Author Topic: Breaches of Image Copyright (Read 5042 times)

JASOG · « **on:** January 31, 2016, 05:07 »

Hello.
New to this forum. Hope you guys may be able to offer some advice.
I have contributed to an image library in uk. This agency has relationships and agreements with other agencies worldwide. I have been doing "reverse image search" for the images held on file at this library, and the other libraries which it has these agreements with. I have found approx 100 image uses that I have never received payment for. I have contacted some of the publications that have used my images, and a number have got back to say that they have indeed purchased a copyright licence, and named the library that they have purchased from. So I have tried to contact these libraries for confirmation of sale. None have replied! Totally ignored my contact. I am guessing one of three scenarios here. Either the user is spinning me a yarn and have not purchased a licence.Or, they have purchased a licence from one of the libraries with a relationship to the primary library, who has not passed on payment to them, and ultimately not to me. Or, they have purchased legitimately from one library, who then did pass payment to primary library, who then did not pass payment to me!
The two main libraries that seem to be cropping up on regular basis are "Corbis" and "Stockfood". And whereas I am in no position to accuse anybody of anything at the moment, I really need some answers from these two libraries, which they could quite likely supply, but are choosing to ignore my approaches.
Anybody got any suggestions?

ShadySue · « **Reply #1 on:** January 31, 2016, 05:13 »

You have my sympathies. I'm sure it goes on a lot.
Have you contacted your primary library? If not, that should be your next move, with all the evidence you've gathered so far.
If you have and got no response, I'll leave you to others who have more legal experience.
Are you based in the US, or ... ?

JASOG · « **Reply #2 on:** January 31, 2016, 06:33 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 31, 2016, 05:13

You have my sympathies. I'm sure it goes on a lot.
Have you contacted your primary library? If not, that should be your next move, with all the evidence you've gathered so far.
If you have and got no response, I'll leave you to others who have more legal experience.
Are you based in the US, or ... ?

Based in uk. Yes I have contact with the primary library, who apparently are working on it. Not very hard it would seem! I just can't understand, when all I am asking is for confirmation of image sales through these other libraries, they choose to ignore. What conclusion do they think that pushes me toward!

ShadySue · « **Reply #3 on:** January 31, 2016, 06:50 »

It seems like the agencies don't want to rock the boat.
I found over 20 unpaid uses by one particular media group (as well as some random others for the same file) and reported it to Alamy. They didn't just accept screenshots, or a link of all the in-uses via Google reverse image search, I had to complete a fiddly Excel form copying and pasting the URI of every in-use for all 41 uses on one of their sites, and six on the other (only 22 reported), and a separate Word document for all the random uses.
Then the email reply came saying, "thanks for sending it. Don't get in touch with us again, as it's 'in the system'."
Well, this is the well-known huge subscriber with a reputation for not reporting every in-use, so I have a marker in my diary to get back in touch if I don't hear from them. I'm sure they hoped I wouldn't go to the bother of filling in the forms (for what will be tiny returns), but that was red rag to a (stroppy) cow.

JASOG · « **Reply #4 on:** January 31, 2016, 07:07 »

I am in the process of chasing these users myself. Unfortunately, a good two thirds of them are Chinese, and I suspect I might as well just put my lips together and blow! I did have one success with a posh Parisian Chocolatier, who claimed that it had been shot by their own commissioned photographer. But when I supplied the evidence to them, they admitted my ownership, and confirmed that they would be having a quiet word with the freelance photographer who tried it on. Hope he lost the account!

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** January 31, 2016, 07:22 »

Quote from: JASOG on January 31, 2016, 07:07

I am in the process of chasing these users myself. Unfortunately, a good two thirds of them are Chinese, and I suspect I might as well just put my lips together and blow! I did have one success with a posh Parisian Chocolatier, who claimed that it had been shot by their own commissioned photographer. But when I supplied the evidence to them, they admitted my ownership, and confirmed that they would be having a quiet word with the freelance photographer who tried it on. Hope he lost the account!

Good catch with the lying tog!
And very good luck with the Chinese. I find that virtually everything which is licensed by one UK newspaper in particular is all over Chinese blogs long before I ever know about it, and I don't know any Chinese readers who could help. I suspect paying a translator would be throwing good money after bad. Alamy's policy is that they won't chase bloggers.

I think at the very least they should officially contact them and tell them to take the image down.

More and more, I'm becoming furious at the number of publications which do purchase images but then have all these 'share' buttons directly on the photo. That sends out a very strong, though inaccurate, message that the images are free to use - I don't see how anyone 'not in the business' would be expected to think otherwise, even if they know about copyright.

JASOG · « **Reply #6 on:** January 31, 2016, 07:39 »

Yeah. Bloggers aren't my main concern to be fair. Annoying, yes. But they tend not to be benefiting financially from our work, so I reluctantly turn a blind eye there. Although they do increase the prospect of the image becoming "orphaned" though. What does get my goat though are those who use my image for marketing purposes, and in fact, one of the uses I have discovered in particular, where my image actually IS the product!

aetb · « **Reply #7 on:** January 31, 2016, 23:07 »

Getty image was giving away images to bloggers at the condition of putting a link of the source. Because it's just so easy to make an image search on Google to find the image you need without the Alamy or other agency logo on it.
Getty way giving this authorization for small images I think.
Since the money is not really there.....

Selling over 50 000 images per year (on all agencies), I guess I got about 10 000 other ass hole that did'nt paid for it. I prefer to not waste my time with it and keep the focus into creating new original concepts. I wish you good luck with Corbis and Foodstock - two agencies I don't have my images in.

ShadySue · « **Reply #8 on:** February 01, 2016, 03:34 »

Quote from: aetb on January 31, 2016, 23:07

Getty image was giving away images to bloggers at the condition of putting a link of the source.

Not quite, it's an embedding system, and it wasn't 'bloggers' per se, it's 'editorial use'.

However, obviously it's true that once an image has sold, it's out there in the Google zone.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Breaches of Image Copyright (Read 5042 times)

JASOG

ShadySue

JASOG

ShadySue

JASOG

ShadySue

JASOG

aetb

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors