Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Given these suspicions of rampant abuse why is that nobody can point to an actual example?


I don't think that Alamy would be particularly happy if I - or anyone else - started listing names, URLs, etc. here, do you?! 


BTW, I haven't had refunds, only images incorrectly licensed. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've said before, I've had refunds of PU sales of boxes of medicinal pills. As suggested on the forum, it seemed like the buyers thought they were actually buying the medications. When I questioned this with Alamy, they said I'd be surprised how often that happens, and not just for medicines. I then put wording to the effect that this was a stock photo, not a real packet of tablets into the description, or where space didn't allow, in the extra information, and haven't had a refund since. Stupid and/or desperate people buying medicine from an unknown (for medications) site; but that's easy for me to say in a country where prescribed medicine is free to all.

Share this post

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


I have referred to an actual real infringement in another thread without listing and names or details. 


Maybe it is not too surprising that people new to stock choose the wrong licence?


Can you give me a link to that post? Maybe I'm being slow, but I'm not sure how you'd do that!


Having done a little web design/development in the past, nothing would surprise me about the mistakes the general public make or, in our specific case here, the images they might licence for the most bizarre of purposes! I constantly had to remind web design clients that the textual content of their web pages was primarily there for search engines to scour, not for the human visitor to read, because chances are that - unless it was something of primary importance or particular interest - the text would be skimmed at best.


At Alamy, of course, most visitors are here to research or purchase, so more time will be spent and more attention to detail will be paid. However, those purchasing a PU license for genuine reasons will doubtless make mistakes, I agree, and some slack should be given. We're all human. At least, that's what I keep telling myself! :D


All said, I'm sorry, but I can't help but be infuriated by individuals, companies and organisations who choose to deliberately take advantage of others in life for nothing but their own benefit. I know that this is more social thinking than business thinking, and probably more to my own detriment than anything. Even concentrating on these posts gives me a headache! Time to move on....<_<

  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an update on one of my images licensed as personal use, which was found by me being used by a commercial business on their website.


The image in question was licensed under PU terms on 13th Feb 2017.  I found it on 6th October 2017 and notified Alamy on the same date.  The image was licensed again on 8th March 2018 for $40.27 under the following terms:


Country: Worldwide
Usage: Commercial electronic, Websites, apps, social media and blogs (excludes advertising). Worldwide for 5 years.
Media: Website, app and social media
Image Size: Any size
Start: 08 March 2018
End: 08 March 2023


I suspected that this was a re-license of the infringement, but heard nothing official from Alamy until an email from Abingdon today ("we’ve had a switch up of teams here and it seems the communication from them about this never reached us").


So the total license fee is $40.27 + $12.11 = $52.38.


I now await updates on a further PU misuse and a presentation license misuse dating back to May and July 2017 and will have to supply Alamy with further info on other similar discoveries.


Trouble is, it has taken nearly a year and a half and around ten emails (from me) + the all the admin and record-keeping to resolve one case and get the additional $40.27, which amounts to ~£15 net, before income tax/NI etc. are taken into account.  And it only bumps me up to what the license fee should have been in the first place!  There is no disincentive to the buyer not to do the same thing again.  In fact, they and many others know that most togs will likely not have the time or incentive to seek out and pursue such uses.


Onward, ever onward....:mellow:


Edited by losdemas
Additional Info. added
  • Like 1

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.