Alberto Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Hello, I need some help with an editorial image I have uploaded. The Alamy tutorial explain to do this with restrictions: All countries - Consumer goods etc All countries - Advertising/promotion etc All countries - Direct mail etc All countries - Internal business etc All countries - Electronic and web uses Other All countries - Display etc The last two entries are not present in the restriction options. All I can see are two similar; Indoor display (not Display) and Commercial electronic not Electronic and web uses. Are these two the entries that I must use? Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 This was very confusing to me when I joined. I put on restrictions and ended up having images that couldn't be sold at all. That was because I thought ticking the boxes meant I was agreeing to those avenues when in fact it is the opposite. If you don't have a strong need for one or two particular restrictions, just leave that whole restriction field alone. Then your images will be able to be sold to everybody, all uses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberto Posted March 30, 2016 Author Share Posted March 30, 2016 Thank you Betty for your reply. You are right it is confusing; in attribute I check 2 people and that I have not a model release. I think that this can be enough, clients knows that without a model release can't use the image in some cases. Maybe some words from Alamy to cover this subject is appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Thank you Betty for your reply. You are right it is confusing; in attribute I check 2 people and that I have not a model release. I think that this can be enough, clients knows that without a model release can't use the image in some cases. Maybe some words from Alamy to cover this subject is appreciated. That's exactly how it works. Check the proper boxes about model/property releases, and the onus is on the buyer. If you have assigned no model release, you are in the clear. Occasionally one must delve deeper in restrictions. Say you put up an image of your daughter, but don't want that image used in an article about teen drug use, sexual abuse or whatever. That's when you place a restriction for those type of uses, but the image is still available for other uses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 You can also write something like "For Editorial Use Only" in the "Description" field. I do that with some images. It's easier than adding restrictions, which is very awkward on Alamy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberto Posted March 30, 2016 Author Share Posted March 30, 2016 Thank you Betty and John. The write it seems a good idea, it's something that clarify. every doubt if any. Again thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nacke Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Alberto, I agree that it is confusing, but it is really simple. Just tell the truth and if you don't have model releases or property releases (if appropriate) the restrictions set themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberto Posted March 31, 2016 Author Share Posted March 31, 2016 I agree with you Chuck, with the new system I hope that also Alamy put a simple field "editorial" that can be check. I saw another thread about a new keywording system work in progress... But what all you said it is also enough to understand how to manage this "things". Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptoprocta Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Alberto, I agree that it is confusing, but it is really simple. Just tell the truth and if you don't have model releases or property releases (if appropriate) the restrictions set themselves. Really? I can 't see that on mine (not counting where I've set restrictions myself) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DHill Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 I think Chuck means that the buyer will have enough info to decide for themselves how they can use the image - please correct me if I'm wrong, Chuck! I've said this before, but it looks like it's worth repeating - my biggest sale (over $4k) was with an image showing unreleased people and with a well-known brand name in the background. The advertising agency cut out the bit they wanted and put it on their own background such that no releases were needed. It was then used for an advertising campaign by one of the largest UK banks. If I'd used an 'editorial only' button, I'd presumably be over $4k poorer now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCat Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 If you add restrictions "This image has restrictions" appears in a red box on the zoom page. The danger is that a buyer will just move on rather than checking to see what the restrictions are. Paulette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberto Posted April 2, 2016 Author Share Posted April 2, 2016 Paulette, maybe if the picture is really good and suit the need the buyer can not move over, but yes you and David have a point. Nevertheless I hope that in the next keyword tool alamy put a simple option to tick the photo as editorial. Buyer are smart enough and know what to do. David in the end your picture "de facto" without the crop and edit is editorial, but was what the client really wanted and this not stopped the company/editor to bought. Meanwhile I followed for a couple of images what you all have suggested. The consent seems general, no objection moved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Douglas Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 It's perfectly reasonable for the photographer to put restrictions on the use of their photograph. Maybe they don't want it to be available for certain markets (perhaps it would compete with something else they are doing) or maybe they know of a restriction that would apply but is not apparent from the other information and the photograph itself. In my view though I think it is a bad move to make an Editorial only option more prominent, something special and something that has to be explicitly stated. The decision about how the photograph is used is down to the buyer. I have no idea what a buyer is going to use my photos for, and I shouldn't have to know. What I have to do is tell them, honestly, whether model and/or property releases are available. It is then for the buyer to decide. What I fear is that we could see a gradual shift away from the buyer taking responsibility for how they use the photograph towards expecting the photographer to share in that risk - "Your photo wasn't marked as Editorial only so I assumed that I could use it Commercially". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberto Posted April 3, 2016 Author Share Posted April 3, 2016 It's perfectly reasonable for the photographer to put restrictions on the use of their photograph. Maybe they don't want it to be available for certain markets (perhaps it would compete with something else they are doing) or maybe they know of a restriction that would apply but is not apparent from the other information and the photograph itself. In my view though I think it is a bad move to make an Editorial only option more prominent, something special and something that has to be explicitly stated. The decision about how the photograph is used is down to the buyer. I have no idea what a buyer is going to use my photos for, and I shouldn't have to know. What I have to do is tell them, honestly, whether model and/or property releases are available. It is then for the buyer to decide. What I fear is that we could see a gradual shift away from the buyer taking responsibility for how they use the photograph towards expecting the photographer to share in that risk - "Your photo wasn't marked as Editorial only so I assumed that I could use it Commercially". Something to think about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Jordan Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Yes I agree, Keith and I seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 At times this whole photography thing seems so risky and so open to exploitation I often wonder whether it is worth the hassle at all when we constantly face the need to pursue infringments to get paid and the risk of being sued in these "everyone's a victim" times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 At times this whole photography thing seems so risky and so open to exploitation I often wonder whether it is worth the hassle at all when we constantly face the need to pursue infringments to get paid and the risk of being sued in these "everyone's a victim" times. Yes, being a victim is becoming the new road to riches, it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.