infringement situation

[Ace]

Just had a reply from Alamy regarding an infringement I brought to their attention.I have been told that as there was no reply I am now free to conduct my own contact with the magazine that stole and used my photograph.

Not putting my photograph up here but if you look at this magazine

http://healthcaretimes.co.uk/category/healthcare-system/

there seem to be many photos used without the library tags etc etc

wonder if any more of these crystal clear photographs belong to other Alamy contributeR's ?

Feeling angry about what is a blatant theft in my case.

My photograph is only on Alamy.

 

Added to say that my own photograph had sold several times before before it was pinched.

[Ace]

Full website here http://healthcaretimes.co.uk/#page-13

[TeeCee]

Ace - I've had occasions when Alamy haven't been able to chase infringements, and I've simply invoiced the perpetrator.. (Not got any money yet, mind you.... )

Those cases were on sites nothing like as "reputable" as that which you're facing - at least you've got full contact details - so I'd start on the phone - ring 'em up and find out who thought they had the right to steal your photos.

Once you have a name, send an invoice marked for the attention of that individual.

Good luck!

[Ace]

Thanks for the replies. Yes I will call for a polite chat before writing.My style.politeness first.

I have found loads of infringements in the past but as they were usually grubby small often travel sites I've just left them.

But this sites seems more substantial and dare I say it, professional looking. Run by two Dr's.lets see....

[TeeCee]

Thanks for the replies. Yes I will call for a polite chat before writing.My style.politeness first.

I have found loads of infringements in the past but as they were usually grubby small often travel sites I've just left them.

But this sites seems more substantial and dare I say it, professional looking. Run by two Dr's.lets see....

If in the end you get nowhere with this, as it's a UK site I assume you're perfectly at liberty to pursue this in the County Court.

Current cost for an online claim of £300.00 or less is £25.00. Of course, you may win, obtain a CCJ against them, and still get no money - it may or may not be worth the gamble.

I'm pondering this with the infringement I have for a Northern Ireland company site.

[mickfly]

Strange that Alamy don't (as was mentioned) use their third party to aggressively pursue a named publisher.

 

I have had a few pay outs via Pixsy and there are a further two cases outstanding against big UK publishers, one of which failed to reply to my initial attempt to secure a licence and payment for infringement.
It can take time, but I have been kept informed and they have a UK legal team on the job in both cases.

 

The previous payouts by Pixsy even after 50% is taken off were way in excess of the licence fee which I would have gotten via a stock Library had the infringers been honest (and so it should be).

 

The link to the magazine is worth following.

[M.Chapman]

Just had a reply from Alamy regarding an infringement I brought to their attention.I have been told that as there was no reply I am now free to conduct my own contact with the magazine that stole and used my photograph.

Not putting my photograph up here but if you look at this magazine

http://healthcaretimes.co.uk/category/healthcare-system/

there seem to be many photos used without the library tags etc etc

wonder if any more of these crystal clear photographs belong to other Alamy contributeR's ?

Feeling angry about what is a blatant theft in my case.

My photograph is only on Alamy.

 

Added to say that my own photograph had sold several times before before it was pinched.

 

Suggest getting Pixsy on the case.

[Phil Robinson]

I've had this before. If the guilty party don't reply they just give up. Very disappointing. Once an infringer realises this is what happens they know they have unlimited free images.

[DHill]

Hmmm, I guess this is one of the ironies of the forum - it's important to discuss these things, but because it's a public forum, we're in danger of informing infringers about how to get away with their dirty work. 

 

Perhaps one of the closed groups, hidden from Google, such as the Facebook group that Martin runs, might be useful for this kind of discussion. 

[wiskerke]

Hmmm, I guess this is one of the ironies of the forum - it's important to discuss these things, but because it's a public forum, we're in danger of informing infringers about how to get away with their dirty work. 

 

Perhaps one of the closed groups, hidden from Google, such as the Facebook group that Martin runs, might be useful for this kind of discussion. 

 

+1

 

wim

[Ace]

I have now contacted this company.
They are concerned an employee may have used my photograph without permission.
I have offered them a settlement fee if paid within 7 days.
Explained otherwise it's goes through an outside agency to collect.
This is a public forum i agree and people should read that photographers will seek payment if they do not buy licenses legally through agencies.

 

Added to say ...

 

That i think, we think people completely understand about copyright when they probably don't. 

The more people understand that they may get charged/invoiced a large amount for using photographs they find online and use without permission the better.

Its all about education imo.

[Ace]

Photo invoice/ infringement paid !

 

After 3 phone calls explaining the use of my photograph without a license i gave them 3 options.

 

Smaller amount if paid within 7 days.

Then 14 days at much bigger money

After this time the matter would go through a collection service for much much more money.

 

They selected the first option.

 

I did a `calculator` price then simply doubled it.

Didn't want to get may A$$ out....  stayed polite and professional and got paid.

Simples 

[spacecadet]

That site is cruisin' for a bruisin'- I'm surprised they haven't had a bit of a tidy up since they got your letter.

I don't have much in that sort of category- mostly lifts from Mirror and mail  by the looks of it-  but can I suggest that anyone who does goes over that site with a fine-tooth comb.

[Ace]

That site is cruisin' for a bruisin'- I'm surprised they haven't had a bit of a tidy up since they got your letter.

I don't have much in that sort of category- mostly lifts from Mirror and mail  by the looks of it-  but can I suggest that anyone who does goes over that site with a fine-tooth comb.

 

Agree.

Small potential goldmine there !

 

 

Apparently, the story is, the guy whose name is on every article, the `Freelance Journo` completely `forgot` to buy my license 

 

I did suggest to them that they may get more phone calls in the future !!

 

The email...

 

Good afternoon Adrian,

 

As discussed in our telephone conversations, we have conducted an investigation and the journalist in question used the image in good faith but forgot on this occasion to get us to purchase it, which is why we had no knowledge.

 

Thank you for sending through your invoice for ££££ I can confirm that a BACS payment has been made into your account this afternoon from In Pu%$%$ Ltd.

 

... and this article was written by a `Professional` journalist who `adds` relevant photography `for them`they say on the phone !

[mickfly]

 

That site is cruisin' for a bruisin'- I'm surprised they haven't had a bit of a tidy up since they got your letter.

I don't have much in that sort of category- mostly lifts from Mirror and mail  by the looks of it-  but can I suggest that anyone who does goes over that site with a fine-tooth comb.

 

Agree.

Small potential goldmine there !

 

 

Apparently, the story is, the guy whose name is on every article, the `Freelance Journo` completely `forgot` to buy my license 

 

I did suggest to them that they may get more phone calls in the future !!

 

The question remains, why the hell didn't Alamy make the same effort with the infringement?

[regen]

"The question remains, why the hell didn't Alamy make the same effort with the infringement?"

 

I have a similar situation although it is not yet an infringement regarding payment.

 

I questioned the potential use of two personal use sales where the files were close ups of plant diseases. Not the stuff of wall paper or wall pictures.

 

The initial reply was that personal use can include things like reports but they would check.  However as they were unable to make contact with the purchaser they have closed the file.

 

​Both remain unpaid which begs the question why do they give credit to PU buyers rather than insisting on immediate card payment.

 

Regen