provided as'India Rights'.This just means that **the image can 'only' be used  for web usage in India.**"

Which, IMO, makes no possible sense.

[John Mitchell]

This is something that has always confused me as well. How can website use be restricted to a particular country when the internet is accessible around the world (except perhaps in North Korea and China)?

 

Also, it begs the question, how might the image be used differently if the licensing details didn't contain the override "India Rights"?

 

Still confused...

[domf]

I too have 2 photo's licensed for $1.34, one of which is Novel us India only. There are situations where you cannot access all websites, the website host can control who can see their website or limit pages within their website to geographic areas based on your ISP address, for example I live in Australia and if I go to an airline's website to purchase flight tickets, the Airline's website knows where I am located and will only let me see the pages for Australian customers where the flight prices are higher than if I was in another country and wanting to by tickets on the same flight. So maybe these India only licenses are for pages on websites that can only be accessed in India.

[Cryptoprocta]

I too have 2 photo's licensed for $1.34, one of which is Novel us India only. There are situations where you cannot access all websites, the website host can control who can see their website or limit pages within their website to geographic areas based on your ISP address, for example I live in Australia and if I go to an airline's website to purchase flight tickets, the Airline's website knows where I am located and will only let me see the pages for Australian customers where the flight prices are higher than if I was in another country and wanting to by tickets on the same flight. So maybe these India only licenses are for pages on websites that can only be accessed in India.

I can assure you that I can see the page which is using my image perfectly easily here in the UK, just by having done a reverse image search.

It's the .in version of the website of  "an American mass media company headquartered at One World Trade Center in New York City", clearly aimed at international travellers.

I'm opted out of 'novel use'. I'd hope that those who have novel use: India aren't being used by the same company: that would NOT be any sort of novel use.

[Cryptoprocta]

This is something that has always confused me as well. How can website use be restricted to a particular country when the internet is accessible around the world (except perhaps in North Korea and China)?

 

Also, it begs the question, how might the image be used differently if the licensing details didn't contain the override "India Rights"?

 

Still confused...

"Unfortunately due to the nature of the internet, once something is published onlineit can be found in other territories around the world. The licensing here is to showthat it can and is being used on an Indian site. Similar to if you were to have anarticle written on a UK based site being available to read and view over in Spain. "Indeed, so it makes no sense to grant "Indian Rights" for worldwide views."Not all Indian companies will purchase Indian Rights, if (the US based multi-media company) cameto us and wanted to purchase an image from India, but were going to use it on theirUS and Spanish websites as well then they would need to purchase Worldwide Usage. "

(And, BTW, my image was from Scotland, not India.)

[John Mitchell]

 

This is something that has always confused me as well. How can website use be restricted to a particular country when the internet is accessible around the world (except perhaps in North Korea and China)?

 

Also, it begs the question, how might the image be used differently if the licensing details didn't contain the override "India Rights"?

 

Still confused...

"Unfortunately due to the nature of the internet, once something is published onlineit can be found in other territories around the world. The licensing here is to showthat it can and is being used on an Indian site. Similar to if you were to have anarticle written on a UK based site being available to read and view over in Spain. "Indeed, so it makes no sense to grant "Indian Rights" for worldwide views."Not all Indian companies will purchase Indian Rights, if (the US based multi-media company) cameto us and wanted to purchase an image from India, but were going to use it on theirUS and Spanish websites as well then they would need to purchase Worldwide Usage. "

(And, BTW, my image was from Scotland, not India.)

 

 

Thanks for sharing this. It's a tangled Web we've woven...

[Michael Halberstadt]

I had an incident like that a while back too. A Czech automobile manufacturer had used an image and it was priced as though it were for domestic use, but was in fact being used in English. The brand in question sells most of their vehicles for export and most everybody in Europe would be familiar with the make.

 

Actually I should state that I think that was the use, but one of the problems I'm having with Alamy is I never know who bought the image. If I find three uses in Czech Republic and two sales I don't know who the infringer is. But that's another story.

 

Frustrating but from Alamy's point of view I'm not sure how one would handle these things best. It doesn't seem unreasonable that there are very low prices in places that are very poor if images are being used for domestic consumption, like India. And that small and not super-rich places like Czech would pay little is also fine so long as for domestic consumption. 

 

As I recall I got enough to buy a beer in a touristy part of the Czech Republic out of this ($5-7 -50 -50%?)

[Cryptoprocta]

I had an incident like that a while back too. A Czech automobile manufacturer had used an image and it was priced as though it were for domestic use, but was in fact being used in English. The brand in question sells most of their vehicles for export and most everybody in Europe would be familiar with the make.

 

Actually I should state that I think that was the use, but one of the problems I'm having with Alamy is I never know who bought the image. If I find three uses in Czech Republic and two sales I don't know who the infringer is. But that's another story.

 

Frustrating but from Alamy's point of view I'm not sure how one would handle these things best. It doesn't seem unreasonable that there are very low prices in places that are very poor if images are being used for domestic consumption, like India. And that small and not super-rich places like Czech would pay little is also fine so long as for domestic consumption. 

 

As I recall I got enough to buy a beer in a touristy part of the Czech Republic out of this ($5-7 -50 -50%?)

But that's not how it works. The cheapest discounts go to the biggerst buyers, who probably have the largest pockets. Whereas small community groups with no budget have to pay the 'rack rate', so more often do without.

 

This particular website, NB just the .in part of an international multi-media company,'s travel arm, was aimed foursquare at the international travel market, not the 'rural poor'.