Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Contributors, if you've seen an unauthorized use of one of your images you can now fill out this handy form on your contributor dashboard to get our #infringement team to take a look!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Has been used in a personal (non commercial) blog or on an individual’s social media platform.
  • Is or has previously been available for sale or display on any other website.
  • Has been reproduced on another website as a direct copy of an original article which has a license.
  • Is in the public domain.

Quite a lot of exceptions. 

 

What if the image has been lifted from somewhere else and used on the social media?

And does the wording mean that if a company has used the image on social media, it will be okay to report?

- and the third line: "display on any other website" - if the image has been sold for web use it probably would have been on display on a website. Does it mean that web uses cannot be reported at all?

 

Niels

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the licence doesn't cover social media use then presumably you can report.

The third item just means they'll only pursue images exclusive to Alamy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

If the licence doesn't cover social media use then presumably you can report.

The third item just means they'll only pursue images exclusive to Alamy.

 

Thanks - that'll be the most probable interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, spacecadet said:

If the licence doesn't cover social media use then presumably you can report.

The third item just means they'll only pursue images exclusive to Alamy.

I don't think so. I had a photo lifted from an appearance in a national newspaper and put on numerous Twitter and Pinterest webpages. Alamy told me they couldn't follow those uses up. That's up to the contributor. A blog might be different, but I'm not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Sally said:

I don't think so. I had a photo lifted from an appearance in a national newspaper and put on numerous Twitter and Pinterest webpages. Alamy told me they couldn't follow those uses up. That's up to the contributor. A blog might be different, but I'm not sure.

In response to Neils's question I was referring only to a licensee using it on its own social media.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2017 at 07:30, Niels Quist said:
  • Is or has previously been available for sale or display on any other website

 

Does that mean that if Alamy ever licensed the image in question to some sort of on-line presence, they won't pursue? Effectively, they'd pursue only images lifted directly from Alamy?

 

GI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, giphotostock said:

 

Does that mean that if Alamy ever licensed the image in question to some sort of on-line presence, they won't pursue? Effectively, they'd pursue only images lifted directly from Alamy?

 

GI

No.

I answered this. It refers to non-exclusives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, spacecadet said:

No.

I answered this. It refers to non-exclusives.

 

Good to see that Alamy are encouraging us to inform them about infringements. The exceptions appear quite limiting, but sensible (from Alamy's perspective).

 

My interpretation is that Alamy will only pursue infringements where the following is evident

  • The published image must have been downloaded (or copied) directly from Alamy's (or their distributors?) website AND
  • A licence has not been purchased from Alamy for the usage OR the usage breaks the terms of any Alamy licence that was purchased. 

If the image has ever been displayed/published elsewhere previously* they won't pursue potential infringements (even if the previous display/publication was using a legitimate Alamy licence).

 

Or have I misunderstood?

 

Mark

 

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/11/2017 at 20:04, M.Chapman said:

 

Good to see that Alamy are encouraging us to inform them about infringements. The exceptions appear quite limiting, but sensible (from Alamy's perspective).

 

My interpretation is that Alamy will only pursue infringements where the following is evident

  • The published image must have been downloaded (or copied) directly from Alamy's (or their distributors?) website AND
  • A licence has not been purchased from Alamy for the usage OR the usage breaks the terms of any Alamy licence that was purchased. 

If the image has ever been displayed/published elsewhere previously* they won't pursue potential infringements (even if the previous display/publication was using a legitimate Alamy licence).

 

Or have I misunderstood?

 

Mark

 

Not quite. I had one photo purchased by a national newspaper which then appeared all over the place. Alamy were happy to chase up an American Christian based website. However they eventually told me that they were unable to get the owner to pay, but the photo was removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sally said:

Not quite. I had one photo purchased by a national newspaper which then appeared all over the place. Alamy were happy to chase up an American Christian based website. However they eventually told me that they were unable to get the owner to pay, but the photo was removed.

 

I wonder if they will no longer pursue such cases? If they still do, why include the exception?

  • "Has been reproduced on another website as a direct copy of an original article which has a license".

I've also had Alamy chase an "indirect usage" by another publication of a photo published in a magazine using an Alamy licence. But it was several years ago now.

 

One thing I find frustrating is the online newspaper usage sometimes allows you to click on the image and view/copy much larger version of the image than is displayed in the article. Why??

I often find illegal higher res copies of my images elsewhere on line after a newspaper usage. Couldn't Alamy, as part of the preferential T&Cs given to newspapers, include some sort of of restrictions? Mmmm.... Given that Newspapers often fail to include a credit line anyway, which is presumably already the T&Cs, I guess it wouldn't be followed/couldn't be enforced.

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

I wonder if they will no longer pursue such cases? If they still do, why include the exception?

  • "Has been reproduced on another website as a direct copy of an original article which has a license".

I've also had Alamy chase an "indirect usage" by another publication of a photo published in a magazine using an Alamy licence. But it was several years ago now.

 

One thing I find frustrating is the online newspaper usage sometimes allows you to click on the image and view/copy much larger version of the image than is displayed in the article. Why??

I often find illegal higher res copies of my images elsewhere on line after a newspaper usage. Couldn't Alamy, as part of the preferential T&Cs given to newspapers, include some sort of of restrictions? Mmmm.... Given that Newspapers often fail to include a credit line anyway, which is presumably already the T&Cs, I guess it wouldn't be followed/couldn't be enforced.

 

Mark

 

Larger screens and higher resolutions (e.g. Apple Retina) make large files a must for publishers (hence for photographers). The next Olympics will set 4K as the norm I'm afraid. And the ones after that may well be in 8K.

4K is 3840 × 2160 for tv; 4096 × 2160 for film.

8K is 8192 × 4320 and 8192 × 5120.

Which may mean 35.4 and 41.9 megapixel in 6,5 years from now.

My guess is that most now play safe and publish at or around 2K: 2048 × 1080.

Today after downloading one of mine I noticed that The Guardian uses the older standard of 1920x1080, just like the Windows 10 screensavers/desktop backgrounds that came up yesterday. The Sun keeps them bigger than that, but doesn't give a direct link. The one I spotted on Thursday is 3378x2916 on their server.

 

The stripping of metadata should be enforced.

UK law (Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003):

 

New s. 296ZG of the 1988 Act created new rights in respect of electronic rights management information metadata. The right is infringed by:

  • the person who knowingly removes electronic copyright management information which is associated with a copy of a copyright work, or appears in connection with the communication to the public of a copyright work;
  • the person who knowingly distributes or communicates to the public copies of a work from which electronic rights management information has been removed.

wikipedia

EU law of 2001.  After being fined by the EU for not implementing, the UK has put this into it's own law of 1988. AFAIK all EU law will be kept after Brexit.

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

 

 

The stripping of metadata should be enforced.

UK law (Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003):

 

New s. 296ZG of the 1988 Act created new rights in respect of electronic rights management information metadata. The right is infringed by:

  • the person who knowingly removes electronic copyright management information which is associated with a copy of a copyright work, or appears in connection with the communication to the public of a copyright work;
  • the person who knowingly distributes or communicates to the public copies of a work from which electronic rights management information has been removed.

wikipedia

EU law of 2001.  After being fined by the EU for not implementing, the UK has put this into it's own law of 1988. AFAIK all EU law will be kept after Brexit.

 

wim

4

 

 

Don't ALAMY already strip some metadata?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, mickfly said:

 

 

Don't ALAMY already strip some metadata?

 

AFAIK not our own name/pseudonym.

It certainly inserts copyright Alamy.

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, geogphotos said:

But if credited to Alamy in name and using my own pseudo ( not used anywhere else) surely there is a case to pursue?

 

Seems very logical...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems a very strange process and as I am in the process of chasing my first ever sale that I found, but hasn't been reported, I'm pretty staggered at how easy it is for someone not to report a sale and also the fact that, it can take more than a day or two, for someone to respond to the actual usage, not Alamy, but the customer.

 

This makes me more worried about the personal sales and others, which seemingly are given a large file!

 

As I've never had to chase an image usage before, I'm not impressed, I'm sure we have all sold images from our websites at low resolution for a customer, who wants to use it wherever, but not a large file at such a low price, that they can do then anything with it and I'm unlikely to find out about it.

 

There seems to be a very large amount of trust in what is a very competitive business

 

Chris

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Like my RM image licensed today for just under $8. should have been $50 at least.:D

 

Allan

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/11/2017 at 17:51, wiskerke said:

 

AFAIK not our own name/pseudonym.

It certainly inserts copyright Alamy.

 

wim

In what way do they have the right to do that? How can they claim copyright on our images?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

In what way do they have the right to do that? How can they claim copyright on our images?

 

I was not completely correct: in fact Alamy inserts

My Pseudo / Alamy Stock Photo

in at least 2 fields like this:

 

Artist - Wim Wiskerke / Alamy Stock Photo
Copyright - Credit: Wim Wiskerke / Alamy Stock Photo

 

So the field is titled Artist or Copyright.

This is just the industrial standard everybody adheres to.

If you want a file with the sort of metadata the client is getting: here's one of mine I spotted last week.

Open it in Photoshop and open File Info Shift Ctrl Alt i or go to File and then clickFile Info.

Or open it in PIE (free).

Only the size and the color space have been altered.

It's good to see an image with the metadata still there. As the law requires btw.

I'm pretty sure that somewhere in our contract is a line that says or implies Alamy does not claim my copyright when it inserts My Pseudo / Alamy Stock Photo into the Copyright field.

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Oh, that's OK, and - as you say - perfectly standard. Thanks for the clarification.

 

Great pic, BTW!

 

Edited by Cryptoprocta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2017 at 10:47, wiskerke said:

 

 

The stripping of metadata should be enforced.

UK law (Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003):

 

New s. 296ZG of the 1988 Act created new rights in respect of electronic rights management information metadata. The right is infringed by:

  • the person who knowingly removes electronic copyright management information which is associated with a copy of a copyright work, or appears in connection with the communication to the public of a copyright work;
  • the person who knowingly distributes or communicates to the public copies of a work from which electronic rights management information has been removed.

wikipedia

EU law of 2001.  After being fined by the EU for not implementing, the UK has put this into it's own law of 1988. AFAIK all EU law will be kept after Brexit.

 

wim

 

It is also illegal to strip metadata in the U.S.  Civil liabilities only.

 

Rick

Share this post


Link to post
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

×
×
  • 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.