MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Dreamstime.com => Topic started by: MicrostockExp on December 09, 2008, 13:18
-
By curiosity I checked the porfolio of the feature photographer and was very surprise to see his RF pictures on Alamy ....with a L licence....
One example
http://www.dreamstime.com/young-couple-in-a-bed-image5863502
On alamy : B2E3KD
L
-
It may be the same as the story as with Yuri. Maybe some site he/she is on has put them on Alamy.
I would be hesitant to call someone out publicly on this. Maybe a sitemail to the contributor would be a better way to handle it?
-
Yes possible I will drop him a e-mail then
thanks for the tip:)
-
actually he has link to it on his webpage so it is not a third party ...
-
featured photographer sells also his dreamstime "exclusives pictures" as L on alamy!!
This can't be a mistake, exclusive is exclusive!
take a look at that:
alamy L:
http://www.alamy.com/royalty-free-images-phot-browse.asp?pid={4A5F6603-92A7-4CA7-AC3E-F7C30C6F6B74}&pname=FRANCK+CAMHI&pn=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-1%26cid%3D%26s1%3D0%26s3%3D0%26s5%3D0%26s7%3D0%26cn%3D%26cdid%3D%26cdn%3D (http://www.alamy.com/royalty-free-images-phot-browse.asp?pid={4A5F6603-92A7-4CA7-AC3E-F7C30C6F6B74}&pname=FRANCK+CAMHI&pn=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-1%26cid%3D%26s1%3D0%26s3%3D0%26s5%3D0%26s7%3D0%26cn%3D%26cdid%3D%26cdn%3D)
dreamstime exclusives:
http://www.dreamstime.com/Ostill_exclusive-photos_pg16 (http://www.dreamstime.com/Ostill_exclusive-photos_pg16)
-
Yep found this also, loosk like someone is going to get cooked !
-
And he sells the same exact images as exklusive on fotolia ;D He is probably an istock exclusive too :D ;D ;D.
Man this guy is great let me summarize he has an portfolio at Alamy as licensed the same portfolio he sells exclusive as RF on Fotolia and the same portfolio is also on Dreamstime and again exclusive HAHAHA this is completly absurd
-
Okay i checked he is not exclusive at iStock but he should really change the L-license at Alamy and the exclusive status at FT and DT otherwise he is in trouble.
-
Okay i checked he is not exclusive at iStock but he should really change the L-license at Alamy and the exclusive status at FT and DT otherwise he is in trouble.
Exclusive DT series is on Alamy Licensed. http://tinyurl.com/6j9dww He's breaking the rules at many sites including Alamy. Does anyone rom DT or FT read these subjects.
-
See thats what Ive been saying all along. How can any agency ask for exclusivity with this going on and it happens all the time. Not surprised one bit.
One day some agency is going to get a really beefy law-suit and it wont hardly damage the contributor since its the agencies resposibility.
-
Question is will DT or FT make him pay back the extra commission he's received on all the sales?
-
wow, this borders on all counts: scary, ridiculous , and hilarious.
but i wonder if there is a problem with language, although most sites have multi-languages. let's wait and see what the reason was.
has this person sold many? i'm almost too scared to look ! :o
-
Okay i checked he is not exclusive at iStock but he should really change the L-license at Alamy and the exclusive status at FT and DT otherwise he is in trouble.
Exclusive DT series is on Alamy Licensed. [url]http://tinyurl.com/6j9dww [/url] He's breaking the rules at many sites including Alamy. Does anyone rom DT or FT read these subjects.
You left out SS with all the same photos. http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&searchterm=windsor&anyorall=all&search_cat=&search_group=all&orient=all&photographer_name=franck+camhi&searchtermx=&color=
This isn't a small mistake.
-
A hA! finally someone can be made an example of to show that this industry is serious about their rules. Up until now nothing has been really done in the spotlight to publicly humiliate those losers and set the tone for others (because there are probably others just the same)
-
the santa chick is hot :o :P
-
wow, this borders on all counts: scary, ridiculous , and hilarious.
but i wonder if there is a problem with language, although most sites have multi-languages. let's wait and see what the reason was.
has this person sold many? i'm almost too scared to look ! :o
When you enter a contract and cash is involved, it is your own responsibility to understand and respect the terms no matter what the language. Agreed that the whole thing is idiotic.
Sales on DT respectable, not stellar. That was the only site I looked at.
-
This is the guy who should be banned and not Bobby. I mean he sould be banned from all the sites not just from FTL.
-
When you try to look on his portfolio on DT it now says
"This member's rights are suspended."
-
When you try to look on his portfolio on DT it now says
"This member's rights are suspended."
yep, I respect DT for such actions. They do the things they must do.
Anyone notified FT yet ? He's also exclusive there ;D They can't do anything at SS.
-
When you try to look on his portfolio on DT it now says
"This member's rights are suspended."
yep, I respect DT for such actions. They do the things they must do.
good to know. i always thought dreamstime is cool to be with!
-
When you try to look on his portfolio on DT it now says
"This member's rights are suspended."
yep, I respect DT for such actions. They do the things they must do.
good to know. i always thought dreamstime is cool to be with!
I agree. They pay quickly. They are very good with their acceptances. I do get some weird rejections, but the agency itself being so cool do deal with makes it easier to just carry on.
-
Don't forget DT pays 50% in royalties. Much more then most other agencies
-
Ouch for DT... how frustrating that would be to have your featured photog slam you like this! I would guess that they are now appreciative to the OP of this thread for pointing it out. I may be naive but I can't imagine many people would get away for long doing this. End users/designers would notice this as well.... (at least the ones that I deal with would) and report it.
-
Indeed, it is frustrating to find that the photographer you're just trying to promote has slammed you. it's a bitter taste and we do our best to keep it away from our perspective towards our honest members. Shouldn't be the last exclusive who is not really exclusive, we find a few more each week. They learn the hard way that monitoring is done and penalties are quite drastical.
I just wanted to drop by and say thank you for posting this here or for emailing us. It was you who found the infringement this time. Thank you!
-
ur welcome:) unfortunately of fortunately for him, other microstocks did not react , duplicate pics are still on line ...
-
If he's not listed as exclusive with the other sites then they won't really care where else he posts images to.
-
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).
-
I've mailed support at Alamy. Things like this is bad for their reputation, and thus bad for other contributors as well.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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?
-
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!
-
I hope you do know more than I do. Let us know if you hear back from Alamy.
-
I do know more ;D
-
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.
-
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 ;D
-
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.
-
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 (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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Man you are a hard nut ;D . 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.
-
server error, duplicate deleted.
-
server error, duplicate deleted.
-
server error, duplicate deleted
-
Yep, this nut can only be cracked by the official change of position by Alamy itself. ;D
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!! :o
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!! ;)
-
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
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
I know for a fact that they have changed license type for me from RF to RM. I am not sure if they will change from L to RF though.
The solution is to delete the RM image and reupload as RF because he has the model release. RF image sells at higher prices anyway.
-
RF image sells at higher prices anyway.
That depends on the usage of the RM image.
-
In general Alamy sells RF at higher prices, that's a fact. You can always find exceptions if you look hard, but you cannot deny the generality of things. Unless the searcher specifies, RF also comes first in search results.