Boggins

Hi - Not from what I've heard - but to be honest, I'm not too fussed. I'm happy to file that under: "Cross that bridge if I ever come to it" - which'll probably be 'never'! "It is what it is" was in reply to Mark's questioning of why I'm needing to upload/share releases elsewhere. Seemed an easier reply than going into long winded explanation of why I'm asking the question in the first place. Plus I get to pretend I'm in a Scorsese movie for a second or two.

Thanks all for helpful comments. Mark - A fair question - it's just what my working set up is - Yes, there is a good justification for it. Too long and boring to explain. "It is what it is"! And Yes it does run the risk of sharing data - hence why I'm asking the question. For those who are interested, (non-legally endorsed) feedback seems to be: Include info on the release form stating the form will be kept on digital database/catalogue. Personal data (name, contact details) would need to be redacted from uploaded/shared digital copy, and only available o

Can any UK / EU legal eagles out there give any help on this one? It's the dreaded GDPR I'm afraid. So if you collect model releases - with people's names and addresses on - and then store those on a database (I don't mean Alamy's - I m sure they've got themselves sorted) that's accessible to a team - is that causing a problem with data protection? Database isn't public obviously - only available to the team and needs signing into to. I'm wondering if you now need to include on a model release, something along the lines of "this data will be recorded" or something? Any thoughts?

Photographed the London event in 2006 and have received the same email. Like others I assumed that as it was non-ticketed, and on public land, authorisation wouldn’t be necessary. Thought my pics were marked as ‘editorial only’ but just checked and they’re not. I’m sure they used to be, so I’m wondering if that’s fallen off during one of the many Alamy updates over the last 14 years. Although looking at the email, I don't think that makes a difference anyway. The argument seems to be that because the models/puppets were non-permanent, freedom of panorama is out; and that the model

Hi I’ve been wrestling with this editorial/commercial question for some time and wonder if anyone here can clarify. I’m aware this may show some fundamental mis-understandings of editorial/commercial licensing on my part – but I’ve asked around and done my googling, and still don’t feel I know the answer… Say, for example, a commercial company is producing a brochure that is being distributed for free / is for educational or public information purposes only. Could they use ‘editorial only’ images within that particular brochure, or – even though the brochure itself is not comm

"it's only applicable to publication in France" Which shows how much I know ! I thought it depended where the picture was taken... Doh! Many Thanks !

Hi. From what I’ve researched French law is crazily tight on model release, with each individual usage needing to be approved by the model. So if, say, photographer shoots a fashion show in France – has releases for the show, but then the company who provided the lights for the show want to licence the images for their own promotional usage – would that legally be a no-no, as the models wont have approved that type of image usage? Any help/thoughts?