John Mitchell

Restricted images e-mail

Recommended Posts

digi2ap    39

Weren't there editorial restrictions imposed on RM images though for Network Rail and IOC subjects a while back?  I too received the email and having read this thread it does seem confusing to me.....I'll keep my restrictions in place.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alamy    0

Hi all

 

Just to clarify, this email was sent as a blanket email to everyone with restrictions, to remind you to check if they're all still needed (no exclusives expired etc).

 

We're aware there have been occasions we have added restrictions due to third party policies. It's up to you to ensure they remain if they're needed and we'd suggest it's not wise to remove restrictions that have been added for legal reasons as you would be liable if there was any further third party issues. 

 

Thanks

Alamy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
funkyworm    635
1 hour ago, Alamy said:

Hi all

 

Just to clarify, this email was sent as a blanket email to everyone with restrictions, to remind you to check if they're all still needed (no exclusives expired etc).

 

We're aware there have been occasions we have added restrictions due to third party policies. It's up to you to ensure they remain if they're needed and we'd suggest it's not wise to remove restrictions that have been added for legal reasons as you would be liable if there was any further third party issues. 

 

Thanks

Alamy

 

Thank you. There is however some further clarification needed. 

 

There has been the suggestion that RM wont be sold for commercial usage. Wont full stop. With or without restrictions.

 

For those who have supplied images with commercial usage in mind (admittedly only a fraction of my collection) this is an important consideration as to whether to shoot such images or whether to place them here or not. 

 

I would welcome some clarification on this. 

 

groetjes, 

 

Richard 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joseph Clemson    465
1 hour ago, Alamy said:

Hi all

 

Just to clarify, this email was sent as a blanket email to everyone with restrictions, to remind you to check if they're all still needed (no exclusives expired etc).

 

We're aware there have been occasions we have added restrictions due to third party policies. It's up to you to ensure they remain if they're needed and we'd suggest it's not wise to remove restrictions that have been added for legal reasons as you would be liable if there was any further third party issues. 

 

Thanks

Alamy

 

Some debate crops up from time to time in this forum on whether images with unreleased people/property should also be marked as editorial only. Quite a few contributors operate a 'let the buyer beware' policy and don't mark their unreleased images as editorial only, on the grounds that it is the buyer's responsibility, not the photographers, to determine the need for releases or not. 

 

Does Alamy have any comment on whether this is the correct approach to take? Does marking such images as editorial only have a noticeable deleterious effect on images view/zooms/sales compared with leaving them with no restrictions? I take a cautious approach myself and mark all unreleased images as editorial only but I would be dismayed if this was having a negative effect on sales for no good reason. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GS-Images    1,182
11 minutes ago, Joseph Clemson said:

 

Some debate crops up from time to time in this forum on whether images with unreleased people/property should also be marked as editorial only. Quite a few contributors operate a 'let the buyer beware' policy and don't mark their unreleased images as editorial only, on the grounds that it is the buyer's responsibility, not the photographers, to determine the need for releases or not. 

 

Does Alamy have any comment on whether this is the correct approach to take? Does marking such images as editorial only have a noticeable deleterious effect on images view/zooms/sales compared with leaving them with no restrictions? I take a cautious approach myself and mark all unreleased images as editorial only but I would be dismayed if this was having a negative effect on sales for no good reason. 

 

That is what I had done too Joseph, just to be sure, as I assumed it wouldn't make any real difference providing the client was using them correctly. If they weren't then I wouldn't be liable, so it shouldn't affect me.Still, it's better not to have to go down that route of possibly being sued even if I end up winning.  :)  If it causes confusion though and I have no other reason to restrict those images, I may as well remove the restrictions. With some, such as my National Rail images, maybe I should add the restrictions back? I'm not sure why we would need to though if they're taken from a public place. With some of those where it may look as if I've taken them from National Rail property, I have made a comment in the "additional details" box that they were taken from a public place.

 

Sorry folks if the email I quoted from Alamy has caused confusion.

 

Geoff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cryptoprocta    280

I think I'm going to stick with my policy of marking images where people are prominent as Editorial only, and may soon do that for brands too, can't be too careful.

However, I suspect in Law it would be difficult to prove that the Editorial box was actually ticked on the day the file was bought, but that could be argued for indicating no release also. I don't know how that would pan out.

 

Out of interest, I rechecked the alamy contract. It's very long, but these bits stuck out. I wondered how Prior Rights are designated nowadays (can't see the 'relevant fields' in the current AIM) and how we could guarantee that "there are and will be no claims by any other party ...". I mean, any eejit could make a claim. Someone would pretend it was them in an image, even if it wasn't.

alamycontract.jpg

Edited by Cryptoprocta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
arterra    3,756

I think Alamy is referring to images for which they asked to put TEMPORARY restrictions in the past like calendars which required a ... year exclusivity. Meaning you couldn't sell that particular image to another publisher of calendars for that time period in a certain distribution area. It's easy to forget after all those years, that some of those images still have such restrictions though the exclusivity period has already expired.

 

Cheers,

Philippe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jill Morgan    674
1 hour ago, Cryptoprocta said:

I think I'm going to stick with my policy of marking images where people are prominent as Editorial only, and may soon do that for brands too, can't be too careful.

However, I suspect in Law it would be difficult to prove that the Editorial box was actually ticked on the day the file was bought, but that could be argued for indicating no release also. I don't know how that would pan out.

 

 

 

Actually anything done digitally is time stamped every time you do something.  Although you may have set the restriction a long time ago so that record may not still be available, a digital record could prove you did not change the restriction after someone may have complained or even sued over its' use.

 

Jill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cryptoprocta    280
1 minute ago, Jill Morgan said:

 

Actually anything done digitally is time stamped every time you do something.  Although you may have set the restriction a long time ago so that record may not still be available, a digital record could prove you did not change the restriction after someone may have complained or even sued over its' use.

 

Jill

Thanks for that info, Jill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine was just two images 'with restrictions'. I also was confused until I discovered that they were images intended to be set RF. When I checked they were still RM.

But I had checked ' editorial only' doing this seems to highlight the restrictions boxes. In my haste, I did not notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GS-Images    1,182

CR wrote to me again about this, after reading this thread. I thought they might put it here too, but as they haven't, I hope they won't mind me quoting them again. Thanks Shelly for your email and clarification, and sorry everyone here if my previous quote led to confusion.  :)

 

--------

When we said "by selling your images as RM this indicates they can only be used editorially” we were referring to images that contain unreleased people or property, of course customers can use RM images commercially if the correct releases are there. We are still selling RM images commercially.

Adding editorial only restrictions should be done on RM images if you’re absolutely sure the only use suitable is editorial but if the image can be used commercially you don’t need to add these restrictions and then it is up to the customer to make sure they have the necessary releases for the images end use.

--------

 

Geoff.
 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Mitchell    1,890
28 minutes ago, GS-Images said:

CR wrote to me again about this, after reading this thread. I thought they might put it here too, but as they haven't, I hope they won't mind me quoting them again. Thanks Shelly for your email and clarification, and sorry everyone here if my previous quote led to confusion.  :)

 

--------

When we said "by selling your images as RM this indicates they can only be used editorially” we were referring to images that contain unreleased people or property, of course customers can use RM images commercially if the correct releases are there. We are still selling RM images commercially.

Adding editorial only restrictions should be done on RM images if you’re absolutely sure the only use suitable is editorial but if the image can be used commercially you don’t need to add these restrictions and then it is up to the customer to make sure they have the necessary releases for the images end use.

--------

 

Geoff.
 

 

Thanks for sharing. Now that makes more sense.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisC    65
On 7/25/2017 at 17:32, John Mitchell said:

Today, I received an e-mail from Alamy telling me that I might be missing out on sales on 134 of my images that have restrictions on them (editorial use only). No doubt others got this e-mail as well. How are you responding to it, especially those who have converted a lot of images from unreleased RM to RF editorial only?

 

Here is what Alamy has to say:

 

"Our customers find images with restrictions confusing and tend not to buy them. To increase your chances of making sales, check your restrictions are still needed and if they're not, remove them."

I've got the same, mine are all personal use restrictions, I do wish Alamy would make this an option whereby I'm not losing sales, if prices where higher for personal use and prints etc as they should be, then I wouldn't be as reticent to clear this restrictions.

 

I know this has been discussed many times, so I am planning to reply to them to that effect, as to me, Alamy and stock is like the difference between retail and wholesale, or professional and non-professional for those who are buying the images.

 

Personal use should have a surcharge, I want people to go to my website for those sales, I accept Alamy is giving me a potential bigger market place, but not for the prices any personal sales I've had so far.

Chris

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
funkyworm    635
1 hour ago, GS-Images said:

CR wrote to me again about this, after reading this thread. I thought they might put it here too, but as they haven't, I hope they won't mind me quoting them again. Thanks Shelly for your email and clarification, and sorry everyone here if my previous quote led to confusion.  :)

 

--------

When we said "by selling your images as RM this indicates they can only be used editorially” we were referring to images that contain unreleased people or property, of course customers can use RM images commercially if the correct releases are there. We are still selling RM images commercially.

Adding editorial only restrictions should be done on RM images if you’re absolutely sure the only use suitable is editorial but if the image can be used commercially you don’t need to add these restrictions and then it is up to the customer to make sure they have the necessary releases for the images end use.

--------

 

Geoff.
 

 

Thank you for sharing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
M.Chapman    518

"When we said "by selling your images as RM this indicates they can only be used editorially” we were referring to images that contain unreleased people or property, of course customers can use RM images commercially if the correct releases are there. We are still selling RM images commercially."

 

Here's my interpretation of that statement.

 

RM images without people of property may be used for editorial or commercial purposes - unless the photographer marks them as "Editorial use only"

RM images containing people or property may be used for editorial or commercial purposes if releases are available - unless the photographer marks them as "Editorial Only".
RM images containing people or property which don't have appropriate releases can only be used editorial purposes, and so it's not necessary for the photographer to explicitly add "Editorial use only" restriction.

 

But Alamy's next sentence indicates it not that quite that simple...

 

"Adding editorial only restrictions should be done on RM images if you’re absolutely sure the only use suitable is editorial but if the image can be used commercially you don’t need to add these restrictions and then it is up to the customer to make sure they have the necessary releases for the images end use."

 

So, if the "Editorial only" restriction is not added, it allows the publisher some room for manoeuvre. For example, perhaps at the size of publication, the people are so small that nobody can be identified. Under these conditions the publisher might (quite rightly) decide to use the image commercially, even though releases aren't available. 

 

I think it's clear the final decision (and responsibility) for how the image is used rests with the publisher. For RM images, providing I have accurately stated whether the picture contains property or people and whether releases are available or not, my responsibility ends there. Why would I want to add an "Editorial only" restriction to RM images and restrict sales opportunities? I can only think of 3 possible reasons.

  • To provide "belt and braces" protection which serves little purpose other than confusing customers (according to Alamy) and restricting my sales opportunities?
  • Because the model or property owner asked for an "Editorial only" restriction when they providing me with the photographic permissions/releases (i.e. it's a condition of the release)?
  • Because I already have another sales channel or opportunity (commercial) for an image that I don't want Alamy to compete against?

Are there other possible reasons? Or have I misunderstood?

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Colblimp    168

I received this email and promptly deleted it.  I REFUSE to sell my images for peanuts, especially after all the hard work which goes into them. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Mitchell    1,890
40 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

I think it's clear the final decision (and responsibility) for how the image is used rests with the publisher. For RM images, providing I have accurately stated whether the picture contains property or people and whether releases are available or not, my responsibility ends there. Why would I want to add an "Editorial only" restriction to RM images and restrict sales opportunities? I can only think of 3 possible reasons.

  • To provide "belt and braces" protection which serves little purpose other than confusing customers (according to Alamy) and restricting my sales opportunities?
  • Because the model or property owner asked for an "Editorial only" restriction when they providing me with the photographic permissions/releases (i.e. it's a condition of the release)?
  • Because I already have another sales channel or opportunity (commercial) for an image that I don't want Alamy to compete against?

Are there other possible reasons? Or have I misunderstood?

 

Mark

 

That sounds pretty comprehensive to me. However, I think that when we do put "editorial use only" restrictions on images for the reasons you listed, they should be adhered to by clients and distributors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill Brooks    676
43 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

I think it's clear the final decision (and responsibility) for how the image is used rests with the publisher. For RM images, providing I have accurately stated whether the picture contains property or people and whether releases are available or not, my responsibility ends there

Mark

 

Good luck with that, if the client uses an unreleased image of a Catholic family on the beach on a box of prophylactics.

It seems to me that Alamy has changed their former policy on this issue, and it is still a bit fluid.

So far it seems that it is mainly the client and partially the photographer who are responsible, but not Alamy.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
M.Chapman    518
1 hour ago, Bill Brooks said:

 

Good luck with that, if the client uses an unreleased image of a Catholic family on the beach on a box of prophylactics.

It seems to me that Alamy has changed their former policy on this issue, and it is still a bit fluid.

So far it seems that it is mainly the client and partially the photographer who are responsible, but not Alamy.

I'm sure it's possible to dream up plenty of Editorial scenarios with equal risk, so ticking "Editorial only" provides little extra protection. 

 

Mark

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if anyone has ever seen this ... and there is some relevance to this thread. Anybody who emails Alamy regarding infringement of their copyright gets an initial autoreply like this.

 

Marc

 

Thanks for your email. This is an automated email but please read the important information below.

We don’t own any of the images on our site or hold any copyright. Photographers and picture agencies put their images with us to sell and they’ve confirmed they’re either the copyright owner, they have authority to license the images they supply through us, or the images are free from any third party claims. 

There are a number of reasons why you might be emailing us, please read below to find out how we deal with each scenario. 

1. You’ve seen a photograph of yourself or a family member
We won’t be taking any further action if the photographer wasn’t trespassing or otherwise breaking the law. For more information, see our helpful blog post 
here. If this isn’t the case, we’ll be in touch soon. 

2. You’ve seen a photograph of your property (house, boat, shop etc)
If the photographer wasn’t trespassing at the time the photograph was taken then we won’t be taking any further action. If this isn’t the case, we’ll look in to this further and be in touch soon.

3. You’ve seen a photograph of your artwork or company logo
If the image is taken from a public place, has been shot in context and captioned as such then we’ll be taking no further action and the image will be fine to use for editorial use. Neither the contributor nor Alamy are trying to pass off your work as our own or claim any copyright in the work itself. 

4. You believe someone else is selling your images or images you own the rights to through Alamy
If someone else is submitting images you have taken and you haven’t given the permission to do so, we’ll investigate and get back to you. However, if you or the organisation behind the images has released them into the public domain, which communicates that the images are free from known restrictions under copyright law and can be freely used by others, we will not be taking any further action.

If the reason for your email isn’t listed above then the team at 
copyright@alamy.com will send you an email once they’ve investigated your claim.

Thanks,
Alamy

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joseph Clemson    465

It may be argued that ticking the 'editorial only' box offers little extra protection. However, that if that box is ticked the only kind of licence which can be purchased is one suitable for editorial or personal use. If the editorial only box is left unticked then various commercial licences are still shown as being available for purchase.

 

It could be argued by an inexperienced or an unscrupulous buyer, that in making a commercial licence type available where unreleased people/property are present, Alamy and/or the photographer are implying that the photograph is suitable for that type of use. On the other hand, if the photograph is clearly marked as editorial use only and the only licences available for it are editorial, then the purchaser will find it difficult to construct an argument against agency or photographer if they misuse the image in a commercial context and face a legal challenge.

 

This is the logic which leads me to mark all my unreleased images as editorial only. It may be belt and braces but at the end of the day I will sleep more easily if I know that I have put in place all available defences against my images being wittingly or unwittingly used in a situation which may be open to legal challenge. I suppose I will just have to live with the reduction in my sales such restrictions may engender as part of the cost of some peace of mind.

 

I did, earlier in the thread, ask Alamy if they would care to comment further on this issue. They haven't and I suspect they won't, because restricted images are less attractive to the buyer and so hit their profit line. They are quite happy to let photographers who are less risk-averse than myself to continue to operate as they do.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
digi2ap    39

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets go through this with a sample image shall we:

dungeness-nuclear-power-station-with-con

This image was taken within the boundarys of the 'estate' it says no filming or professional photography without written consent, but i could have missed it as there are so many ways to get here.

I have indicated I have no model release or property release, I have checked the editorial use only box.

Is Alamy now saying that I am on my own if somebody uses the image and there is a complaint.

Opinions pls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now