picrights and alamy help...is a blog 'editorial'?
Posted: Fri Jan 17, 2025 2:13 pm
Hi,
Firstly – thank you for the posts, responses, and resources on this site. It’s been very helpful to get to the point I’m now at…but want to check my next step is correct.
Could I ask for anyone to confirm I’m on the right track, after a bit of back and forth with picrights and then now Alamy over an image used on a blog.
The short version of my question is…is a blog editorial use and can images purchased on an editorial license be used in this way?
Here’s the long version and background…
My wife wanted to do a bit of sideline work to her career after a new qualification and set up a website and started blogging on topics related to it. She was just experimenting, and the website’s not promoted anywhere and has had genuinely on the tracker ….3 views, 2 unique viewers total one of which was my wife x2, and the other was me because I am a good husband
She didn’t really think about using one illustrative image as it was just practising (not an excuse under law I know, but…)
On the practice blog she used a PA image that unfortunately got swept up by picrights who got in touch demanding take down and £375 for use. The image is available on Alamy for £29, with, frankly, contradictory conditions:
- One bit says ‘editorial use only’
“Use relating to news reporting, review and criticism, and the communication of information relating to people, places, things, events or happenings.
For purposes of clarification, editorial use does not include any use relating to advertising, promotion (for example promotional websites), marketing, packaging or merchandising.”
- The other, for the license says almost the opposite:
“What's included in an Individual license?
Unlimited usage across websites and social media platforms including short-form-video on video sharing sites
Can be used in digital publishing and digital marketing”
To me the latter doesn’t matter, as the blog post has to be considered editorial? The screenshot of the alleged infringement clearly says it’s a ‘posts’ page. Even if otherwise, the license conditions say it’s fine to use across websites and even for digital marketing.
I (on behalf of my wife) wrote back to picrights confirming the image had been taken down and, without prejudice to their allegation of infringed copyright offered the £29 and a 50% handling fee to settle the matter. This was on the basis that any reasonable person would consider editorial use as…well, a blog. And frankly a blog on a site no one has read! So whilst hard to see any actual loss from the alledged infringement, that was my offer to settle the matter.
Picrights said it’s not been used in the way the Alamy conditions describe. Picrights then, very proactively, had Alamy infringements email my wife to say:
“The individual license will not cover you for this use and any licenses that are purchased after the infringement case has been created are not valid. The price you need to pay for using the images of PA without a license is £375.”
I do have to say, picrights seem suspiciously close to the Alamy infringements team given the original claim for infringement was PA, but whatever…
And crikey do they sound like they are contradicting their own website states terms for using the image…at least as how a reasonable person would interpret them?!
Plus...er, I never told Alamy how the image at the centre of the allegation was used? It all feels a bit like a co-ordinated shakedown to me.
I am planning to write back to picrights saying:
I stand by my interpretation of Alamy’s own website as any reasonable person would, and not what the site’s infingements team now claim, that you could pay £29 to use it on a blog which talked about wellness techniques and the image under discussion was illustrative editorial use, and the offer of this plus £50% fee remains a fair offer of restitution as the IPEC would very likely determine should it come to that, not prejudicing that this is an alleged infringement by picrights.
And am then prepared for them to eventually say ‘here come the lawyers’ and nothing happens after that.
Does that sound right? If I am way off, please tell me?
Thank you very much.
Firstly – thank you for the posts, responses, and resources on this site. It’s been very helpful to get to the point I’m now at…but want to check my next step is correct.
Could I ask for anyone to confirm I’m on the right track, after a bit of back and forth with picrights and then now Alamy over an image used on a blog.
The short version of my question is…is a blog editorial use and can images purchased on an editorial license be used in this way?
Here’s the long version and background…
My wife wanted to do a bit of sideline work to her career after a new qualification and set up a website and started blogging on topics related to it. She was just experimenting, and the website’s not promoted anywhere and has had genuinely on the tracker ….3 views, 2 unique viewers total one of which was my wife x2, and the other was me because I am a good husband
She didn’t really think about using one illustrative image as it was just practising (not an excuse under law I know, but…)
On the practice blog she used a PA image that unfortunately got swept up by picrights who got in touch demanding take down and £375 for use. The image is available on Alamy for £29, with, frankly, contradictory conditions:
- One bit says ‘editorial use only’
“Use relating to news reporting, review and criticism, and the communication of information relating to people, places, things, events or happenings.
For purposes of clarification, editorial use does not include any use relating to advertising, promotion (for example promotional websites), marketing, packaging or merchandising.”
- The other, for the license says almost the opposite:
“What's included in an Individual license?
Unlimited usage across websites and social media platforms including short-form-video on video sharing sites
Can be used in digital publishing and digital marketing”
To me the latter doesn’t matter, as the blog post has to be considered editorial? The screenshot of the alleged infringement clearly says it’s a ‘posts’ page. Even if otherwise, the license conditions say it’s fine to use across websites and even for digital marketing.
I (on behalf of my wife) wrote back to picrights confirming the image had been taken down and, without prejudice to their allegation of infringed copyright offered the £29 and a 50% handling fee to settle the matter. This was on the basis that any reasonable person would consider editorial use as…well, a blog. And frankly a blog on a site no one has read! So whilst hard to see any actual loss from the alledged infringement, that was my offer to settle the matter.
Picrights said it’s not been used in the way the Alamy conditions describe. Picrights then, very proactively, had Alamy infringements email my wife to say:
“The individual license will not cover you for this use and any licenses that are purchased after the infringement case has been created are not valid. The price you need to pay for using the images of PA without a license is £375.”
I do have to say, picrights seem suspiciously close to the Alamy infringements team given the original claim for infringement was PA, but whatever…
And crikey do they sound like they are contradicting their own website states terms for using the image…at least as how a reasonable person would interpret them?!
Plus...er, I never told Alamy how the image at the centre of the allegation was used? It all feels a bit like a co-ordinated shakedown to me.
I am planning to write back to picrights saying:
I stand by my interpretation of Alamy’s own website as any reasonable person would, and not what the site’s infingements team now claim, that you could pay £29 to use it on a blog which talked about wellness techniques and the image under discussion was illustrative editorial use, and the offer of this plus £50% fee remains a fair offer of restitution as the IPEC would very likely determine should it come to that, not prejudicing that this is an alleged infringement by picrights.
And am then prepared for them to eventually say ‘here come the lawyers’ and nothing happens after that.
Does that sound right? If I am way off, please tell me?
Thank you very much.