Jump to content
Thomas Kyhn

Model release necessary for gloved hand?

Recommended Posts

Is a model release necessary for a photo such as this containing a gloved hand? Or perhaps I should rather ask, would you set "Number of people in the image" to 1 or 0?

 

Bird in hand; Japanese white-eye (Zosterops japonicus); TokyoStock Photo

Edited by Thomas Kyhn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 person in the image - Only needs a model release if you are selling it RF

 

Kumar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Doc said:

1 person in the image - Only needs a model release if you are selling it RF

 

I was unsure if a gloved hand counted as a person – when you can't actually see the person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Thomas Kyhn said:

 

I was unsure if a gloved hand counted as a person – when you can't actually see the person.

Its a good point but I would yes there is a person in the image

 

Kumar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This illustrates perfectly why the way that Alamy implement their 'number of people in the image' is frustrating, for us and surely fo the client as well. We need to answer two questions instead of one. We need to answer' how many people are the subject of the image' and how many people in total in the image'. So for the bird shot above the answer is zero and one respectively. Same goes for city or street type images. A photo of my wife reading a guidebook may have many people in the background, but its a photo of one person. Surely if the client is looking for an image of one person reading a guidebook, they will miss out lots if all the images are labelled as 5+ due to people in the background. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You also need a property release for the glove if RF.

 

Allan

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

You also need a property release for the glove if RF.

 

Yes? Also when it's impossible to determine what brand it is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not here no. The glove and coat are not recognisable with a brand name so no PR needed. Just an MR for the hand if selling RF.

Edited by Colin Woods
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that the image may provide an interesting challenge regards releases - where is the evidence that the hand belongs to a human at all and is not just a mannequin?  Of course, IF it was a mannequin it would not need a property release because of no way of ascertaining brand or make.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alamy's price calculator currently offers a wide range of licence types (including commercial), even for RM images which have been marked as containing people or property and which don't have releases for either. However, ticking "Editorial only" prevents buyers being offered commercial use licences.

 

Selecting RM alone, for images with unreleased people or property, doesn't seem to apply any specific editorial / commercial use restrictions (or have I missed something). There is however a useful clause (8.3) that appears in both Alamy's RM and RF licence terms that requires the buyer of any image to ensure they obtain suitable releases for their intended use.

 

8.3 You must satisfy yourself that all Releases as may be required for Reproduction of the Image(s) have been secured. 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 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.

 

Given this clause, shouldn't Alamy revise the wording of statements like this that appear in their help pages for buyers. For example https://www.alamy.com/help/default.asp  

 

RF stands for royalty-free – This is the most flexible option and the most straight forward. You pay a one–off fee to use the image with no restrictions on how you use image, how many times you use it or how long you use it for. You can use the image across multiple projects, forever. There are some restrictions on image use for * reselling’

 

"no restrictions" on how you use the image? Seems at odds with clause 8.3 in the RF licence.

 

Is selecting RM as a way of providing protection against potential infringement of property or privacy rights still sensible or sufficient? If additional protection is wanted, I'd tick editorial only.

 

All that being said, for the image in question, I'd indicate Property - Yes, People - 1, Releases - None, Licence type RM and wouldn't bother with Editorial only.

Did I just contradict myself :unsure: :unsure:

 

Mark

 

 

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

All that being said, for the image in question, I'd indicate Property - Yes, People - 1, Releases - None, Licence type RM and wouldn't bother with Editorial only.

Did I just contradict myself :unsure: :unsure:

 

What would the property be? (The bird didn't belong to anyone.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Thomas Kyhn said:

 

What would the property be? (The bird didn't belong to anyone.)

 

I'm pretty sure that the bird would agree with you. If it were perched on a branch instead of a glove, then I certainly wouldn't say there was property in the image. It's all very silly, of course. I'd probably just indicate that there is one person in this image and not select anything for the property option, after all it is optional.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Thomas Kyhn said:

 

What would the property be? (The bird didn't belong to anyone.)

 

If the bird is wild, and the glove can't be identified, I agree - Property No

I thought I could perhaps see a ring on the birds' leg, not that this makes it owned by anyone, but if it was it could perhaps be identified, so I was being cautious.

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For other agencies the answer might be more complicated (e.g. is the person recognizable or is the person the subject of the photo) but for me on Alamy I would indicate:

 

number of people = 1 since there is 1 person or part of a person in the photo, as per Alamy's guidelines.  I as the photographer would know that it is a person, so would not consider that someone else could say it was a mannequin.  The key would be to protect the buyer from someone who could say it was their hand if the image appeared commercially (admittedly, perhaps very low risk in this case.)

 

As far as a property release, I don't see any identifiable property or intellectual property (logos) in this photo, so would say no PR needed.

 

Clarence

Edited by CHP
fixed typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

If the bird is wild, and the glove can't be identified, I agree - Property No

I thought I could perhaps see a ring on the birds' leg, not that this makes it owned by anyone, but if it was it could perhaps be identified, so I was being cautious.

 

Mark

I have it in writing from the BTO that in the UK no release is needed for a ring on a wild bird. Of course, that may not apply to Japan or any other country.

Edited by Cryptoprocta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

If the bird is wild, and the glove can't be identified, I agree - Property No

I thought I could perhaps see a ring on the birds' leg, not that this makes it owned by anyone, but if it was it could perhaps be identified, so I was being cautious.

 

Mark

 

Well-spotted. It could well be a ring. Best to err on the side of caution then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

I thought I could perhaps see a ring on the birds' leg, not that this makes it owned by anyone, but if it was it could perhaps be identified, so I was being cautious.

 

Good point. It didn't have a ring on its leg, though, so I assume a property release would be unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2018 at 16:27, Colin Woods said:

Not here no. The glove and coat are not recognisable with a brand name so no PR needed. Just an MR for the hand if selling RF.

Why would you need a model release if the hand can't be identified?...all very confusing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If the bird is wild and has a ring on it's leg it is not anyones property. It just means someone (RSPB) has ringed it for research purposes.

 

Allan

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Barking said:

Why would you need a model release if the hand can't be identified?...all very confusing!

 

To avoid any claims from the person to whom the hand belongs, I imagine – ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thomas Kyhn said:

 

To avoid any claims from the person to whom the hand belongs, I imagine – ?

 

For some reason, this thread reminds of a quote from the infamous O.J. Simpson trial:

 

"If it [the glove] doesn't fit, you must acquit."

 

:D

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to mess with everyone’s head, what if the hand was a mannequin hand with a glove on it? Still check one person?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

 

If the bird is wild and has a ring on it's leg it is not anyones property. It just means someone (RSPB) has ringed it for research purposes.

 

Allan

 

 

1. Unless it's an escaped cage bird, which happens quite a bit.

 

2. Not RSPB (in the UK), it's the BTO who licence bird ringing.

Edited by Cryptoprocta

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

×
×
  • 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.