RF images with buildings, no property releases

[Newberry]

I've read about property releases in the forum and the Alamy contributor pages, but still a bit confused about this. 

 

I've seen photos like this skyline that are listed as RF, but I assume property releases were not obtained for all buildings pictured. 

 

I have many photos with buildings in them, but no property releases. Can I upload them and mark them as not containing property that needs to be released for commercial use, and select RF? 

[Matt Ashmore]

I've read about property releases in the forum and the Alamy contributor pages, but still a bit confused about this. 

 

I've seen photos like this skyline that are listed as RF, but I assume property releases were not obtained for all buildings pictured. 

 

I have many photos with buildings in them, but no property releases. Can I upload them and mark them as not containing property that needs to be released for commercial use, and select RF? 

 

It depends on what the main subject of the photograph is.

If a building is the obvious main subject of a photograph then you would need a property release.

But if it's just one of many buildings that are in a cityscape type shot like the one that you reference, then releases for the individual buildings aren't required.

[Peter Stone]

 

I've read about property releases in the forum and the Alamy contributor pages, but still a bit confused about this. 

 

I've seen photos like this skyline that are listed as RF, but I assume property releases were not obtained for all buildings pictured. 

 

I have many photos with buildings in them, but no property releases. Can I upload them and mark them as not containing property that needs to be released for commercial use, and select RF? 

 

It depends on what the main subject of the photograph is.

If a building is the obvious main subject of a photograph then you would need a property release.

But if it's just one of many buildings that are in a cityscape type shot like the one that you reference, then releases for the individual buildings aren't required.

 

That has been my understanding too but on checking Alamy's guidelines I see that they say "If there’s recognisable property in your image you’ll need a property release in order to sell as RF or for commercial use." This implies that even broad city scenes may require multiple property releases. And of course, in many cases, a release may be required from other interested parties - the Eiffel Tower at night being just one example. Though I note that another big agency is happy for unreleased night shots of the Eiffel Tower to be sold RF as long as it's not the main focus of the composition. But where does that leave you if the client crops the image to feature the Eiffel Tower?

 

I believe the onus to obtain a release should be on the end user and not the photographer. Photographers have absolutely no control over how their pictures are cropped and are not in a position to say whether a release is *needed*. Note too that the requirement for property releases is not restricted to buildings This is what Alamy says "Property is not just limited to buildings, it’s anything identifiable that’s copyrighted/trademarked e.g. logos and branded items."

[Niels Quist]

 

 

I've read about property releases in the forum and the Alamy contributor pages, but still a bit confused about this.

 

I've seen photos like this skyline that are listed as RF, but I assume property releases were not obtained for all buildings pictured.

 

I have many photos with buildings in them, but no property releases. Can I upload them and mark them as not containing property that needs to be released for commercial use, and select RF?

It depends on what the main subject of the photograph is.

If a building is the obvious main subject of a photograph then you would need a property release.

But if it's just one of many buildings that are in a cityscape type shot like the one that you reference, then releases for the individual buildings aren't required.

That has been my understanding too but on checking Alamy's guidelines I see that they say "If there’s recognisable property in your image you’ll need a property release in order to sell as RF or for commercial use." This implies that even broad city scenes may require multiple property releases. And of course, in many cases, a release may be required from other interested parties - the Eiffel Tower at night being just one example. Though I note that another big agency is happy for unreleased night shots of the Eiffel Tower to be sold RF as long as it's not the main focus of the composition. But where does that leave you if the client crops the image to feature the Eiffel Tower?

 

I believe the onus to obtain a release should be on the end user and not the photographer. Photographers have absolutely no control over how their pictures are cropped and are not in a position to say whether a release is *needed*. Note too that the requirement for property releases is not restricted to buildings This is what Alamy says "Property is not just limited to buildings, it’s anything identifiable that’s copyrighted/trademarked e.g. logos and branded items."

Yep. One of many lectures to learn if one comes from microstock f.inst. But these are Alamy's terms, and they also mean a security for the photographer. The same terms go for any parts of a human being or tiny persons in the distance, some flags and animal breeds, etc. It has nothing to do with being the main subject of the image. The image should be licenced as RM. You can find images on Alamy not complying with this, mostly from agencies with another policy, but this will be at own risk. I have heard that Alamy has e-mailed contributors giving incorrect information, ticked the wrong boxes, about the content.. As far as I understand RF Editorial may be an option soon, unfortunately.

 

Edited: Otherwise the image has to be licenced as RM - corrected to: The image should be licenced as RM

[Phil Crean]

 

 

I've read about property releases in the forum and the Alamy contributor pages, but still a bit confused about this. 

 

I've seen photos like this skyline that are listed as RF, but I assume property releases were not obtained for all buildings pictured. 

 

I have many photos with buildings in them, but no property releases. Can I upload them and mark them as not containing property that needs to be released for commercial use, and select RF? 

 

It depends on what the main subject of the photograph is.

If a building is the obvious main subject of a photograph then you would need a property release.

But if it's just one of many buildings that are in a cityscape type shot like the one that you reference, then releases for the individual buildings aren't required.

 

That has been my understanding too but on checking Alamy's guidelines I see that they say "If there’s recognisable property in your image you’ll need a property release in order to sell as RF or for commercial use." This implies that even broad city scenes may require multiple property releases. And of course, in many cases, a release may be required from other interested parties - the Eiffel Tower at night being just one example. Though I note that another big agency is happy for unreleased night shots of the Eiffel Tower to be sold RF as long as it's not the main focus of the composition. But where does that leave you if the client crops the image to feature the Eiffel Tower?

 

I believe the onus to obtain a release should be on the end user and not the photographer. Photographers have absolutely no control over how their pictures are cropped and are not in a position to say whether a release is *needed*. Note too that the requirement for property releases is not restricted to buildings This is what Alamy says "Property is not just limited to buildings, it’s anything identifiable that’s copyrighted/trademarked e.g. logos and branded items."

 

 

I believe this is the case....

The publisher is the one ultimately responsible for what they have published, in my opinion.

As long as we photographers are honest in what we claim to have in releases then how can we be held responsible for others actions?

 

Phil

[AlessandraRC]

I have a few of these  below and I also that I wonder about. It is a pretty popular subject around here, san francisco lights from Treasure Island. Last year this one was accepted by other stock agencies as RF and they keep close watch on what needs a release and what does not so I assume that stating that I don't need a release for Alamy is relatively safe.  I am not a licensing specialist much less a copyright lawyer so all I can do is a best guess after trying to find the information. 

 

 

 

[Joseph Clemson]

 

 

 

I've read about property releases in the forum and the Alamy contributor pages, but still a bit confused about this. 

 

I've seen photos like this skyline that are listed as RF, but I assume property releases were not obtained for all buildings pictured. 

 

I have many photos with buildings in them, but no property releases. Can I upload them and mark them as not containing property that needs to be released for commercial use, and select RF? 

 

It depends on what the main subject of the photograph is.

If a building is the obvious main subject of a photograph then you would need a property release.

But if it's just one of many buildings that are in a cityscape type shot like the one that you reference, then releases for the individual buildings aren't required.

 

That has been my understanding too but on checking Alamy's guidelines I see that they say "If there’s recognisable property in your image you’ll need a property release in order to sell as RF or for commercial use." This implies that even broad city scenes may require multiple property releases. And of course, in many cases, a release may be required from other interested parties - the Eiffel Tower at night being just one example. Though I note that another big agency is happy for unreleased night shots of the Eiffel Tower to be sold RF as long as it's not the main focus of the composition. But where does that leave you if the client crops the image to feature the Eiffel Tower?

 

I believe the onus to obtain a release should be on the end user and not the photographer. Photographers have absolutely no control over how their pictures are cropped and are not in a position to say whether a release is *needed*. Note too that the requirement for property releases is not restricted to buildings This is what Alamy says "Property is not just limited to buildings, it’s anything identifiable that’s copyrighted/trademarked e.g. logos and branded items."

 

 

I believe this is the case....

The publisher is the one ultimately responsible for what they have published, in my opinion.

As long as we photographers are honest in what we claim to have in releases then how can we be held responsible for others actions?

 

Phil

 

 

The problem with taking this stance is that the photographer is likely to be named in any legal action initiated. Even if the action is found in the photographer's and/or publisher's favour, there is still the considerable cost, time and stress involved in being subject to a court action.  To my mind, avoiding the  possibility of such, as far as is possible, is the prudent thing to do. My personal approach is to try to avoid anything which is potentially contentious, even at the cost of a potential sale or two.

 

It baffles me as I often read stock forum postings, though no so much here, where photographers moan about the restrictions placed by stock libraries and seemingly do their best to circumvent them. Such rules/guidelines are there to protect the photographer as well as the agency and I, for one, am grateful to have the guidance.

[spacecadet]

We British photographers are helped by the fact that none of the American legal nonsense can really touch us if we have no business presence in the US. About the only recourse Alamy really have against incorrect annotation is to repudiate a contributor's contract for breach. We are never going to be on the wrong end of one of those absurd $2000000000 no-model-release cases.