Commons talk:How Alamy is stealing your images

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Granger[edit]

Another shady site to watch out for is Granger. Their “copyrighted image”, and the older revision of a file of mine it copies. Tom-L (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom-L: Contact a lawyer. You may have a case here. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom-L: Don't listen to that. A coat of arms means someone else probably holds the copyright. And it's probably expired. And if you made up the CoA yourself it would be out of the scope of Commons. You may have some partial copyright for your version, but it's not going to be worth sueing them for. Which doesn't make granger.com any less of a dick for selling it. Do you know of other Commons images sold by Granger? - Alexis Jazz 00:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom-L Granger wrote "All rights reserved" bold and clear ONLY on your work- provocation? They even insist on being credited - it's clearly disrespectful and unlawful. I would insist on CC license violation and disregard for moral rights - you need to see what the laws are in your country. Attribution rights are unlimited in some countries and thus false attribution is illegal, whether the work is in the public domain or not. And yours clearly isn't. Pugul (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alamy is alarmed[edit]

Hi, It seems that at least this page makes Alamy reacts. ;o) They also want to know how to reap public domain files from Commons... Yann (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: interesting.. Also note this: https://www.alamy.de/stockfoto-manny-pacquiao-wiegen-in-166049358.html no longer says "Fotograf". It now says "Bildanbieter". So maybe they really do read this? This is new, only 2 days ago it still said "Fotograf". (I don't know about yesterday)
Although it would seem that Spitfirebbmf given his edits is more likely to be Paul Fearn. Also note an IP removed the answers (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Help_desk&diff=292419152&oldid=292418893#Public_Domain), I suspect they didn't want other Alamy users to know how to do this.
@Jeff G., LX, and MKFI: pinging you because you replied to that thread to let you know what their intentions were, I doubt this will be the last we've heard from them.
Lauragil23 is probably harmless. Seems to be just an Alamy fan and/or contributor, changed some Alamy links on frwiki to point to the French version of Alamy.
As for Alamy, I think that, if they are aware of this, they know exactly what they are dealing with here and I expect them to be wise enough not to invoke the Barbra Streisand effect. Having 4chan putting your company logo on Pedobears is just about the last thing one would want. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but since they make legal threats, be sure to stick to the facts... Yann (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: always have. Guess why this essay is full of profanity.. (besides "for teh lulz") Saying someone is "fucking" Commons is just an opinion, whereas actually accusing them of some crime would be problematic. The primary reason I can get away with "stealing" is because that's exactly what the industry has been yelling since 2004. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @Alexis Jazz: https://www.alamy.com/mediacomp/imagedetails.aspx?ref=KJ45J6 says "Contributor".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: I know. Commons:How Alamy is stealing your images#But what Alamy does is, although dickish, completely legal.. OR IS IT?? deals with exactly this. Only the German site made this mistake. But it wasn't always like that it seems. [1] (2016) and [2] (2017) say "Gary Moseley / Alamy Stock Photo " and "Ezyjoe / Alamy Stock Photo". They don't say photographer, contributor or anything. I don't know who made those photos by the way or what their copyright status is. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alamy discussion forums![edit]

https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=commons.wikimedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Commons:How_Alamy_is_stealing_your_images

2-3 views a day.. 3 June: 40 views. 4 June: 34. 5 June: 10 views (what, slow day?), 6 June: 27 views.

Ah, there it is, the June 6 spike, posted 14 hours ago: https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/9771-copyright-and-images-on-the-internet/ "This is an amusing ( unintentionally) and wild take on Alamy supposedly stealing public domain images. I did edit the 'essay' a few days ago to suggest that the best way of avoiding this would be not to give away your copyright through Creative Commons but my comments have been removed ( presumably for getting in the way of a perfectly good rant)." So that was 86.131.183.21. Dear geogphotos: nothing I write is unintentional. Second, I have reverted your edits partly* because they were wrong. Alamy steals public domain content, I haven't seen them mass importing CC-BY content. The attribution would be problematic, so to protect your photos from Alamy CC-BY is actually a good measure at least at the moment. Your suggestion "Don't get suckered into Creative Commons or at least add restrictions to rule out any commercial uses." would rule out uploading anything to Commons because we require a license that allows commercial use. Finally your comment "If somebody is willing to give away their copyright then they should blame themselves if somebody else picks it up and creates value from it" is just a miserable world view. You are given something for free, and you monetize it? Not cool dude. I suppose that whenever you run into a Little Free Library you take all the books from it and sell them on Craigslist? Or you set up a toll booth on public roads? Stupid government should have monetized it themselves, right?

* And partly because I didn't find them very funny. But you are welcome to register here and write your own essay, perhaps it'll be funnier if you place the words in their own context instead of mine.

I usually waive all rights for what I share here. I don't care if I get attributed, people often forget that anyway when incorporating an image in a larger work. I don't even care if someone (even Alamy) decides to attempt selling my work. (I can't recommend it though.. it's rarely that good) But if they do so while making it look to a layman like they are selling rights, that is nothing but a a total dick move. If Alamy would sell that photo of Kendra Chan and Karen Sinclair with attribution to Robyn Gerstenslager/USFWS and a link back to Flickr, I wouldn't mind. I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to pay for it, but if Alamy wants to try that, fine. I can also sell jars full of hot air at a premium, you'd be stupid to buy them, but it's fine. It would only be wrong if I pretended there was no other way for you to obtain oxygen.

Ultimately though, Alamy is shooting themselves in the foot. People will stop taking any copyright claim from Alamy serious and use all the copied public domain content without attribution as a rationale to pirate photos that actually are copyrighted. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely what happened here, but too good to pass up
And Alamy flushed the whole thread down the toilet!
Another spike in pageviews: 132 on 7 June, 77 on 8 June. The spike around 3 June was around the same time 86.131.183.21 edited, so Alamy user geogphotos probably either found or posted the link around that time somewhere as well. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongful deletions[edit]

A few days ago I figured this out.. Now let's check these. 31 results.

1/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 0/31 probably rightfully deleted.

2/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 0/31 probably rightfully deleted.

3/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 0/31 probably rightfully deleted.

3/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 1/31 probably rightfully deleted.

3/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 2/31 probably rightfully deleted.

3/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 3/31 probably rightfully deleted.

3/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 4/31 probably rightfully deleted.

4/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 4/31 probably rightfully deleted.

4/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 4/31 probably rightfully deleted, 1/31 Alamy is dumb as a doorknob

4/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 5/31 probably rightfully deleted, 1/31 Alamy is dumb as a doorknob

User talk:Borocho26#File:Davinson playing against west ham 2018.jpg (File:Davinson playing against west ham 2018.jpg) https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-west-ham-uniteds-michail-antonio-left-and-tottenham-hotspurs-davinson-160795601.html (PA Images) Not sure, but probably copyvio. I'm not sure if PA Images was on my shitlist. Their account has been disabled I think.

4/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 6/31 probably rightfully deleted, 1/31 Alamy is dumb as a doorknob

4/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 6/31 probably rightfully deleted, 1/31 Alamy is dumb as a doorknob, 1/31 ?

4/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 7/31 probably rightfully deleted, 1/31 Alamy is dumb as a doorknob, 1/31 ?

5/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 7/31 probably rightfully deleted, 1/31 Alamy is dumb as a doorknob, 1/31 ?

"ELLEN PAGE POSTER FILM TITLE HARD CANDY DIRECTED BY DAVID SLADE FILM COMPANY LIONS GATE 12 May 2005 - **WARNING** This photograph is the copyright of the FILM COMPANY and/or the photographer assigned by or authorised by/allowed on the set by the Film Company at that time of this production & can only be reproduced by publications in conjunction with the promotion of the above film. A Mandatory Credit To THE FILM COMPANY (AND PHOTOGRAPHER IF KNOWN) is required."

On https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-mary-elizabeth-winstead-the-hollars-2016-175807585.html (same uploader) we find:

"MARY ELIZABETH WINSTEAD AS Gwen FILM TITLE THE HOLLARS DIRECTED BY JOHN KRASINSKI FILM COMPANY SONY PICTURES CLASSICS 24 January 2016 **WARNING** This Photograph is for editorial use only and is the copyright of FILM COMPANY SONY PICTURES CLASSICS and/or the Photographer assigned by the Film or Production Company & can only be reproduced by publications in conjunction with the promotion of the above Film. A Mandatory Credit To FILM COMPANY SONY PICTURES CLASSICS is required. The Photographer should also be credited when known. No commercial use can be granted without written authority from the Film Company."

And this "photo" will make you laugh.

"DUKE WEASELTON FILM TITLE ZOOTOPIA; ZOOTROPOLIS DIRECTED BY BYRON HOWARD R MOORE J BUSH FILM COMPANY DISNEY 10 February 2016 **WARNING** This Photograph is for editorial use only and is the copyright of FILM COMPANY DISNEY and/or the Photographer assigned by the Film or Production Company & can only be reproduced by publications in conjunction with the promotion of the above Film. A Mandatory Credit To FILM COMPANY DISNEY is required. The Photographer should also be credited when known. No commercial use can be granted without written authority from the Film Company."

5/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 7/31 probably rightfully deleted, 2/31 Alamy is dumb as a doorknob, 1/31 ?

5/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 8/31 probably rightfully deleted, 2/31 Alamy is dumb as a doorknob, 1/31 ?

5/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 9/31 probably rightfully deleted, 2/31 Alamy is dumb as a doorknob, 1/31 ?

5/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 10/31 probably rightfully deleted, 2/31 Alamy is dumb as a doorknob, 1/31 ?

5/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 11/31 probably rightfully deleted, 2/31 Alamy is dumb as a doorknob, 1/31 ?

5/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 12/31 probably rightfully deleted, 2/31 Alamy is dumb as a doorknob, 1/31 ?

5/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 13/31 probably rightfully deleted, 2/31 Alamy is dumb as a doorknob, 1/31 ?

probably this on Alamy (age fotostock, 1387560 uploads) not sure they have the rights, but the uploader here doesn't.

5/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 14/31 probably rightfully deleted, 2/31 Alamy is dumb as a doorknob, 1/31 ?

5/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 14/31 probably rightfully deleted, 3/31 Alamy is dumb as a doorknob, 1/31 ?

5/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 14/31 probably rightfully deleted, 4/31 Alamy is dumb as a doorknob, 1/31 ?

5/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 15/31 probably rightfully deleted, 4/31 Alamy is dumb as a doorknob, 1/31 ?

5/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 16/31 probably rightfully deleted, 4/31 Alamy is dumb as a doorknob, 1/31 ?

5/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 17/31 probably rightfully deleted, 4/31 Alamy is dumb as a doorknob, 1/31 ?

5/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 18/31 probably rightfully deleted, 4/31 Alamy is dumb as a doorknob, 1/31 ?

5/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 19/31 probably rightfully deleted, 4/31 Alamy is dumb as a doorknob, 1/31 ?

5/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 20/31 probably rightfully deleted, 4/31 Alamy is dumb as a doorknob, 1/31 ?

5/31 should not have been deleted on copyright grounds, 21/31 probably rightfully deleted, 4/31 Alamy is dumb as a doorknob, 1/31 ?

kisspng.com[edit]

I just realized that there are lots of Commons images without attribution on http://kisspng.com. Potentially this could lead to the same kind of premature deletions, because someone thinks the Commons image is stolen from that site. Examples:

Here is a rant I found about the page: https://www.deviantart.com/sterlingkato/journal/Another-one-of-THOSE-websites-STEALING-STUFF-759562041
I made a note at the village pump: Commons:Village pump#Commons images on kisspng.com without attribution
Greetings, Watchduck (quack) 23:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting. I added it to COM:CLONE for now. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliate of Getty Images[edit]

@Jeff G. and Alexis Jazz: Hi, Following this edit, I looked for a confirmation that Alamy is an affiliate of Getty Images. I couldn't find any, so it may be better to remove this statement. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: I would like to hear from Alexis about this.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a source for that statement (if anyone cares I'll look it up), but I think they may have misinterpreted something. For lack of a better or second source, I've removed the statement. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "License Compliance Services"[edit]

As of 2021-01-16, the statement about Googling "License Compliance Services" appears no longer to be true. Since Google "tailors" results, I don't know what you'll see, but the first thing I get there is EFF Responds After License Compliance Services Attacks Fair Use by Daniel Nazer, December 23, 2015, on EFF's site; another pretty early hit is License Compliance Services, Also Known as PicScout Inc. – a Suspected Extortionist, blog post by Thomas Eklund October 14, 2015, updated January 12, 2017. Normally I would confer with the primary author(s) of this page before editing an essay, but they appear to be blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 15:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of an Image[edit]

Hi, I am a disclosed paid editor on Wikipedia. One of my clients recently 'purchased' one of her pictures from Alamy for use on Wikipedia. How can we go about this? Should I upload the image and ask my client to ignore any and all emails from Alamy? Thanks! Hillster (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to Commons:Village pump/Copyright, please follow up there. --Achim (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse: trolls and Holocaust photos[edit]

This info should be promoted, especially for new accounts.

Trolls and LTAs are using this route for cross-wiki revenge here, while Holocaust-era Commons files showing the victims are stolen and retagged as "for sale" (ping me so that I can update it with press URLs). See also the cartoon above.

Zezen (talk) 10:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is Alamy able to legally charge for public domain and privately owned photos of the Holocaust? 2607:FEA8:85C7:400:852A:D0E2:3E5C:5864 16:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not stealing[edit]

"Alamy is stealing your images" No they are not. Theirs is lamentable - despicable - behaviour, and may involve fraud, but it is no more "stealing" than when we are falsely accused of that, when we copy PD images from the websites of other organisations and put them on Commons. Please do not perpetuate such misleading labelling. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photos by Alamy contributor "PBH"[edit]

Found today that Alamy is selling rights-managed licenses to a lot of my pix under contributor "PBH", with no attribution to me. Among this contributor's over 3300 images is an old BART system map!

I e-mailed Alamy, but after reading this page and related discussions elseweb, I doubt they'll do anything about it. The pix of mine I found on their site are in the public domain; I was working for the City and County of San Francisco at the time I took them. Still, really shameful, and I plan to shut down my (basically dormant) photographer's account on their site in response to this. Funcrunch (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From Alamy's boilerplate response:
You believe someone else is selling your images or images you own the rights to through Alamy. [...] If you or the organisation behind the images has released them into the public domain, which communicates that the images are free from known restrictions under copyright law and can be freely used by others, we will not be taking any further action.
Sigh, I guess I have no recourse. Funcrunch (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Funcrunch: Sorry to hear but that's what happens when releasing to public domain: no attribution required or restrictions on derivatives or commercial use. Creative Commons license give some protection. Cheers, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 03:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I appreciate this[edit]

I just saw a picture of Fred Allen that was at least 80 years old and had "alamy" stamped all over it. And I couldn't believe that they owned it. Thanks to you, now I know. They don't own it. They're crooks. Thanks. 209.122.123.149 22:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to report violation of CC-BY-SA terms[edit]

Disclaimer: I am the illustrator.

Is there an effective way to report Creative Commons violations on Alamy without releasing personal info or involving a lawyer?

I found http://alamy.com/cubic-diagram-of-the-composition-of-the-atmosphere-on-planet-earth-illustration-of-the-composition-of-the-atmosphere-image405523536.html with the claim "Contributor: Andrey Nyrkov / Alamy Stock Photo" and believe it to be a copy of File:Atmospheric_composition_Langley.svg with CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence.

Their Copyright complaints link http://alamy.com/terms/general.aspx#complaints states

“ Notification must include the following information:

Your name, address, telephone number, and email address

”

Thanks
cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 03:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cmglee, good question because that page says to contact "Copyright Agent Alamy Legal Department Units 6 & 8, 127 Milton Park Abingdon, Oxon. OX14 4SA United Kingdom". So we're not talking about DMCA here. Take a look at https://www.gov.uk/defend-your-intellectual-property/take-legal-action (Intellectual Property Enterprise Court small claims track for Claims below £10,000), [3]. As the page says: "You don’t need a lawyer to use the IPEC small claims track." You're expected to resolve the conflict out of court first, but that should be simple: send Alamy a note like "You're selling my picture (Alamy URL and Commons URL) without my permission. I want £200 for the infringement and expect you to take down the image." Alamy might take the image down but will certainly ignore the £200 demand. Either way, this should count as an attempt to resolve the issue out of court so your case could be heard. IANAL yada yada yada. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BAPLA[edit]

It worth noting that Alamy are members or affiliates of BAPLA (formerly the British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies), whose other members include the BBC and several national museums and galleries. I wonder if BAPLA and those members condone the kinds of behaviour documented here? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they do, does His Majesty?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:How_Alamy_is_stealing_your_images&oldid=844241304"