John Mitchell

Restricted images e-mail

Recommended Posts

John Mitchell    1,890

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."

Share this post


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

I was a bit confused by this, so I wrote to CR to ask if there's something I'm misunderstanding. This was their response.....

 

---------

By selling your images as RM this indicates they can only be used editorially so you don’t need to add editorial only restrictions to RM images if you don’t want to. You only need to add these restrictions if you are selling unreleased images as RF.

---------

 

So the mistake I've made is that I was going through all my RM images that didn't have releases but needed them for non-editorial, and ticking the "sell for editorial only" box. I thought that was what we're supposed to do now. It seems we don't need to though, and the fact some of us have, may mean confusion that prevents sales. So tonight I'll be reviewing over 600 images again!

 

Geoff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stipe    171

I got the same email telling me that all of my images might be out on sales. I presume because I asked a few months ago for opting out of personal use sales.

 

Stefano

Travel photographer

Edited by stipe
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Allan Bell    985

 

Also got this email and have ignored it as I have the restrictions on as I want. I certainly would not like to lift the PU restriction.

 

Allan

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
arterra    3,756

I didn't get that e-mail because I have hardly any restrictions but I notice the following with each image, even animal and landscape shots:

 

If you want to use this image commercially  and we've indicated* that Alamy doesn't have a release, you might need additional permission from the model, artist, owner, estate, trademark or brand. More information.

 

On the one hand, Alamy says "Our customers find images with restrictions confusing and tend not to buy them." but on the other hand they place the above which is ALSO confusing for clients - especially for images where that message is not relevant at all :wacko:

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

Edited by arterra
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

I was a bit confused by this, so I wrote to CR to ask if there's something I'm misunderstanding. This was their response.....

 

---------

By selling your images as RM this indicates they can only be used editorially so you don’t need to add editorial only restrictions to RM images if you don’t want to. You only need to add these restrictions if you are selling unreleased images as RF.

---------

 

So the mistake I've made is that I was going through all my RM images that didn't have releases but needed them for non-editorial, and ticking the "sell for editorial only" box. I thought that was what we're supposed to do now. It seems we don't need to though, and the fact some of us have, may mean confusion that prevents sales. So tonight I'll be reviewing over 600 images again!

 

Geoff.

 

I'm going to remove the editorial only restrictions on most of my RM images that currently have them. However, as we know, RM images do sometimes license for commercial use, so I'm leaving editorial restrictions on a few of my RM images that I definitely do not want used commercially. Unfortunately, it's not a watertight system, especially when it comes to how distributors sometimes handle things.

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Mitchell    1,890
5 minutes ago, vpics said:

We put restrictions on our images because the clients tell us to.

 

Are you able to expand on this a bit? I think it would be useful.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vpics    325
1 minute ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Are you able to expand on this a bit? I think it would be useful.

 

I shoot a lot of theatre shows, exhibitions etc and the organisers tell us that the images can only be used editorially. So I need to cover my back and add these restrictions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fotoDogue    496

I didn't get the email even though I have restrictions against Personal Use as a default, and a good number set as Editorial Only.

I began using this after one of my unrelesed images was licensed for an ad on Facebook. Up until that I relied on clients to understand when a release was necessary but I guess, as Alamy says, some clients are confused by this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Mitchell    1,890
5 minutes ago, vpics said:

 

I shoot a lot of theatre shows, exhibitions etc and the organisers tell us that the images can only be used editorially. So I need to cover my back and add these restrictions. 

 

Thanks. I have a few images like that as well. I'm keeping the restrictions on those. Ironically, they are some of my bestsellers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Mitchell    1,890
23 minutes ago, arterra said:

I didn't get that e-mail because I have hardly any restrictions but I notice the following with each image, even animal and landscape shots:

 

If you want to use this image commercially  and we've indicated* that Alamy doesn't have a release, you might need additional permission from the model, artist, owner, estate, trademark or brand. More information.

 

On the one hand, Alamy says "Our customers find images with restrictions confusing and tend not to buy them." but on the other hand they place the above which is ALSO confusing for clients - especially for images where that message is not relevant at all :wacko:

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

 

I don't think that experienced photo-buyers would be confused by this. Ones new to image-licensing might be, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cryptoprocta    280
1 hour ago, GS-Images said:

I was a bit confused by this, so I wrote to CR to ask if there's something I'm misunderstanding. This was their response.....

 

---------

By selling your images as RM this indicates they can only be used editorially so you don’t need to add editorial only restrictions to RM images if you don’t want to. You only need to add these restrictions if you are selling unreleased images as RF.

---------

 

So the mistake I've made is that I was going through all my RM images that didn't have releases but needed them for non-editorial, and ticking the "sell for editorial only" box. I thought that was what we're supposed to do now. It seems we don't need to though, and the fact some of us have, may mean confusion that prevents sales. So tonight I'll be reviewing over 600 images again!

 

Geoff.

So Alamy doesn't sell released-RM images? I didn't know that.

 

Do all buyers know that RM "indicates that they can only be used editorially"? All of my files are RM, including nature/wildlife, and these and others could be used commercially.

 

As no-one had replied to my thread:

I decided to go through my (all RM) files ticking Editorial on those which particularly showed people, and had wondered about doing the same for whether a prominent brand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Mitchell    1,890
3 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

So Alamy doesn't sell released-RM images? I didn't know that.

 

Do all buyers know that RM "indicates that they can only be used editorially"? All of my files are RM, including nature/wildlife, and these and others could be used commercially.

 

As no-one had replied to my thread:

I decided to go through my (all RM) files ticking Editorial on those which particularly showed people, and had wondered about doing the same for whether a prominent brand.

 

"By selling your images as RM this indicates they can only be used editorially..."

 

Yes, the above statement doesn't make sense as RM images with releases can usually be used commercially.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vpics    325

Ha, the email has just dropped in. Apparently,  I have 30899 restricted images. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GS-Images    1,182
3 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

"By selling your images as RM this indicates they can only be used editorially..."

 

Yes, the above statement doesn't make sense as RM images with releases can usually be used commercially.

 

 

That's what I thought. Don't shoot the messenger, as they say.  :D  I'm honestly pretty confused so look forward to this being clarified. :)

 

Geoff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thyrsis    15

I opted out of Personal Use yesterday so I received the email today. Not prepared to sell images for peanuts!  

As a long time Alamy contributor I realise this will take us out of the distribution network completely. Assuming that is still the case?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
M.Chapman    518
42 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

"By selling your images as RM this indicates they can only be used editorially..."

 

Yes, the above statement doesn't make sense as RM images with releases can usually be used commercially.

 

Indeed. I got the email too and am looking forward to some further clarification before doing anything.

 

"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."

 

"By selling your images as RM this indicates they can only be used editorially so you don’t need to add editorial only restrictions to RM images if you don’t want to. You only need to add these restrictions if you are selling unreleased images as RF."

 

Customers are confused? I'm confused... Is Alamy confused as well?

 

Mark 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Mitchell    1,890
58 minutes ago, vpics said:

Ha, the email has just dropped in. Apparently,  I have 30899 restricted images. :D

 

Looks like you're in for a couple of all-nighters... :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cryptoprocta    280

I don't think that can be correct about RM indicating editorial only.

I've a couple of times been asked to specifically put editorial restrictions on RM images as the owner of a copyright or trademark has required it.

 

Only today, after getting the 'remove restrictions' email, I got a second email saying that the Moulin Rouge had contacted them saying that all images of the Moulin Rouge had to specifically have restrictions as editorial only. (That wasn't my issue, I'd put 'Moulin-Rouge style' in my caption on as set of files, and had to remove it.)

Edited by Cryptoprocta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PaulMcKinon    0

I am glad I found this thread, turns out I am not the only one confused by the email.  I sent an email to them asking for clarification.  Most of my images are editorial.  A while back I got this in an email

 

"To make sure customers are aware that the images have unreleased people/property we have restricted the following images in your collection to editorial only (editorial RF)."

It used to be that when you selected NO for property or model release it was set to RM automatically, then that changed so some of editorial pics were listed as RM.  After that I made sure I clicked RM and started clicking "Sell for Editorial" all the time, since they are editorial photos.  I look at that message above though and it says "we have restricted the following images in your collection to editorial only (editorial RF)."  So what is editorial RF?  So there is an editorial RF and an editorial RM?  Should I not be clicking Sell for Editorial on my unreleased pics?  I am hoping this gets explained soon!  

Share this post


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

 

Customers are confused? I'm confused... Is Alamy confused as well?

 

Mark 

 

Apparently so. Hopefully there will be a clarification followup e-mail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill Brooks    676

I suspect the email is about RM restrictions only. It is not about RF images with the “editorial only” boxed checked, as I have thousands under that classification that were not detected.

 

All of my on sale images are RF, that cannot be RM restricted, yet the email finds 8 RF images with restrictions.

 

After a search for restricted images, with search parameters as recommended in the email, the search turned up 4 on sale “RF editorial only” images listed as having restrictions. The 4 images the search turned up were not restricted in any way!!!

 

The search also turned up a 4 deleted images that may have had restrictions. I don’t know, because you cannot check restrictions or make changes to images that have been deleted !!!! Who cares about deleted images anyway???

This makes a total of 8 images 

 

It also turned up an additional 2 RF images, with no restrictions, not on sale, that I suspect are awaiting deletion.

 

Go figure. And so it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rick Lewis    9
7 hours ago, fotoDogue said:

I didn't get the email even though I have restrictions against Personal Use as a default, and a good number set as Editorial Only.

I began using this after one of my unrelesed images was licensed for an ad on Facebook. Up until that I relied on clients to understand when a release was necessary but I guess, as Alamy says, some clients are confused by this.

This is exactly why I always check "Editorial Use Only" for those images that have identifiable property or people in them.  I've read about too many photogs in the U.S. that have been sued over non-released images being published in commercial projects.  That is also why I am going back to restrict personal use as well.  People lie all the time about use.  Once they get the image for "personal use" they can do anything they want with it.  

 

At least this way, I'm covered.  

  • Upvote 1

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