Restricted images e-mail

[Cryptoprocta]

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.

[spacecadet]

 I think 4.9 would refer to claims you know about.

[Jill Morgan]

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

[Cryptoprocta]

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.

[Trevor Chriss]

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.

[John Mitchell]

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.

[Russell]

Quote

Thanks for sharing. Now that makes more sense.

+1

[ChrisC]

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

[M.Chapman]

"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

[Colblimp]

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.

[John Mitchell]

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.

[Bill Brooks]

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.

[M.Chapman]

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

[famousbelgian]

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

[Joseph Clemson]

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.

 

[digi2ap]

Useful and related blog post here - commercial gain is not the same as an image licensed for commercial use - http://www.alamy.com/blog/tips-for-photographing-private-property-and-museums?utm_campaign=814725_Blog Update - July 2017&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alamy Contributors &dm_i=2SWW,HGN9,12GVPH,1TDZO,1

 

 

[spacecadet]

In the UK, as I understand it, if you enter somewhere subject to conditions, and then break one of those conditions, you become a trespasser. The owner's only sanction is your removal. It's hard to see how a power station could become entitled to damages- you've caused them no loss.

Provided you annotate correctly you're in the clear. Any comeback- and for the reasons above I can't see what it could be- is on the publisher, which you're not.

[M.Chapman]

21 hours ago, Joseph Clemson said:

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.

 

Hi Joseph,

 

Thanks, that's a very well worded and considered argument which helps a lot. I notice that when trying to buy an RM image, which doesn't have the necessary releases, and hasn't been marked as "Editorial only", then (although I'm offered a full range of licences) the following highlighted warning is also shown on screen.

 

"If you want to use the image commercially, you might also need permission from the model, artist, owner, estate, trademark or brand."

 

Which does help provide a little more protection.

 

I think the other factor that comes into play (when thinking about risk) is which usages generate the most claims for damages? I would argue that the vast majority of claims arise from editorial use in newspapers. So ticking "Editorial only" only reduces the overall risk by a tiny (perhaps insignificant) amount?

 

Nevertheless, based on your posting I have decided to explicitly add "Editorial only" restrictions to a small number of my RM images.

 

Mark

[MizBrown]

13 hours ago, digi2ap said:

Useful and related blog post here - commercial gain is not the same as an image licensed for commercial use - http://www.alamy.com/blog/tips-for-photographing-private-property-and-museums?utm_campaign=814725_Blog Update - July 2017&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alamy Contributors &dm_i=2SWW,HGN9,12GVPH,1TDZO,1

 

 

Just went through taking things down that I'd photographed in Mexican museums after seeing that.  Should I ask contributor relations to take them down faster?  Mexico seems to have fees to pay to take permitted photographs in the National Museum of Anthropology, probably stick to closer venues where I can get local permissions easier.  

 

[regen]

We go round and round the houses discussing levels of risk! But what is the real risk? Alamy have 103 million files on line and sell x files per year but how many cases have there been where the photographer,who has ticked all the boxes in line with Alamy instructions, been subject to litigation?

 

Regen

[digi2ap]

5 hours ago, MizBrown said:

 

 

Just went through taking things down that I'd photographed in Mexican museums after seeing that.  Should I ask contributor relations to take them down faster?  Mexico seems to have fees to pay to take permitted photographs in the National Museum of Anthropology, probably stick to closer venues where I can get local permissions easier.  

 

 

If museums can apply a rule of 'no photography for commercial gain' then the same might likely apply to all shopping malls, for instance, too and there are many images of those here!  As Spacecadet says, the legal restriction (in the UK) may be limited to trespass (yes, even in places with accepted public access) and not control over the editorial freedoms of the photographer. That's one to discuss!!

[spacecadet]

In the UK, I'd be surprised if there had ever been successful legal action against a photographer, not a publisher, with damages awarded, for such a breach of condition. The legal obstacles seem considerable. IANAL of course- it's a photographer's business to have some appreciation of these things, just my opinion, informed or not.

When the latest round of NT strongarming happened last year Alamy did say that the NT was starting action under its byelaws against a number of photographers but that's slightly different.

[Dyn Llun]

Of course the responsibility for any misuse of an image lies with the publisher. Provided the photograph has been taken within the law, byelaws, guidelines etc. As has been pointed out above, when you view an image in Alamy the potential buyer sees a notice which warns if it is unreleased and that it is not to be used for commercial purposes. Nothing more is needed. When I buy a hammer from B&Q there is nothing on the receipt to say 'don't use this to hit someone on the head'. If I buy a car there's nothing on any document to say 'don't use this as a getaway vehicle for a bank robbery'. What nonsense. If I hit someone on the head with the hammer, who gets sued or arrested? Me or B&Q? Does the hammer manufacturer get sued for making an offensive weapon? What Alamy are actually saying is that if, in the very, very unlikely event, as 'Spacecadet' says above, a photographer is sued, we won't lift a finger to support you or even point out to the buyer that the warnings were in place and the photographer absolutely correctly indicated that releases were not available for that image. In other words, we'll take our 50% cut but do nothing for you. Their attitude in not pursuing misuse of images which costs photographers lost sales and the farce of so-called 'Personal Use' sales, where the customer gets a full size file for £10 or less and then their money back without question if they ask for it is symptomatic of this contempt. 

 

Pete Davis

www.pete-davis-photography.com

http://peteslandscape.blogspot.co.uk

[regen]

7 hours ago, spacecadet said:

IANAL of course- it's a photographer's business to have some appreciation of these things, just my opinion, informed or not.

 

Absolutely right- trouble is Alamy attracts many people who at worst are not photographers and at best are "apprentices' who are only just getting to grips with the equipment and workflows. They know this and could do a lot more to spell out the potential legal pitfalls if they do exist.

 

Regen

[M.Chapman]

5 hours ago, regen said:

 

Absolutely right- trouble is Alamy attracts many people who at worst are not photographers and at best are "apprentices' who are only just getting to grips with the equipment and workflows. They know this and could do a lot more to spell out the potential legal pitfalls if they do exist.

 

Regen

 

Putting the "harder" questions on the "Optional" page in the new AIM hardly encourages a pro-active approach either. Alamy appear to have decided that whether an image contains property or people, and whether there are releases available isn't that important.... What does that tell us? Maybe we could limit our potential liability by not filling any of these fields in - Alamy has decided they are optional after all. It would save time...  Must remember to check what licence options and warnings a potential buyer is given if these fields are left blank when the next database update happens.

 

Mark