Author Topic: Featured DT photographer on Alamy (Read 7313 times)

azurelaroux · « **Reply #25 on:** December 18, 2008, 09:40 »

If he's not listed as exclusive with the other sites then they won't really care where else he posts images to.

grp_photo · « **Reply #26 on:** December 18, 2008, 10:38 »

Quote from: azurelaroux on December 18, 2008, 09:40

If he's not listed as exclusive with the other sites then they won't really care where else he posts images to.

he marked his image as exclusive at fotolia and he sells the same image as RM at Alamy both is wrong. But i agree he will have no problems with SS and IS (at least he remains non-exclusive on that site).

epixx · « **Reply #27 on:** December 18, 2008, 11:31 »

I've mailed support at Alamy. Things like this is bad for their reputation, and thus bad for other contributors as well.

grp_photo · « **Reply #28 on:** December 18, 2008, 11:48 »

Quote from: epixx on December 18, 2008, 11:31

I've mailed support at Alamy. Things like this is bad for their reputation, and thus bad for other contributors as well.

Agree! I personally didn't care about selling the files as exclusive on various sites (on fotolia it isn't even visible for the average buyer) and i think in general they don't care if an RF-picture is exclusive to a site but selling the same files as RM on Alamy is plain stupid and destroys the reputation of RM in general and Alamys reputation specifically, so thank you!

Freedom · « **Reply #29 on:** December 18, 2008, 14:44 »

He definitely is not the only one.

If he no longer claims to be exclusive with any agencies, he is ok.

Alamy does not care because it does not ask for exclusivity. He only needs to change the image status to non-exclusive at FT.

lisafx · « **Reply #30 on:** December 18, 2008, 14:47 »

Quote from: Freedom on December 18, 2008, 14:44

Alamy does not care because it does not ask for exclusivity. He only needs to change the image status to non-exclusive at FT.

But I assume they WOULD care that he is selling the images RM. I thought selling images RM that have sold RF elsewhere was prohibited?

grp_photo · « **Reply #31 on:** December 18, 2008, 15:04 »

Quote from: Freedom on December 18, 2008, 14:44

He definitely is not the only one.

If he no longer claims to be exclusive with any agencies, he is ok.

Alamy does not care because it does not ask for exclusivity. He only needs to change the image status to non-exclusive at FT.

you have no idea at all. You obviously don't know the difference between RF and RM.
And Alamy do care i can promise you!

Freedom · « **Reply #32 on:** December 18, 2008, 15:43 »

I hope you do know more than I do. Let us know if you hear back from Alamy.

grp_photo · « **Reply #33 on:** December 18, 2008, 18:40 »

I do know more

Freedom · « **Reply #34 on:** December 19, 2008, 14:49 »

You think you do! I checked with Alamy a while ago. Why don't you check with them again and post your results? I think we can all benefit from that info.

grp_photo · « **Reply #35 on:** December 19, 2008, 15:02 »

The most reliable resource should be the CEO of Alamy James West himself ;-) he said it very clearly on the contributor meeting last year, you can check the videos from the event on Alamys website. It's also on the videos and he made it very clear that Alamy don't allow selling the same images under a different license model (selling RF at Alamy and RM elsewhere as vice versa).
I told you i know more than you

epixx · « **Reply #36 on:** December 19, 2008, 19:55 »

Quote from: Freedom on December 19, 2008, 14:49

You think you do! I checked with Alamy a while ago. Why don't you check with them again and post your results? I think we can all benefit from that info.

I don't know what you're on about. This case is a clear break of Alamy's terms for licensed images. I've received a response from them btw.:

"Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We shall contact the contributor regarding this. Much appreciate it.

Kind Regards"

Just in case you thought they didn't care.

Freedom · « **Reply #37 on:** December 19, 2008, 23:33 »

Thanks for the updates, guys.

I watched the Alamy video but don't remember James West's comments. I must have dozed off.

Why is this image still in Alamy and not deactivated as in DT?

Here is the current link which I checked just now: http://www.alamy.com/image-details-popup.asp?imageid={7C26C029-FB41-4D65-980D-C0775849F512}&origin=sr&pv=1&n=NaN&s=1&pn=1&p=53769&orientation=0&searchtype=0&Stamp=2&srch=qt%3DB2E3KD%26lic%3D7%26ipn%3D1%26apn%3D1%26cpn%3D1%26cdpn%3D1%26mr%3D0%26pr%3D0%26ot%3D0%26nu%3D%26archive%3D1%26size%3D0xFF%26cdsrt%3D0%26pn%3D1%26st%3D0%26a%3D%2D1%26cid%3D%26s1%3D0%26s3%3D0%26s5%3D0%26s7%3D0%26cn%3D%26cdid%3D%26cdn%3D

Did FT act on your complaints?

grp_photo · « **Reply #38 on:** December 20, 2008, 03:50 »

You are sure that you watched the videos from last year not this year?
Alamy is not like SS they do a careful examination before they remove an account. Also it is christmas time (parts of the staff are already on vacation) and i guess they have a lot to do with over 14million images.

sharpshot · « **Reply #39 on:** December 20, 2008, 04:19 »

Alamy are good with refunds and the buyers take a long time to pay, so even if the photos sell, I don't think this person is going to make any money with them.

Freedom · « **Reply #40 on:** December 20, 2008, 13:59 »

I will not remember what I saw last year.

Let's remain objective and see what happens to the image at Alamy or until we receive a definite response.

I have a few friends whose images are on Alamy, but they don't even know it because the images were submitted by their other agencies. My understanding is only if you choose to sell as RP, you must be exclusive. Someone else from the enforcement section of another agency told me a while ago, as soon as you have sold a RP on Alamy, you must remove the same image from other RF sites immediately.

This practise is the same as in DT and FT, if your sell off your rights, you must remove the same image from all other agencies, regardless if you are exclusive with DT, FT or not. If you choose not to sell off your rights, you are ok.

I think you guys may be confusing RM - L with RM - RP. Here are the terms from Alamy website concerning exclusivity:

L: Other customers can also purchase and use the image under the same licence.

If a customer wants exclusive use of an image we will ask your permission.

RP: When a customer obtains exclusive use of an image under the terms of the licence, other customers cannot purchase the image under the same licence.

If a customer wants exclusive use of an image we don’t need to ask your permission.
-------------------

If that guy were selling that image as RM - RP, I agree with you that he has committed the same offence as he had in DT. Since his images are merely L, there is no chance that anyone will buy it exclusively without his permission, I think he is ok. IMHO.

grp_photo · « **Reply #41 on:** December 20, 2008, 14:23 »

Man you are a hard nut

. L is about tracking usagehistory if you once sold it as RF its impossible to track the usage. Therefore alamy don't allow mixing licenses - period.

Freedom · « **Reply #42 on:** December 20, 2008, 15:16 »

server error, duplicate deleted.

Freedom · « **Reply #43 on:** December 20, 2008, 15:19 »

server error, duplicate deleted.

Freedom · « **Reply #44 on:** December 20, 2008, 15:27 »

server error, duplicate deleted

Freedom · « **Reply #45 on:** December 20, 2008, 15:30 »

Yep, this nut can only be cracked by the official change of position by Alamy itself.

Did you actually read the interpretations and defintions of Alamy licenses above?

Here is another Alamy quote for you, man, I wish I don't have to do all these homework, just to show you that you know so much!!

L: You can apply restrictions.

RF: You cannot apply restrictions.

I hope you will find out what the restrictions actually mean at Alamy yourself. Read it very very carefully - the restrictions are imposed by YOU, not Alamy. You are the one who is managing, not Alamy. If you are confused in your management, for instance, sell the same image for RF at micro sites and L at Alamy, that is YOUR PROBLEM. Think about this, a well-known brand sells its designer clothes at Saks as well factory outlets at difference prices. It's the supplier's choice.

Merry Christmas!!

sharpshot · « **Reply #46 on:** December 20, 2008, 16:14 »

No, alamy do not allow photos that are sold as RF on other sites to be sold as licensed on their site. It is clearly in their terms.

"2.2 You cannot submit identical or similar images to Alamy as both Royalty-Free and Rights Managed. The licence type on Alamy for an image must be the same as the licence type for that image and similar images which you have on other agency websites. "

http://www.alamy.com/terms.asp

Freedom · « **Reply #47 on:** December 20, 2008, 16:35 »

Fair enough. He can still sell his image but needs to change the license type to RF.

However I have seen an image uploaded by the same person (not the person we are talking about here) as RF and RM at the same time at Alamy. It is wrong but what actions has Alamy taken?

sharpshot · « **Reply #48 on:** December 21, 2008, 04:38 »

I have seen that they do remove RM photos when this happens. They have over 14 million images, so it must be hard to police the site but there are people that spot this and inform them. It isn't worth the risk as it could lead to a ban or a nasty situation with a buyer when they are informed that their RM license means nothing and the image has been sold as RF. What is the point in annoying buyers?

epixx · « **Reply #49 on:** December 21, 2008, 08:00 »

Quote from: Freedom on December 20, 2008, 16:35

Fair enough. He can still sell his image but needs to change the license type to RF.

Alamy states very clearly on their image management page that the license type cannot be changed once selected. I don't know how they are going to do with this particular case, but the obvious action would be to delete the images in question.