Property rights in Australia - filling in property field in photo submissions

[yanmac]

I spent many hours taking some amazing photos of the new hospital buildings, then realized that they may not be usable.

There are extensive car parks surrounding the buildings night and day. So, the buildings can not be photographed without including scores of motor vehicles, unless I photograph only the tops of the buildings.

Am I right in thinking that this situation prevents me submitting photographs of the new buildings, or is it like crowd scenes where a release is not needed because the subject of the photograph is not the people?

I've spent hours on Lightroom cleaning up the edges of the photos, and had started blurring the visible number plates on the cars, when I started to wonder if that would be enough.

Ian McAllister

[Betty LaRue]

I would think you’d need to list these as RM anyway unless you have releases for the buildings, which are obviously the main subjects. All of my hospitals, storefronts, etc are RM to r RF-editorial, which is the other option. So if you list as RM, or RF-editorial, the automobiles are a non-issue, and you don’t need to blur the plates either unless Australia law forbids showing them.

Here in the U.S., I never blur them. 

Betty

[yanmac]

Sorry Betty,

I'm a beginner and don't know what  RM and RF-editorial mean.

I'll have to look up the Australian law again, but I think that anything that can be photographed from public property such as a road has no restrictions on photography. The same applies to sculptures, but not to paintings.

My sister is called Betty.

Ian McAllister

[Betty LaRue]

23 hours ago, yanmac said:

Sorry Betty,

I'm a beginner and don't know what  RM and RF-editorial mean.

I'll have to look up the Australian law again, but I think that anything that can be photographed from public property such as a road has no restrictions on photography. The same applies to sculptures, but not to paintings.

My sister is called Betty.

Ian McAllister

You need to take a crash course, Ian. RM means if there are people or property in the image, whether it’s a building, a car, a phone, etc that is prominent in the image, and you have no release, then it should be RM (Rights managed). These images can be used for editorial only, like newspapers, magazines, books, and such. They can’t be used for advertising. 

RF means Royalty Free. This is for things like landscapes without prominent property in it. A landscape with a very distant farm in the background can be RF. A landscape where the farm fills most of the frame should be RM. Other RF eligible images are pictures of plants. Or food that you have cooked. Other things, too. They can be sold for all uses, editorial or advertising.

RM-editorial is for images that DO have unreleased people or property, but the editorial part in RF-editorial means they can’t be sold for advertising, but only for editorial....the books, magazines, newspapers, etc.

Many photographers here list all of their images RM. They never have to worry about if they made the mistake of listing an image as RF when in actuality, the image has something in it that requires a release. Also, with RM, sometimes a client will buy the image again when the first license runs out.

RF means the client buys the image once and can use it over and over without buying another license. Often the price for a RF image brings more money to allow for the expanded usage. Not always.

 

In the beginning, I listed all of mine RM.  The past year or two, because Alamy suggests that clients are demanding more RF, I have listed maybe a fourth of my portfolio as RF.  It’s taken awhile, but I am making more and more RF sales. Often half of my monthly sales are RF or RF-editorial. Considering that my RF numbers overall are a fourth of my portfolio, I believe Alamy knows what the market wants.

 

You can list all of yours RM for now. As long as an image hasn’t sold as RM, you can go back later...months or even years, and change them to RF or RF-editorial when you gain a confident understanding about licensing and what each image is eligible for. By doing this, you can shoot anything within the confines of what your country allows, and just list them RM without worrying that you’ve goofed up.

 

Meanwhile, you need to do some studying online or buy a book about stock and licensing until you gain understanding.

Your sister has a great name. 😁

Betty

[Foreign Export]

Ian

 

Nothing specific in Australian law so i wouldn't worry about that

Betty has covered the key points above

Do think about the return on your time though - I wouldn't spend hours tidying up a few images and certainly for stock wouldn't remove plate registrations

 

Shoot the hospitals with car parks and simply upload as RM

 

RNSH can be shot without getting car parks in the image

[Stephen Dwyer]

On 8/12/2018 at 08:32, Foreign Export said:

Ian

 

Nothing specific in Australian law so i wouldn't worry about that

Betty has covered the key points above

Do think about the return on your time though - I wouldn't spend hours tidying up a few images and certainly for stock wouldn't remove plate registrations

 

Shoot the hospitals with car parks and simply upload as RM

 

RNSH can be shot without getting car parks in the image

 

Agree with all above, a property release on a hospital is almost impossible to get so just tick the no release box. The only time i have blurred number plates is if i think the image might be a little controversial for instance i recently shot some waste that had been dumped on the footpath in Chatswood (Sydney) and blurred the plates on cars in the background.

[Stephen Dwyer]

You also want to think about following Alamy on Twitter, they are repetitive but do post helpful hints and photo needs of clients. And finally when you post shots of flora try to also include the botanical name as lots of clients only search with these names and may not know the local name like Stripper Gum!

Stephen

On 8/12/2018 at 08:32, Foreign Export said:

Ian

 

Nothing specific in Australian law so i wouldn't worry about that

Betty has covered the key points above

Do think about the return on your time though - I wouldn't spend hours tidying up a few images and certainly for stock wouldn't remove plate registrations

 

Shoot the hospitals with car parks and simply upload as RM

 

RNSH can be shot without getting car parks in the image

 

Agree with all above, a property release on a hospital is almost impossible to get so just tick the no release box. The only time i have blurred number plates is if i think the image might be a little controversial for instance i recently shot some waste that had been dumped on the footpath in Chatswood (Sydney) and blurred the plates on cars in the background.

[yanmac]

Many thanks to all of you who replied to my query. Especially Betty who gave such a clear explanation in such a way that I can apply it immediately.

Ian McAllister

[Betty LaRue]

12 hours ago, yanmac said:

Many thanks to all of you who replied to my query. Especially Betty who gave such a clear explanation in such a way that I can apply it immediately.

Ian McAllister

More than happy to help, Ian! Nice to see new people who appreciate the help/advice given. Some don’t.

Betty

[Cryptoprocta]

RM and RF are two different licence types. Both RM and RF can be sold as editorial-only or commercial. Files with all releases can also be used editorially, to illustrate articles etc.

 

 

Rights managed means that a buyer purchases particular rights, to use an image for particular purposes which are stated at the time of purchase. These uses could be very narrow (e.g. UK newspaper, print only, one day), very wide, "Worldwide, print and online, duration unlimited", or anything in between. There may be some exclusivity involved in a licence, meaning no other buyer can use the image for certain purpose/s for a certain amount of time. That costs more, and is rare via Alamy.

Previously on Alamy, any file which needed a release (property or model) had to be RM, but RM could also be chosen for files which had releases or didn't need releases.

 

Royalty-free means that the buyer purchases the image then can use them in a variety of ways, which may be limited by a particular agency, or not. On Alamy, the price for an RF file varies according to the size purchased. In theory, an RF file should cost more than a non-exclusive RM licence, because of the much wider scope of uses, but in practice that seems not to be the case.

Previously on Alamy, RF files had to need no releases or have all necessary releases.

 

Relatively recently, Alamy has set up RF-editorial, whereby you can choose to sell a file RF, but indicate that the file must be used only in an editorial context.

At the same time, they allowed us to choose to tick a box to indicate that a file uploaded as RM should be sold as Editorial only. But if a file has to be sold as RM, you can choose to simply indicate that release/s is/are needed (for commercial use) but not available, and it's up to the buyer to make the decision. However, legally the buck could theoretically pass to you, ultimately (see your Alamy contract).

 

In the OP's particular example above, the hospital buildings would need a property release for non-editorial use, as well as the cars. But they can be used editorially (if OK under Australian law, which I know nothing about*; in the UK so long as they were photographed from public property, that's OK for editorial use [establishing what is public property, however, is more difficult than it seems. More and more public streets here in the UK are actually privately owned, particularly in London.])

 

*This may be useful as a kick-off spot: https://www.artslaw.com.au/info-sheets/info-sheet/street-photographers-rights/

[yanmac]

Thanks Cryptoprocta,

The Australian Copyright Council is as confusing as most legal documents - presumably because the legal matters need a court case to decide what they mean!

Here is an extract:

Do I need permission to photograph artworks displayed in public places?
The generally accepted interpretation of the relevant provision in the Copyright Act is that you may
photograph a “sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship” which is publicly displayed “other than
temporarily” without permission.
There is, however, a technical argument that neither underlying works in such sculptures and craft
works nor pre-existing design drawings are covered under that provision, and that permission is
still required for the indirect reproduction of these works in a photograph of the sculpture or craft
work. Although, we are not aware of any cases in which this argument has been raised in court.
You will generally need permission to photograph other public art, such as murals.
 

Now, to me "sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship" includes graffiti. But apparently it doesn't because I need permission to photograph murals.

 

I think that I'll be including people more freely in future. I've mostly tried to exclude them, which is very limiting. Alamy wants pictures of Fremantle, and getting pictures without including people is very difficult indeed. I suppose if I got there very early in the morning there might be fewer people, but it is two hours away by public transport, which doesn't run much before daybreak.

[Starsphinx]

5 hours ago, yanmac said:

Thanks Cryptoprocta,

The Australian Copyright Council is as confusing as most legal documents - presumably because the legal matters need a court case to decide what they mean!

Here is an extract:

Do I need permission to photograph artworks displayed in public places?
The generally accepted interpretation of the relevant provision in the Copyright Act is that you may
photograph a “sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship” which is publicly displayed “other than
temporarily” without permission.
There is, however, a technical argument that neither underlying works in such sculptures and craft
works nor pre-existing design drawings are covered under that provision, and that permission is
still required for the indirect reproduction of these works in a photograph of the sculpture or craft
work. Although, we are not aware of any cases in which this argument has been raised in court.
You will generally need permission to photograph other public art, such as murals.
 

Now, to me "sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship" includes graffiti. But apparently it doesn't because I need permission to photograph murals.

 

I think that I'll be including people more freely in future. I've mostly tried to exclude them, which is very limiting. Alamy wants pictures of Fremantle, and getting pictures without including people is very difficult indeed. I suppose if I got there very early in the morning there might be fewer people, but it is two hours away by public transport, which doesn't run much before daybreak.

Alamy does have its own rules on murals anyway - specifically that they are acceptable if part of a general scene but not if photographed isolated and specifically.  So if I take a photo of a bridge and underpass that includes a mural I am fine so long as I click includes property with no release but if I zoom in and the photo only shows the mural Alamy would reject it anyway.

I think the main thing is to always use the optional tab and put the number of people and whether they have releases and if there is property and whether it has releases, then if there is anyone or anything without a release click the editorial only button.   From what I have read on here if a purchaser sees the image and wants it for non-editorial  the Alamy team are quite good at contacting you to help work out what exactly can be allowed.

So take pictures - specify what is in them - state whether there are releases - if necessary limit to editorial and relax or go and take some more photos

[Cryptoprocta]

13 hours ago, yanmac said:

I think that I'll be including people more freely in future. I've mostly tried to exclude them, which is very limiting. Alamy wants pictures of Fremantle, and getting pictures without including people is very difficult indeed. I suppose if I got there very early in the morning there might be fewer people, but it is two hours away by public transport, which doesn't run much before daybreak.

Wonder what's wrong with the 4,707 pics of Fremantle already in the collection?

 

If you're in a city, there will be so much which would, for Alamy, require property releases that excluding people makes no logical sense. If you need one or other release (and don't have one, or many in a city) the file can't be used commercially.

[yanmac]

Thanks for all the good advice. There's a realistic bit of graffiti showing a snake with all its scales that's about three or four stories high on a blank wall. So, that would probably be rejected. It's probably too late anyhow, because last time I passed there the cranes were there to create or modify buildings.

Fremantle is stuffed with heritage buildings. But the ground floor has mostly been changed to modern rubbish. So I mostly photographed buildings to show the Victorian architecture top stories, avoiding the people teeming below. I've just submitted 75 photos, so here's hoping.