Home page image

[lophius]

8 hours ago, Bill Brooks said:

 

From the public section of Jim Pickerell's website

Alamy Offers 360Cities Image Collection

By Jim Pickerell | 278 Words | Posted 11/5/2018 | Comments

Alamy.com and 360Cities.net have announced that the 360Cities’ collection of thousands of stunning, immersive 360° spherical images will now be available to Alamy customers through Alamy’s online worldwide marketplace. The 360Cities database will launch on Alamy.com on 5 November 2018 with an initial collection of approximately 150K images, to be supplemented with a regular stream of new content.

 

Thank you for the information.

[John Morrison]

4 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

The digital world has a very short attention span.

 

Indeed it does... Look... a cat... playing a piano...

[Cryptoprocta]

18 hours ago, lophius said:

I don’t understand how many images could be RF if there are many people there without model release.

I agree. I clicked on one which had several very recogniseable people, marked no MR, but RF, not editorial.

Is this a new policy?

[wiskerke]

12 minutes ago, funkyworm said:

A while back you'd see them being taken at football matches. If you know where to look you can see me at work in this one.   http://360photos.fifa.com/?panid#!startscene=jpn_gre

 

hat?

 

wim

[Niels Quist]

Alamy's images on front page works here.

 

I immediately checked the difficult spot immediately above and below the camera. Seems to have been solved rather exelent in most cases.

[Bill Brooks]

3 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

I agree. I clicked on one which had several very recogniseable people, marked no MR, but RF, not editorial.

Is this a new policy?

 

 

There is no new policy. The present way of working was instituted with the new AIM. The new AIM presently allows you to declare an image as either MF, or RF, with none released people or none released property in it, without declaring it as editorial only.

 

The purpose of the photographer marking either a RM as editorial only, or a RF as editorial only, is to reduce the photographer's, in my opinion, very small risk of becoming embroiled in a lawsuite if either type of image is used commercially.

 

The legal risk is the same for unreleased RM or RF. Making an unreleased people or property image as straight RM only, instead of RF, is not a get out of jail card.

 

Even if you are willing to take the risk, the client has already been warned on the zoom page that there is no model or property release available, when you do not answer the model and property release questions. If you answer "no release" to the questions the client is warned as well.

 

My images are all RF. If the images feature unreleased people or property I mark them RF editorial only, to reduce my risk. BUT I DO NOT HAVE TO DO THAT !!!!!.

 

I also do not make unreleased general scenes, RF editorial only, unless unreleased person or property is FEATURED in the scene. Therefore unreleased city skylines or unreleased crowd scenes with hundreds of people I will mark simply RF. This is my policy that makes sense to me, follow it at your own risk.

 

It is my opinion that the new 360 images containing unreleased people and property could be classified as RF without declaring them editorial only, because they are general scenes that do not FEATURE either a few people, or couple of properties.
 

[John Mitchell]

11 hours ago, John Morrison said:

 

Indeed it does... Look... a cat... playing a piano...

 

Forget that one. There's one over there playing a trombone!

[Joseph Clemson]

Just received the Alamy email announcing the launch of their 360 degree images and highlighting the 360Cities collection.I don't mind competing with these new technologies as a traditional photographer, but I would like it to at least be on a level playing field. The 360Cities collection contains numerous examples of unreleased people and property set as RF with no editorial only restriction. When importing large outside collections it may be convenient for Alamy to ignore the rules existing contributors have to abide by, but it really feels deeply unfair on those of us who try to do the right thing.

[Milkbottle Photo]

On 06/11/2018 at 12:35, funkyworm said:

 

I have a done a little bit of research into the demand after I noticed that recently certain organisations were putting out tenders for these sort of images. So there seems to be some demand.  Before spending the money I approached a colleague mainly with technical questions (fringing seems to be an issue with many images.) He mentioned another colleague who has supplied our largest agency with 360 images and reckons the returns have been underwhelming. That may be down to the marketing, I went to their website and couldn;t find them.

A while back you'd see them being taken at football matches. If you know where to look you can see me at work in this one.   http://360photos.fifa.com/?panid#!startscene=jpn_gre

(The photo I took =   E3DKFF)

I didn;t cover the last world cup and whilst I know I have seen my Getty colleague in the last year with a 360 camera it doesn;t seem to be part of their standard apparatus which in itself could tell us something.

 

 

 

 

Would that image have been accepted on Alamy? Would you tell what camera you used for that? It obviously wasn't a DSLR and then stitched. I am thinking of buying a 360 camera as I travel the country a lot but, after nearly two hours searching, I am yet to find an answer to which camera.

[Cryptoprocta]

10 hours ago, Joseph Clemson said:

Just received the Alamy email announcing the launch of their 360 degree images and highlighting the 360Cities collection.I don't mind competing with these new technologies as a traditional photographer, but I would like it to at least be on a level playing field. The 360Cities collection contains numerous examples of unreleased people and property set as RF with no editorial only restriction. When importing large outside collections it may be convenient for Alamy to ignore the rules existing contributors have to abide by, but it really feels deeply unfair on those of us who try to do the right thing.

 Bill says above that it's not necessary to indicate RF-editorial, just to indicate no releases, as with RM.

I've read what I wrote above many times on the forum (RF with no releases must be indicated specifically as editorial), but I don't see it on this page:

https://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/understanding-stock-image-licensing

or this page:

https://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/model-property-releases-stock-images/?section=7

So if that rule exists elsewhere, a new contributor (far less an ingested collecton) could be forgiven for not knowing.

Also you might reasonably expect that if the rule exists, if someone indicated needs release/s / no release/s, the 'only editorial' tickbox would be ticked automatically.

Is this just a forum myth, or has the policy changed?

[gvallee]

1 hour ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Also you might reasonably expect that if the rule exists, if someone indicated needs release/s / no release/s, the 'only editorial' tickbox would be ticked automatically.

Is this just a forum myth, or has the policy changed?

 

From the AIM instruction manual:

 

"For images that contain unreleased property or people please select ‘Sell for editorial only’ (found under the ‘Optional’ tab)".

The screenshot example is for Royalty Free.

 

I'm pretty sure there was a tweet as well.

Agreed, it should be clearly stated in the How To Sell section.

 

[Joseph Clemson]

1 hour ago, gvallee said:

 

From the AIM instruction manual:

 

"For images that contain unreleased property or people please select ‘Sell for editorial only’ (found under the ‘Optional’ tab)".

The screenshot example is for Royalty Free.

 

I'm pretty sure there was a tweet as well.

Agreed, it should be clearly stated in the How To Sell section.

 

 

I've searched high and low for an official Alamy reference to the idea that an RF image with no releases needs to be marked as RF-Editorial, but I can only find the one gvallee refers to here. However, I even in my befuddled old age I feel sure I've not imagined that Alamy said somewhere else at some time that editorial RF images needed to be marked editorial only. and that it's not some kind of forum myth. Perhaps Alamy would be so kind as to clarify one  way or the other?

[gvallee]

5 minutes ago, Joseph Clemson said:

I feel sure I've not imagined that Alamy said somewhere else at some time that editorial RF images needed to be marked editorial only. and that it's not some kind of forum myth. 

 

Absolutely. Alamy said it several times. Where is a good question.

 

Alamy please chip in?

[Cryptoprocta]

1 hour ago, gvallee said:

 

From the AIM instruction manual:

 

"For images that contain unreleased property or people please select ‘Sell for editorial only’ (found under the ‘Optional’ tab)".

The screenshot example is for Royalty Free.

 

I'm pretty sure there was a tweet as well.

Agreed, it should be clearly stated in the How To Sell section.

 

So they 'recommend' that we submit images as RF, and 'request politely' that we indicate unreleased RF images as editorial only.

 

Back in the day, if we indicated a file needed/didn't have release/s, the system automatically forced the licence to RM, so the ability is there to indicated an RF image without releases as editorial only, if Alamy insist on it.

[M.Chapman]

17 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

"For images that contain unreleased property or people please select ‘Sell for editorial only’ (found under the ‘Optional’ tab)".

 

So why put this on the optional page.... if it's not "optional"

In the old AIM (if I recall correctly) it asked "Does the the image contains property that requires a release". If I answered yes then RM was automatically selected.

In the new AIM the question is simply "Is there any property in the image" (my underline) and so makes no distinction between property that requires a release and property that doesn't.

 

Consider a photo of a distant village or a city skyline (a popular subject for a calendar sale). In the old AIM I would have marked it as NOT requiring a property release and left as RM with no restrictions. But, in the new AIM I feel obliged to answer YES to "Is there any property?", but I wouldn't mark it as editorial only as I know it doesn't need to be and this could potentially exclude commercial sales (for calendars etc.) I'd also be happy to sell such an image as RM or RF (although I almost always choose RM as it means I get info required for DACs claims if the image gets used)

 

The same issue applies to Alamy's question about people. A distant shot of a beach full of holiday-makers contains lots of (unrecognisable) people, so in AIM I must put 5+ in the number of people box. But again I'd have no problems selling as RM or RF with no Editorial only restrictions as distant unrecognisable figures don't need releases .

 

Or have I misunderstood something??

 

Mark

[Newberry]

7 hours ago, geogphotos said:

This has gone off at a tangent. 

 

Where does the photographer stand when the cameras whirring around - dancing around out of the way? 

 

Surely the only possible uses are web/digital so high res DSLR images not actually essential?

 

360 panos are much better quality with DSLR/mirrorless cameras, where you shoot 4 or so photos around, standing behind the camera, and stitch. Single shot pano cameras tend to have flaws like serious chromatic aberration, lack of sharpness and dynamic range, stitching faults, etc. 

[M.Chapman]

14 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Mark,

 

I don't think that you are misunderstanding anything really except that Alamy won't be the ones taking the hit if anything ever ended up in a legal dispute - it will be the contributor.

 

That is why when people post ( above) about what Alamy allows us to do or doesn't allow us to do I think that they are missing the point.

 

Sure, you CAN get your images with people and property on Alamy as RF without clicking any 'editorial only' button. But it is the contributor who is taking on the responsibility for any potential consequences. Alamy won't be there helping pay the legal fees. 

 

I think that the whole idea of offering unreleased images as RF ( when MRs/PRs are needed for commercial use) is dubious at least. With RF there is no control over how that image will be used into the future. 

 

No, I can't quote any instances when this has ended up being a huge expensive problem but I can see the potential for it.

 

I remain 100% RM. 

 

Ian

 

If I haven't misrepresented anything (I've accurately stated whether there's any people or property in the image and whether I have appropriate releases or not) then I am of the opinion that it's the publisher who is is responsible for any implications arising from their decision about how to use the image and not me.

 

I'm also almost 100% RM too, but not for that reason.

 

Mark 

[M.Chapman]

3 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

Yes agreed any putative dispute will definitely between the contributor and the publisher. 

 

Good luck with that for contributors who have RF images without releases when releases are potentially needed. 

 

The offended party will go after the publisher who will go after the contributor. And Alamy will point to our contract.

 

At which point it's worth referring to the contract between the buyer [the licensee] and Alamy.... Even with RF licences from Alamy,  buyers are contractually obliged to follow certain rules. In particular, note the following clauses in Alamy's licence agreement which apply to both RM and RF images.

 

7.1 You [the licensee] must satisfy yourself that all Releases as may be required for Reproduction of the Image(s)/Footage have been secured and are appropriate for your intended use. You are solely responsible for obtaining all such Releases and the Licence is conditional in each case on your obtaining them. If you are unsure as to whether any Releases are needed for your Image(s)/Footage usage, then it is your responsibility to consult with relevant parties. You shall not rely upon any representation or warranty given by Alamy employees or representatives save as set out in this Agreement.

 

8. Indemnity

 

You [the licensee] agree to indemnify and hold Alamy and its Contributors harmless against any claims, damages, losses, expenses or costs, including legal costs, arising in any manner whatsoever from your unauthorised use of any Image(s)/Footage or of the depiction of any person or thing contained in any Image(s)/Footage supplied to you by Alamy, or any other breach by you of any of your obligations under this Agreement.

 

Obviously lawyers may argue over the legal enforceability of such clauses, but at least they provide a starting point. 

 

Mark

[Cryptoprocta]

35 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

• RF stands for Royalty Free. Customers pay a one–off fee to use the image with no restrictions on how they use it, or how long they use it for. RF images can be used across multiple projects, forever.

It's in their interests to make sure that any unreleased images are marked as such, especially if RF, thereby possibly being put into some sort of 'pool' of images for future use. They need to have a system. Like some places don't have for reporting RM re-uses, not only the DM, but also in one case for me, the NUJ!!! (Alamy chased both of these up.)

 

But as we know, some RM sales are being made with ever-wider licences, some being not much short of RF (repeat uses, long time-frame), so the same applies there.

I'm still not sure when RM/no releases pics are used for 'marketing... not advertising', what that apparent paradox actually means.

 

(still all RM here)

[M.Chapman]

37 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

• RF stands for Royalty Free. Customers pay a one–off fee to use the image with no restrictions on how they use it, or how long they use it for. RF images can be used across multiple projects, forever.

 

In general terms yes, but there are still limits. The contract is the legal document which the buyer is contractually bound by.

 

Mark

[M.Chapman]

On 09/11/2018 at 07:22, geogphotos said:

Alamy has evolved in a certain way. What we see today is the result of different decisions over the years. It is not the industry 'norm'. For example Alamy presents Creative searchers with unreleased RF images which  would need releases for commercial use. Why? Other agencies don't do that.

 

At Getty the Creative collection is fully covered by financial indemnities and staff ensure consistency ( not perfect) over released. 

Getty Editorial does not have RF and RM - it simply offers a Standard and Customised licence choice.

 

Much as I love Alamy, and prefer it to Getty, you have to accept that what Alamy does is not industry standard.

 

This comparatively recent Alamy 'RF editorial only' is attempting to salvage some sense from the situation but as far as I am concerned is something of an arbitrary muddle with decisions made by individual contributors. 

 

I must be getting more confused here 

 

On Alamy price calculator it appears to make little difference to the range of image uses the customer can select irrespective of whether the image is RF or RM or has releases or not. What does make a difference to the range of image uses offered is whether the contributor has set restrictions.

 

For example take your image R0AP85. According to the information provided it contains both unreleased people and property. So now I try purchasing it and I am offered a wide range of possible RM licences (under the more option) including commercial and advertising, consumer goods etc. Even though it is marked as having no releases...

 

I suspect, given that this image contains recognisable people and property without releases, you want this to be editorial use only? But that's not what Alamy is offering the customer. Apologies if I've picked a bad example, or one that's slipped through the net...

 

So to my mind, on Alamy it makes little difference to the risk whether you choose RM or RF or whether the image has releases or not. To restrict the options Alamy offers to Editorial use only the contributor has to tick the box Editorial Only box. Just selecting RM on images without releases won't achieve this. Fortunately an overriding protection mechanism comes from the licence terms 7.1 (which I quoted above) which oblige the user to ensure they have appropriate releases for their application. This obligation applies equally to RM or RF images. If contributors want additional protection by forcing editorial use only, they should tick the editorial only box.

 

Although it's interesting what other libraries do, it's Alamy's options I'm trying to clarify.

 

Mark

[M.Chapman]

8 hours ago, geogphotos said:

I'd say that the difference is one of expectation.

 

Since the 1990s Royalty Free has meant fully released for ALL commercial and editorial uses. I assume that buyers, by and large, expect that still to be the case with RF

 

That has not been the situation with RM images - where the buyer is expecting there to be restrictions and limitations. So I'd say that image R0AP85 is less likely to be misused commercially without releases simply because it is RM and not RF. I think it is probably okay not to add an 'Editorial Only' restriction for this image as RM but probably less so if it was RF.

 

Personally I think it is high time to get rid of RF and RM. Commercial and Editorial would be better licence types. 

 

As far as I know Alamy, unlike Getty, does not offer buyers any indemnity guarantee. That is a huge difference.

 

Ian, thanks for the insight into your logic which makes good sense.

 

It does seem that things (and hence expectations?) could be changing though. It's clear on Alamy that RF doesn't mean fully released for all commercial and editorial uses. Similarly I notice that the agency you mention now has an RF Editorial category which doesn't have releases for commercial use. So RF = released for everything is a risky assumption for a customer to make, and this applies to other agencies besides Alamy. This agency and Alamy now both offer RF Editorial, although they may have taken different routes to get there.

 

The indemnity thing is interesting and I agree it's a huge difference. Out of curiosity I took a look at a major MS library and they also appear to offer some indemnity. Pay peanuts per image and still get indemnity. Wow. Unless I've misinterpreted the legal gobbledegook. 

 

Mark