Alamy copyright complaint but image freely available on Pexels?

[fingercrossed]

I've received a copyright complaint on behalf of Alamy asking if I have a license for an image on a specific page of my website. However the image in question is one that i've added from Pexels years back. That site makes it clear that it's free to use without attribution, can be modifed and so on. This is where I downloaded the image from. It's been free on Pexels for 5 years, downloaded some 17,000+ times.

The exact same image though IS also on the Alamy site, seemingly added there by the same person and offered for a little over 20 euros. I'm being asked for 400 euros due to infringement.

I'm not sure that I make much sense of this sitiuation. Could it be that the individual accidentally added it to Alamy, or possibly that Alamy are trying their luck and the license I can supply them (basically the fact that it's free to post via Pexels) is sufficient to get them off my back. Your thoughts would be appreciated.

[AndyJ]

Hi,
This is probably one of two things. It may be that the image being offered via Alamy is much higher quality, so that, for instance, it could be blown up to poster size and still retain good resolution. In contrast, the one you got from Pexels may be just adequate for a website.
The second and more likely explanation is that the photographer got greedy and decided that he/she would use Alamy in parallel to Pexels to generate income, without realising (or perhaps realising but not caring) that you can't have two types of licensing models in operation at the same time.
If the image is still on Pexels, I would just refer Alamy or their copyright claim company to the image on the Pexels website. You have been authorised to use the image by Pexels therefore you are not liable for primary infringement. If Pexels have somehow been duped by someone claiming to be the photographer, then they are liable for any resulting infringement, and you, by virtue of the last clause of section 23 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, are not liable for infringement.

[fingercrossed]

Many thanks for the reply, Andy. I did intend to message the photographer (it seems likely that both accounts are his, the pexels one is long standing), only as you say I don't know what his particular angle is either, and I'd rather forward the relevant URLS and evidence to the claim company to kill this off. I will PM you the Alamy and Pexels pages to see what you think of the matter.

The dimensions of the Alamy image are greater, so I thought you had a point about the size. However the exact same size is available for free download on the pexels site too (via clicking the arrow near 'free download') so this would seem to me to be rights to the exact same size, image etc.

As the image is still on Pexels (and was there in 2019 onwards) I will inform the copyright company of this and state that I am therefore fully within my rights to use it (or that pexels aren't - though that seems likely based on the amount of time the account has been live). I'll also take a screen grab of the site just in case. It does look like 'all' of this individuals photos are now both on Alamy and Pexels. Perhaps the photographer is going to soon ditch pexels and rely on people not being able to prove their presence there? or leave both up and mob up money from anyone unable to detail this situation. Seems rather shady,

[AndyJ]

Thanks fc,

I have covered your points in my reply to your pm so I won't reiterate them here.

You are on firm ground legally speaking and need to be very firm with Alamy.

[fingercrossed]

Thanks so much!

[fingercrossed]

They've got back to me saying that based on information provided, they are closing the case.

"Please accept our apologies for inconvenience caused"

[AndyJ]

Good result. Thanks for letting us know the outcome.