Jump to content

Ball Head

Verified
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Forum reputation = neutral

About Ball Head

  • Rank
    Forum newbie

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    https://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={1DD59776-4632-43C0-879D-C18FD0BC11E9}&name=Y%c5%8dko+Kimura
  • Images
    23
  • Joined Alamy
    09 Apr 2020

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Mine eventually got passed last week. It took 3 weeks. That was my first submission. After that another batch went through in a couple of days.
  2. Oh deah, that is a long time and no way of getting through 😐 I decided to check the forum now because I sent in my first submission on April 14th and the images are still in QC. After reading this, I regret not sending my best 3! I was somewhat testing the waters with my images. 😇I guess I'll have to wait at least as long as you.
  3. Thanks. So yeh, this is exactly the kind of behaviour I was talking about in the OP. I'm not so naive to think that this doesn't happen, but I would've thought that businesses would at least try to be more discreet. Thanks for your input. I'm no longer confused. Sorry am really new here, don't know this thread and didn't mean to offend. Congrats on your images and sharing is totally something that has to come from one's own desire to
  4. Thanks for chiming in Doug! So are you saying that there wasn't actually anything/anybody in the image to be released? Or that the buyer decided to use the image with people/recognisable property for commercial use even without releases? If the image is back up online, I think we'd like to see your successful work!
  5. Thanks for the response. So I guess the purchaser is taking that risk. Not that they should be doing such a thing in the first place. If they use it commercially they should only use released models. I thought you weren't allowed to use an image of a person on such things as product packaging and advertising without their permission anywhere in the world. Or maybe it's more like they can make a claim afterwards for compensation for use of their likeness. Hence only a risk to the buyer, not breaking any laws. Something like that? Yes I'm a photographer, but am new here, so nothing up yet. Regarding what I wrote here: I dug around in my browser history and maybe I misinterpreted this post: Doug doesn't actually mention whether the buyer wanted the image for commercial or editorial purposes. Perhaps the use was still editorial, just that the systems in place at their business required RM images only.
  6. Hi, I'm new here and I can see that there are threads after threads of the RM vs RF debate and comparison. However, there's something that has bugged me from the beginning that I still can't understand. The recommendation seems to be that if an image has no release for people or property, it can't be listed as RF, so we should choose RM or RF editorial. But RM images can be used commercially (if that use is specified by the buyer of course). So why don't they require releases? From some of the posts I've read, it seems that some buyers are using unreleased RM images for commercial purposes (sorry I've lost the forum pages for reference). Can this be right, or am I missing something? I would be quite upset if this is being practised as it's a violation of the rights of the people pictured, even in a group (and property owners I guess but I don't feel so strongly about that! :D) Thank you so much for your help! Stay safe.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.