Hello everyone,

I have just received this email from Alamy.

Now you are being charged for pictures that never had a sale - at least in my case.
The pictures were finally accepted by Alamy's Quality Control - I think it's time to delete my account there.


For your entertainment the original email:

Dear ...,
 
We previously wrote to you concerning Alamy�s receipt of a claim of infringement of intellectual property rights and injunction in relation to images displayed on Alamy as part of your collection.
 
This claim originates from Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH, the parent of the BILD newspaper who have filed proceedings against Alamy in the German Courts for infringement of its intellectual property rights.
 
Alamy are currently defending the claims, and the imposed injunction provisions connected to the alleged infringement for which Alamy have been required to sweep for and remove images from your collection featuring the intellectual property.
 
We placed you on notice of these claims and demands and are writing to update you that costs are being incurred in defence of the claims.
 
As you will be aware as a contributor to Alamy you provide Alamy with indemnification against such claims under the terms of our contract. It is Alamy�s intention to rely on these indemnities to recoup the costs incurred in defending the claims resulting from the submission of these images to our platform.
 
These costs will be divided by each image involved within this claim so each contributor involved will pay a fair proportion of the costs incurred.
 
To frame your expectations your liability for costs incurred to date in connection with these claims (1 of the 6050 images removed as part of the injunction compliance to date) stands at �11.43.
 
Alamy regularly rejects spurious claims regarding copyright infringement, ownership of images and image rights, without incurring any legal expenses. However, in this case we will be deducting funds from your account balance to recover the costs incurred in resolving this claim. You will see this deduction of the indemnified costs reflected as a debit on your Balance of Account page in due course.
 
Kind regards
 
Alamy Copyright Team

That must be frustrating. I have around 6k files on Alamy and had first sales this month. Didn't knew that they are that bad.

In my case, Alamy has been nothing but a "crap show" for some time now.

In 2022 I had 129 sales and approx. 4,000 views per month - in July 2023 this changed abruptly to approx. 450 views per month and since then I have sold virtually nothing.
2024 had one sale in total, which is completely pointless. (34.700 images)

And now they want to cover their legal costs with images that never had any sales because they sent them through quality control themselves?
Whether this is legally tenable remains a different question; that would have to be judged by experts.

For me, this puts Alamy on the extremely dubious level of WireStock and Canva, both of which are really below any level ;-)

I have to pay as well...in my case �22.87 for 2x.

I had originally taken a picture of a newspaper stand with many different newspapers from different nationalities, including Germany (hence Bild). Nothing special. These have sold quite often at other agencies.

Silly claim but at least the damages were small (i was worried they would be much higher).

all content deleted at the beginning of 2023,no regrets.

I understand this bulky text to mean that Alamy wants to defend itself against the injunction.
 
Depending on how I read the text, the sum mentioned here then relates either to
a) the costs for the preliminary injunction as requested or
b) the costs for the coming defense against the preliminary injunction.

From my point of view, it is completely unclear whether further unknown costs will be incurred by those affected if the action is lost.

Perhaps native English speakers can clarify this.

Seems to me, it's the defense costs:

"Alamy are currently defending the claims, and the imposed injunction provisions connected to the alleged infringement for which Alamy have been required to sweep for and remove images from your collection featuring the intellectual property.
 
We placed you on notice of these claims and demands and are writing to update you that costs are being incurred in defence of the claims."

Bild must be pretty hungry for any scraps, to keep going on with this, as the usual is: Cease and desist, Please Remove these Images. Which is a choice to tell them no, and fight, or comply and the whole ting goes away, along with the images. None-the-less, charging the artists for having uploaded an image, and claiming the artists have to pay for the defense? There's a new low for stock sites.

Is there some other motivation behind Bild going after Alamy, because they are owned by PA News now?

all content deleted at the beginning of 2023,no regrets.

Same here. I urge everyone else to do the same. Abysmal site for contributors.

I am no longer with Alamy (terminated in Jan 2022) but I went to look at the clause in the contributor agreement regarding indemnifying Alamy

(Emphasis mine)
"5. Indemnities
5.1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the �Indemnified Parties�) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to: (i) any claim that the Content or Metadata infringes any third party�s copyright or any other intellectual property right (ii) any breach of your representations, obligations and warranties under this Contract or the System. This clause will remain in force after the termination of this Contract."

I assume the dispute with Axel Springer is over 5.1(i) - I looked online for information about this lawsuit but didn't find anything. Not sure how an editorial image could infringe a copyright or other IP - did the original email say anything about the details of the dispute?

Where a contributor has breached a representation, recouping legal costs from earnings seems reasonable, but if all representations were accurate and Alamy decided to represent the work, charging the contributor for legal expenses seems out of line - that's Alamy's cost of doing business.

I never had any images with any of Axel Springer's papers, but my reading of clause 5 suggests that if I had, Alamy could come after me for a contribution to their legal bills even if I had terminated the contract. Good luck trying to collect though. My concern would be that lawyers are exceedingly expensive and that the current deduction could only be the start of it if Alamy keeps going. And the contributor has no control over Alamy's actions in the case

The letter suggests that to date they've only spent �69,151.50 - a couple of letters and a few meetings...

Please let me have a question JustAnImage:

Did you set a checkmark on - i dont yave a signed property release 
and checked for edttorial only ?

Yes, the 'Sell for editorial only'-checkbox was checked - the image has been deleted long time ago.
I always send only "full editorial" or "full commercial" batches to alamy and check the option for all images in a batch, so that no mistakes happen I always double check editorial batches.

I just sent an email back and asked about 'the judgment and the file number of the proceedings', so that I can check what they are talking about.
I have also requested a comprehensible calculation, including the necessary copies of the calculation documents and I strongly assume that I won't get an answer, but I'm happy to be surprised :-)

It's really not about the amount of 11.43 - but the way it's done is really absurd - they checked the picture themselves and approved it (it was a large magazine rack, by the way) and now they want to pay for their own misconduct at the contributors' expense... kind of hits the zeitgeist, but doesn't make it any better.

Thank you!

If  'Sell for editorial only'-checkbox was checked than thats quite crazy in this case.

+ One have to assume that others likely also can have success with a claim.

So what about  �69,151.50 is on one image?

This needs instant clarification.
Alamy contributors seem to be INSECURE TO OFFER EDITORIAL CONTENT from now

It's really not about the amount of 11.43 - but the way it's done is really absurd - they checked the picture themselves and approved it

They look at a few images for quality issues, and mostly not even that. Mostly mine are 'approved' immediately upon upload. If I haven't uploaded for a while, there's a good chance that my next batch will be inspected.
They have never (at least not since I started in c2010) edited for content (i.e. IP), and made that clear.

That said, if your photograph was of a magazine rack with several publications from various publishers it's an odd IP call. Seems vexatious to me, but IANAL.

(I really, really wished Christian Louboutin had sued Trump for the red soles on his tacky gold shoes, but that's a tangent AND a rabbit hole)

yes, and i concluded if there were only one newspaperrack image then
->   �69k figure for legal costs to date would be devided by 1
     =  �69,151.50 for the contributor

At the end of the day, they don't give a crap - we can all see that clearly.
I certainly won't be uploading any more pictures to Alamy and will delete everything as soon as this charade is over.

If it had only been one picture, then the amount would probably be a little less because the investigation wouldn't have taken forever - but the person would definitely have been finished.

I can certainly get over the �11.43, the thing that really upsets me is how they deal with the very people who ultimately pay their salaries.

Another question I ask myself is whether Brexit might even play a role here - my picture was taken at a time when the UK was still in the EU and I may be wrong, but as far as I know I was still allowed to upload the picture at the time.
Just a thought...

Have a sunny day@all

Quote from: JustAnImage on April 17, 2024, 18:58

Another question I ask myself is whether Brexit might even play a role here - my picture was taken at a time when the UK was still in the EU and I may be wrong, but as far as I know I was still allowed to upload the picture at the time.

I wouldn't have thought so, legally.

Just because someone brings a lawsuit, that doesn't mean they will win, or collect. This case doesn't mean Alamy has lost, just that they are defending. No I don't think they should be taking artists money for deleted image.

Just for a brighter possibility, Bild loses the case and has to pay PA back the defense fees and everyone gets their money back? "You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one.."

I could be wrong, but this just smells bad of frivolous lawsuit and something other than, illegal image use, or copyright infringing for showing the cover of a magazine, as an incidental part of a broader scene.
.

Worrying update here from Alamy.

I asked Alamy whether my token damages over some $25 would bring the matter to a close and their reply:

Quote

"This matter remains ongoing with the case currently in front of the German courts. As mentioned, legal costs are being incurred by Alamy in defending the claims which as a contributor to you provide Alamy with indemnification against such claims under the terms of our contract. In the event of any further developments in relation to your cost liability under this matter we would provide you with an update to advise of any changes."

To be continued...

That is indeed worrying.
As a contributor, you are forced to pay for a court case without having a say in it, where you don't know what it's about, how long it will take and how much it will cost in the end.
Above all, you don't know whether it would have been cheaper to settle the initial claim.

...any claim that the Content or Metadata infringes ...

and that for there is editorial.
of course you cant offer everything under editorial,
but in case of the newspaper-rack the contributor likely did nothing wrong,
and must not be charged (it doesnt matter whoever wins that lawsuit)



If alamy gets away with this,
contributors have to delete all their editorial content,
to avoid possible horror bills in further cases

Worrying update here from Alamy.

I asked Alamy whether my token damages over some $25 would bring the matter to a close and their reply:

Quote

"This matter remains ongoing with the case currently in front of the German courts. As mentioned, legal costs are being incurred by Alamy in defending the claims which as a contributor to you provide Alamy with indemnification against such claims under the terms of our contract. In the event of any further developments in relation to your cost liability under this matter we would provide you with an update to advise of any changes."

To be continued...

It's in the courts. Still seems odd that Alamy would use this clause, and as Sue has pointed out, they all have the same way, to get US to pay for their legal defense.

That is indeed worrying.
As a contributor, you are forced to pay for a court case without having a say in it, where you don't know what it's about, how long it will take and how much it will cost in the end.
Above all, you don't know whether it would have been cheaper to settle the initial claim.

True, but who would settle, when they aren't wrong? How much was the initial claim? If they settled, who would pay? The contributors? Then would people here be saying, they should have fought the case and not settled.

I'm repeating... Bild brought a suit against Alamy. Seems this is more difficult to find details than the US cases. For what? How much? What are the specifics.

It's a claim, not a conviction. Anyone can claim, but willing and collecting are another issue.

And personally, unless the German courts are crazy, Alamy will win the defense and Bild will have to pay for that defense. I'm not so sure, and I'm not part of this, but wouldn't that mean, that everyone who paid for the defense would get their money back?

Someone who knows German law will have to tell us, how an incidental photo of a news stand, is infringing. If that's true, you can't take a photo of anything! Not a car, an airplane, a crowd on the street, a store front, nothing, because it would be showing trademarks and logos and service marks or copyrighted materials. The cover of a magazine, is not the subject and isn't protected.

Now... if Alamy had accepted something like a cropped, magazine cover, isolated, that kind of thing, yes, they could lose. But then why would everyone else be paying for that error?

It's a frivilous claim (without knowing all the facts), but what I do know is that my two images of this pathetic newspaper were never licensed via Alamy. The image was taken in the UK, not sure if this is a factor in the eyes of the German court (?). Also, why hasn't Bild's parent company gone after other agencies (perhaps they have/will).

I have had just over 50 sales of the newstand featuring Bild via SS, DP and DT. As soon as I heard about this claim I removed any images featuring them.

I mean, there are at least a dozen other newspapers there on the stand as attached.

I trust that Alamy's legal team are doing their best to defend, which they have a duty. The fact that it wasn't settled out of court is worrying as this means rising costs for the losing Party. Just imagine all those billable hours to defend claims made towards those 6050 images (and also having a duty to contact and update individual contributors).

---

It's tough times for commercial photographers with AI threats and then with editorial photographers we have to walk on eggshells. I remember a few years ago I had a shot of a kid playing in the snow in Milan during a freak spring snowstorm ("Beast from the East"), which I submitted as Alamy Live News and even though none of the images sold, Alamy contacted me:

We�ve heard from the parents of the child featured in the following image from your collection which they�ve seen available for licensing on Alamy.

XYZ images

They say they haven�t given permission for the image to be licensed and are asking for its removal as no consent was given. We understand Italy has strict privacy concerning images of individuals where they are published for commercial gain. We therefore just want to check whether you obtained consent when taking these images and whether this consent extended to making the images available for licensing, whether you would like us to remove the images or if you would prefer we put the parents in touch with you to discuss directly.

I mean it's getting silly, if I were earning consistently thousands from my 15,000+ collection then I could make the argument that there is benefit but I see my average at Alamy at only around $100 net a month, so I'm just shooting myself in the foot.

Am I going to need to take out liability insurance to shoot street photography?

Am I going to have to counter-sue Alamy for the damages, if they are substantial? Perhaps it's an unfair term in the contributor contract that should be unenforceable.

Anyway, I'll rant about his on my month-end report. Maybe one of the larger stock photography publications will pick up on the story.

It appears that Alamy's in-house legal dept. are doing their best here and have to give them credit for defending the claim.

I am not so sure about that. Bild is frequently involved in lawsuits. They should have a bunch of lawyers working for them, who are experienced enough not to start a frivolous lawsuit, without any chance of success.

Axel Springer's CEO is a Trump fan, so maybe no surprise there.
https://www.axios.com/2022/09/07/dopfner-axel-springer-ceo-defends-messages-trump

Quote from: Brasilnut on April 21, 2024, 07:32

It's tough times for commercial photographers with AI threats and then with editorial photographers we have to walk on eggshells. I remember a few years ago I had a shot of a kid playing in the snow in Milan during a freak spring snowstorm ("Beast from the East"), which I submitted as Alamy Live News and even though none of the images sold, Alamy contacted me:

Quote

We�ve heard from the parents of the child featured in the following image from your collection which they�ve seen available for licensing on Alamy.

XYZ images

They say they haven�t given permission for the image to be licensed and are asking for its removal as no consent was given. We understand Italy has strict privacy concerning images of individuals where they are published for commercial gain. We therefore just want to check whether you obtained consent when taking these images and whether this consent extended to making the images available for licensing, whether you would like us to remove the images or if you would prefer we put the parents in touch with you to discuss directly.

I mean it's getting silly, if I were earning consistently thousands from my 15,000+ collection then I could make the argument that there is benefit but I see my average at Alamy at only around $100 net a month, so I'm just shooting myself in the foot.

See, at least in Germany this would actually be a case of editorial content that is not allowed.  I see a lot of editorial content like this on all kinds of stock sites, but at least here, you are only allowed to photograph people without their consent for editorial use images if they are either not the main subject of an image (for example a city scene full of people or a historic building, but there are people in front of it), or if they take part in an event of public interest like a demonstration.  I can very well imagine that other countries in Europe have similar laws.

That's right, in Portugal it's also the case that you cannot take portraits of people (save for some exceptional circumstances as you've mentioned) without their consent and cannot/should not publish those images for commercial gain. Appears to be quite common in many countries in Europe where there is some expectation of privacy in public.

I probably shouldn't have submitted the kid in Italy but thought it made for a nice story about unusual weather. These days I don't shoot minors anymore, it's just too problematic legally spekaing but worse of all is that relatives can get upset and just not worth the hassle for extremely limited gains.

but still the problem with the newspaper example is missing

Being nitpicky, and IANAL, maybe they're banking on 'permanance':
Under section 59(1) of the 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Gesetz �ber Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG), it is permitted to "reproduce, distribute and communicate to the public, by means of painting, drawing, photography, or cinematography, works located permanently in public streets, ways, or public open spaces".
I have no idea. It's a can of worms. 
According to Wikimedia:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany#Freedom_of_panorama
It's the sort of stuff that keeps lawyers in champagne, and scares the rest of us witless if we think about it for long enough.

BTW, there is also a thread on Alamy's forum:
https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/17626-bild-infringements

Published my monthly earnings report where, amongst other topics, I go in detail about getting sued via Alamy.

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2024/04/30/april-2024-brutally-honest-earnings-report-special-getting-sued-edition/

.