Jump to content

Interesting article re: Daily Mail


Recommended Posts

'Earlier this week, a Guardian writer attacked the daily mail for carrying comments by the controversialist Katie Hopkins.  That was a lie. The Guardian and its writer know that Ms Hopkins has nothing to do with the Daily Mail, but works for Mail Online - a totally separate entity that has its own publisher, its own readership, different content and a very different world view.'

 

This is a quote from an article written by Paul Dacre, owner and publisher of the Daily Mail.  He is obviously stating that the Daily Mail newspaper and the Mail Online are two totally separate entities.

 

I'd like to know if the Alamy charges the Daily Mail for newspaper usage of an image and then levies a separate charge for online usage of the same image.

 

If Alamy does not do this I'd like to know why.

Edited by Gordon Scammell
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beware, OT.

IDK, but it's a bit rich for the Daily Fail to disown a website that shares its branding and editorial line. Methinks he doth protest too much but things must have got pretty dire when Dacre feels the need to disown Hopkins. Calling the Grauniad liars? Pot, kettle. He that is without sin.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Beware, OT.

IDK, but it's a bit rich for the Daily Fail to disown a website that shares its branding and editorial line. Methinks he doth protest too much but things must have got pretty dire when Dacre feels the need to disown Hopkins. Calling the Grauniad liars? Pot, kettle. He that is without sin.

 

With the greatest respect, I think you have missed my point.

 

I have no interest in Paul Dacre or his protests, but when, as owner, he states that the Daily Mail and Mail Online are separate entities then my interest is well and truly piqued.  I assume that from now on Alamy would be charging for every use and not including online usage in the same deal as the print usage. 

 

Contributors should realise that every time one of their images is licenced via Alamy to The Mail and it includes online usage for a single fee then they are being shortchanged.

 

I know what I will be doing in future.  If I find an image of mine is licensed to The Mail and Mail Online for a single fee I will be invoicing the Mail for the online usage.  Usage in the Daily Mail and in the Mail online are two separate uses and should be treated as such.  As far as I am concerned any usage for the Mail Online that isn't separately paid for automatically becomes an infringement that I will be happy to pursue myself.  

 

 I'd just like an opinion from Alamy.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did say it was OT.

My newspaper print licences always seem to include online, that's why they're extra money, 2-3 times the fee.

Admittedly I don't think I've had a DM print licence, but I'd expect "titles within the same group" to cover it. I'm not sure you can hold Dacre to what he says about true nature of the relationship between the newspaper and the website- after all the URL of mailonline is dailymail.co.uk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, spacecadet said:

I did say it was OT.

My newspaper print licences always seem to include online, that's why they're extra money, 2-3 times the fee.

Admittedly I don't think I've had a DM print licence, but I'd expect "titles within the same group" to cover it. I'm not sure you can hold Dacre to what he says about true nature of the relationship between the newspaper and the website- after all the URL of mailonline is dailymail.co.uk.

 

I have sold images to The Daily Mail  The same images are used online and I have received a separate payment.  These images were not licensed through Alamy.  

I have sold images to The Daily Mail.  The same images are used online and I have not received a separate payment.  These images were licensed through Alamy.

 

Someone is allowing us to made mugs of - and I don't think It's the Mail.  I have found the Mail to be fairly generous with their payments when I have dealt with them directly.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've been complaining loud and long,  here and to Support, I've been waiting for multiple unreported/unpaid repeats of sales to the Daily Mail/MailOnline/ThisIsMoney for 18 months now and counting.

The Muddle Group seems to get most of its pics from one of the micros now, so I don't see what Alamy would have to lose by chasing them up for payment. The last I heard, my claim had got lost during some system reboot, but that was six months ago ... The low payment via Alamy?UKNS was only bearable because of repeat sales.

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • 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.