Home > Contributors > Blog

Blog

Improvements to our newspaper billing process

Permalink Comments (20)5 September 2007 at 09:43 by James Allsworth
Posted under News

A stack of newspapers - Image A745AH © Donald Pye
© Donald PyeWe would like to thank all contributors who have been in touch to inform us of unreported usages of Alamy images in UK newspapers.

As many of you know, we read our forum with great interest and it has recently been clear that many of you have been left feeling less than confident with the process by which we currently bill newspapers.

In response to this, from late October, we will be adding extra resources to our billing team which will allow us to check 100% of the titles that use pictures from Alamy, including all supplements.

In addition to the forum posters we would also like to thank those contributors who continue to alert member services of instances where images have been used and not billed within a 3 month timeframe.

Due to the short production timescales and high volumes of pictures downloaded by these customers, we cannot guarantee that errors will never occur in the future, but we will be watching this closely with a view to making further improvements once the new system is up and running.

As always, if you have spotted one of your images in a national newspaper and it has not been billed within 3 months of being used please email member services. We will chase the payment for you as a matter of priority. If you can provide us with a digital scan or photograph of any unbilled usage that would also be beneficial.

Top

Add your own commentComments (20)

  1. 05 September 2007 at 10:02 Ben plewes

    I'm wondering how newspapers can download images without paying in the first instance. Is there a different system in place for newspapers? Or, if they are using the screen resolution images straight from the alamy preview pages, would it not help if a decent watermarking system was in place?

  2. 05 September 2007 at 10:50 Ian M Butterfield

    I think this is a good first step towards resolving the problem. The question I would ask is how the person checking the title will know if a photo is an Alamy photo? I have had 3 unbilled uses (that I'm aware of) in as many years but NONE of them had an Alamy credit on them... even though the images came from Alamy.

  3. 05 September 2007 at 11:54 Simon Stanmore

    Perhaps PicScout Ian - Already employed successfully by some other distributors

  4. 05 September 2007 at 13:19 Ben plewes

    Shouldn't there be a financial penalty in place for unauthorized use as incentive to behave?

  5. 05 September 2007 at 14:12 David Cole

    Great, well done Alamy !
    How about slipping that watermark over the medium res images that can be dragged to any copyright thief's desktop.
    The Online editions of the National papers regularly drag one of these over and then strip out and throw away your carefully installed IPTC information - the image then appears in the Online edition with no copyright information ready to be lifted yet again......

  6. 05 September 2007 at 17:30 David cole

    Ref 3

    Picscout only trawls commercial websites in UK, USA and Germany. I'm sure it is pretty good at what it does, even chasing up misuses for you. But I'm pretty sure it does not cover the National Dailies even if they have a facsimile edition as opposed to an Online edition. The facsimile editions are subscription based and I'm not sure whether Picscout is able to cover those. They should certainly pick-up Online misuse and all manner of web thefts.

  7. 05 September 2007 at 17:38 Bill Brooks

    How about an independent division that checks All media for copyright violations, not just newspapers. They could also check with clients for renewals when copyright is expiring. They could check media to make sure images were used as reported. One of my distributors does this religiously, and it is a profit centre both for them and for me.

  8. 05 September 2007 at 17:40 Vincenzo Dragani

    I cannot understand why Alamy doesn't write the COPYRIGHT MARK on the image preview like the other agencies!

    Without the mark those preview are easily usable without permission by everyone!

  9. 05 September 2007 at 20:59 David Shaw

    I'd like to reiterate the importance of a better water marking system. Currently it is quite easy to just crop off the bottom of the image and there you go, no copyright. I'd encourage Alamy to adopt a full coverage watermark similar to those used elsewhere.

  10. 06 September 2007 at 02:07 Fabian Gonzales

    While I haven't encountered any unreported usage of my images (but then again, how can I tell?), I think this is a great step for Alamy to take.

    It's unfortunate that Alamy even has to do this, since newspapers, of all clients, should honor copyrights and image license fees, but I am grateful that Alamy is taking active steps to reduce what I can only assume has been determined to be a significant loss of revenue for both us photographers and Alamy.

  11. 06 September 2007 at 09:44 José elias

    Watermark! Watermark! Watermark! Watermark! Watermark! Watermark!!!!!

  12. 06 September 2007 at 10:18 Ian m butterfield

    Let's not get confused here, folks. There are two different issues, requiring two different solutions.

    The first issue (which Alamy are now starting to tackle) is the issue of Unreported Use - this is when a newspaper or periodical legitimatly download a full res copy of an image for potential use in their publication. If they go ahead and actually use it they must report the use back to Alamy under what is called self billing (it how the UK Newspapers work - sadly we have to live with it). Watermarking the medium res preview images will do nothing to prevent this as the newspapers already have access to the full size unwatermarked images. Thus the only solutions are more strigent checks (comparing download history with actual publications) and financial penalties.

    The other problem is illegal use of the medium res preview (or comp) images lifted directly from the website. How big is the problem? I don't know - I doubt it is anywhere near as big as the the issue of unreported sales in all the discussions on the forum (as far as I can recall) there is has been only one example cited of an image taken directly from the Alamy website and used illegally. In contrast there have been scores of examples cited about unreported uses. A watermark is the solution to prevent medium res images being lifted from the site, but it must not be so obtrusive that the watermark prevent legitimate buyers from seeing all the details on the images.

  13. 06 September 2007 at 13:11 David cole

    There is no confusion in this issue and it is a single issue - the illegal usage of images obtained from Alamy.

    Unreported usage in National newspapers covers both the taking of medium resolution images and using them as spot images directly in the paper version of the newspaper - they reproduce at 150dpi and the medium size images which can be easily slid onto any desktop (with no watermark) is quite large enough. It also covers the download, filing in archive and subsequent re-use of an Alamy image for which there is no secondary download history for Alamy to follow up. This image is often used in the Online version of the newspaper in which all of the IPTC information is stripped off as part of the design process for web use, or another newspaper in the same stable.

    Then Self-billing should spring into action but in many cases self-billing receives only lip service - in spite of being a requirement of HMCR to register for the Self-billing process.

    I can assure you that I have traced a number of Online images and contacted the editors directly and been paid for the use - but they only paid up because I chased them and pointed out the error of their ways. Over the web such use is enormous and companies like Picscout have been set up specifically (but as yet in a limited area) to try to combat it.

    Ian Butterfield is absolutely right when he says that there should be financial penalties - after all why pay up when you only have to pay the same amount if you get caught.

    This may be a cynical view but for the last two years of a thirty year career in the National Press I watched the men in shiny shoes destroying a lifetime of trust between photographers, agencies and newspapers.

  14. 06 September 2007 at 14:58 José elias

    I don’t know exactly how it works, but I imagine that newspapers download several images to illustrate a single article, and may ending up using only one because it’s the most suitable (in terms of theme or orientation, etc.).

    So, if they download several images to use as test I think that Alamy could provide those large resolution files, but watermarked. If it’s a comp I think watermarked images are suitable.

    Once the editors decided to use a specific image, they would then download that single image without the watermark, which would be accounted as a sale.

    I don’t believe newspapers would use watermarked images in the print version to skip payment, so they would have to make a registered buy to use an image.

    Alamy is an on-line library, available 24/7, and downloading images is a fast process considering the internet connection these companies must have. So I don’t think this would be a real delay in the making of a newspaper.

    But it would certainly reduce un-reported use heavily I think.

    Regards,
    José Elias
    www.fotoelias.com

  15. 06 September 2007 at 16:38 David cole

    In response to Jose....

    The problem is that the pictures are acquired from Alamy through mainly picture researchers attached to the picture desks - you are right that they sometimes select more than one image - but the final selection and use is not made until the evening by the Night Editor and his staff - they don't go back and do the researchers jobs again by taking images from the selection and downloading an unmarked image. At the speed that they have to work and the number of pages they have to deal with it would not be practical. Images must be layout-ready in order to be quickly schemed.

    If an image is required at night after the researchers have left it is another task for the Night Picture Editor who will select an image from Alamy and then flash it onto the Artdesk browser so that it can be checked for cropping etc. When approved it is downloaded and the Alamy history is created. If the image finally makes edition it is up to the picture desk secretary to identify the copyright owner of each picture used when they come in the following morning. The list of images used and copyright information is forwarded to the office of the Managing Editor for payment approval under the self-billing arrangement and payment made by the end of the month - and often sooner.

    That is how it is designed to work.

    The night picture editor is also viewing up to 5,000 images which arrive on his browser from agencies and photographers all around the world during the course of his shift, both freelance and staffers - he is also briefing and arranging cover for diary events for the next day and arranging cover for all the ongoing and happening news stories. Believe me he does not have time to go back and re-do the job already done by a picture researcher (who by this time is in the pub or tucked up in bed !)

    The night picture editor takes over at about 5pm and leaves to go home at between 3 and 4am trying to remember whether he has remembered everything and hoping that he is not going to get a call at about 9am starting with "The Editor has asked me to call you and find out why the D***Y M****R has got this image and we haven't !" Don't ask him to do anyone else's job as well !!!!
    All contributions to the Retired Night Picture Editor's Refreshment Fund c/o the writer......

  16. 06 September 2007 at 20:57 Joe Fox

    Can someone please explain to me the following....

    If I have a client to supplies me with a release to use the images I took for them on a licensed basis, then finds the image circulating on the net downloaded from the alamy site (non-watermarked), who is to blame?

    I didnt release the image, yet alamy put up an unprotected image which violates the license agreement.

    Someone please tell me you are seriously looking into this.

  17. 06 September 2007 at 21:50 Peter phipp

    There is absolutely NO reason why comps should not have a faint but readable watermark on them. Lets start there. I think all photographers with Alamy want this.

  18. 07 September 2007 at 09:51 Dennis

    In my view, if the clients have by-lined Alamy/photographer, the problem is in the admin and unlikely to be deliberate act of theft.

    David Cole, thank you for the insight into the working of newspapers photo editors.

    Joe Fox, I fear it may take a big and expensive legal case from grieved or greedy person/people/company to force Alamy into watermarking.

  19. 08 September 2007 at 18:31 Joe Fox

    'Joe Fox, I fear it may take a big and expensive legal case from grieved or greedy person/people/company to force Alamy into watermarking.'

    Or a union ;-)

    Or indeed the fact that Getty can get 39 dollars for what Alamy is giving away for free ;-)

  20. 13 September 2007 at 11:49 Mark baynes

    Well I reported another Independent unreported use of one of my images (AWWR99) today after waiting three months for a billing note to appear and Alamy got on the case immediately. However I was only aware of this usage thanks to the eagle eyes of John La Gette. (Cheers John!) When I asked Alamy if they used a cutting services they said no and redirected me to this post. However if they can miss a large image clearly marked as Alamy in one of the main UK newspapers then I remain unconvinced as to their efficiency in this area. But then again maybe they will start to take the same 'zero tolerance' approach to this as they do to dust marks on images...

Add your own comment
Means that we require this information. We respect your privacy and store your details securely. See our privacy policy for more.
Security code picture
No picture? Reload page.
No picture? Reload page.