Oxfordshire, UK, 27 February 2008--Alamy has terminated the contract of a contributor for falsely stating that an image had a model release.

The company, the largest stock photo site on the web, acted swiftly after being contacted by a member of the public who had appeared on an image marked as released but was confident he had never signed one.

The image was immediately removed from the site pending an investigation. After admitting he had provided false information, the contributor had his contract terminated and all images were removed.

Writing on the company blog, Alamy's head of content Alan Capel said: "Given that the contributor had knowingly provided false information, we felt we had no choice but to terminate the contract of the contributor and remove all of their images with immediate effect.

"We are seeking to gain more of a foothold in the commercial market where there is greater sensitivity to the need for releases. By providing the new annotation tools we are giving contributors the opportunity to make their images available to this market if they meet the necessary requirements."

He told contributors: "We take breaches of the contributor agreement very seriously but we also want to stress that, by providing correct release information, you are protecting yourselves against any legal action."

Read the blog at: http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2008/02/25/2681.aspx

Quote from: madelaide on February 28, 2008, 22:34The company, the largest stock photo site on the web,

Is that true???

Beside that, in my opinion, this is a valid reason to cancel a contract.

Claude

Quote from: le_cyclope on February 28, 2008, 22:38

Quote from: madelaide on February 28, 2008, 22:34The company, the largest stock photo site on the web,

Is that true???

Beside that, in my opinion, this is a valid reason to cancel a contract.

Claude

ditto

Quote from: le_cyclope on February 28, 2008, 22:38

Quote from: madelaide on February 28, 2008, 22:34The company, the largest stock photo site on the web,

Is that true???

Beside that, in my opinion, this is a valid reason to cancel a contract.

Claude

Yeah, I think it is true, from what I've read.  They have 11 million images online.  It wouldn't take much googling to find out if anyone has more.

Good for Alamy!

There are loads of images with them which show they're model and/or property released, but can't possibly be.

Look at this one ... A3HHW4.

Trouble is, unlike most other stock sites, they rely on the photographer's honesty. You just tick the box to say you've got the release. No need to send it in. And they're being taken for a ride by some dishonest photogs.

Time to clear the liars out.

And also time to clear out some of the junk that they have. If they went through their stock of images with a critical eye and eliminated the rubbish they'd have a lot less than 11 million.

I thought there were stock agencies with more than 11 million images.  How many does Getty and Corbis have?

Quote from: sharpshot on February 29, 2008, 09:30
I thought there were stock agencies with more than 11 million images.  How many does Getty and Corbis have?

Phone them and ask?  I wouldn't have thought they have 11 million "creative" images though.  Their "newsworthy" side perhaps do, since Getty went though that phase (and still do) of buying war zone photographers copyright for £20.

Quote from: sharpshot on February 29, 2008, 09:30
I thought there were stock agencies with more than 11 million images.  How many does Getty and Corbis have?

I think the point is largest "on the web", others have huge number of prints / transparencies or even digital that available to be search from web site.  Some like jupiter has about 42000 brands each quite small (in comparison to large libraries).

Phil

Amazing how many Alamy people have no clue about releases:
http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=1603

Another reason why flickr will never fly as a place to buy images.

Quote from: Bateleur on February 29, 2008, 08:29
Good for Alamy!

There are loads of images with them which show they're model and/or property released, but can't possibly be.

Look at this one ... A3HHW4.

Not to quibble, but that image is permitted:

Q :     Is the publishing of a photo of the Eiffel Tower permitted?
A :    There are no restrictions on publishing a picture of the Tower by day. Photos taken at night when the lights are aglow are subjected to copyright laws, and fees for the right to publish must be paid to the SETE.

But I agree, there are so many images uploaded without the proper property release, just check out my local landmark here in Seattle, the Pike Place market. Search on that and you'll find dozens of images without property release, especially the neon sign.

Quote from: le_cyclope on February 28, 2008, 22:38
Beside that, in my opinion, this is a valid reason to cancel a contract.

And I never said it wasn't...

I think this news is important for people who think they have the "right" to by-pass some rules.  There are people in SP selling nudes as "editorial", naturally because they never had their "models" sign a release.

Regards,
Adelaide

Quote from: madelaide on February 29, 2008, 22:51

Quote from: le_cyclope on February 28, 2008, 22:38
Beside that, in my opinion, this is a valid reason to cancel a contract.

And I never said it wasn't...

No and that's not what I meant, I was refferring to other threads here about sites that close accounts for any reasons.

Claude

Quote from: zorki on February 29, 2008, 15:36

Quote from: Bateleur on February 29, 2008, 08:29
Good for Alamy!

There are loads of images with them which show they're model and/or property released, but can't possibly be.

Look at this one ... A3HHW4.

Not to quibble, but that image is permitted:

Q :     Is the publishing of a photo of the Eiffel Tower permitted?
A :    There are no restrictions on publishing a picture of the Tower by day. Photos taken at night when the lights are aglow are subjected to copyright laws, and fees for the right to

You misunderstand me.

I'm not saying the image isn't permitted.

What I'm saying is that the photographer, whoever he/she is, cannot possibly have a property release for it.

The problem is that I think a lot of people (and agencies are particularly bad at this) falsely tick the release boxes to make their images show up in more searches.

OK, I see what you mean. I guess the person taking the picture assumed (falsely) that they had a property release... There are so many examples of images that need property releases and don't have them, I'm surprised that Alamy isn't sued into bankruptcy!

How can a photographer assume they have a property release?

They either had it or they don't.  The photographer would have had to get it signed, so s/he would know if they had one or not!

They checked the box marked "Property Release" when there is no way in hell they could ever have one for the Eiffel Tower!

Worst of all, Alamy asks you "if" the image requires a release and many times you simply don´t know... Play it safe!  Not sure=YES (it requires a release).