Correct description of licence in "My Sales"

[JohnB]

Can we please have correct description of licence in "My sales"

 

I do not see the point in giving so much detail in the licence description if, as an example, with newspaper sales the details are actually wrong. A recent sale of mine carried this licence information:

 

Country: United Kingdom
Usage: Editorial
Media: Newspaper - national
Print run: up to 2 million
Placement: Inside and online
Image Size: 1/4 page
Start: 01 August 2016
End: 02 August 2016
One use in a single editorial or advertorial article used within print and /or web versions, with re-use of the article in other titles or web versions within the same newspaper group. Digital use includes archive rights for the lifetime of the article. Any placement in paper and online.

 

I queried this licence as it was one of those rare uses I'd actually seen in the newspaper. In reality the image was  used twice in the same edition - once at larger than 1/2 page  and once on the front page. I'm told that under the newspaper scheme the paper can use the image at a flat rate  anywhere within that edition of the newspaper, and at whatever size they like. This actually means that everything in the licence description  below "Media Newspaper National" is wrong except the very last phrase " Any placement in paper and online." which contradicts and/or overrides all that precedes it.

[Niels Quist]

Unless the licence is RF - this is not according to my knowledge. The uses are for the very same article.

[JohnB]

Unless the licence is RF - this is not according to my knowledge. The uses are for the very same article.

Not entirely sure what you mean. I expected to be paid for two uses. "One use in a single editorial or advertorial article used within print and /or web versions," Does that simply mean the image can only be used once within one article or could be it interpreted to mean the image can be used as often as you like as long as it's included in different articles? (I'm joking - I hope!) .   I enquired about both the double usage and size and was assured that the usage was within the terms of the licence. I will ask for confirmation about the multiple usage.

 

Anyway this rather diverts from my main point that the image placement details, size details and ,of course, date are irrelevant and misleading.

[Niels Quist]

The licence terms say "One use in a single editorial or advertorial article". This will be in the same article for lifetime of the article, in print and online versions. The reuse clause is within the same newspaper group and still in connection with the same article. As far as I know this means that it could turn up in the same article, or mentioning of it, in other ways connected to the same newspaper.

You will often see articles with your images copied vigorously by bloggers and foreign "news sites" copying the article. These uses may very well be "out of the family" - or group - and you can, in due course, contact contributor service to report these as infringements. I am no expert in this, but I have experienced this numerous times. The disadvantage about newspaper sales is that the images most often are copied illegally by others, often in connection with the article, and Alamy only pursues infringements in certain western regions and not in social media.

[JohnB]

The image was used twice in the same printed version of the newspaper - once inside at half page and once on the front cover by the masthead. The front cover version was accompanied by text advertising the main article inside. My interpretation of the licence agreement was that I should have been paid for both uses. I'm told that both usages are covered by this licence and therefore I conclude that the licence details I have been presented with are meaningless in almost all respects. 

Now I understand your reference to RF. I was not suggesting that I thought the newspaper had somehow bought the right to do what they want with the image. I meant "anywhere within that edition of the newspaper" not "anywhere" per se. I have edited my original post accordingly.

[Niels Quist]

Sorry, only now I notice that this is in the Alamy conference - and that I probably was not meant to comment.

[JohnB]

That's fine. I think you helped me express my point more clearly. I did not write my first post very well. 

[JohnB]

I should say that, contrary to what I was led to believe yesterday, I have now been told that there was a mistake and the front-page use will be billed separately. This means that the licence description is not as inaccurate as I believed. I don't very often physically have the newspaper in my hand so when I see a newspaper sale arrive for a tiny amount I console myself with the belief that the image has been used at thumbnail size near the bottom of page 23. This came as a bit of a shock to me. 

So far it's barely covered the cost in time spent emailing "customer relations", photocopying tear sheets and arguing with Niels over something we appeared to agree on.

[Niels Quist]

Great though, you got a greenie 

[Gary]

In my experience magazines simply lie. Or let's be charitable, the editor *means* to do one thing and that is what they pay for, e.g half page. But then oh my goodness me whoops what a slip-up, the pesky art editor/designer/office scapegoat decided to change it at the last minute and it came out as a double-page spread - twice, once on the contents page. 

 

My point? Very often we have no idea because we don't see where it goes (not least because we aren't told where it goes). 

 

My question is, with Rights Managed, how much does Alamy actively check?

 

GE