Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Thomas Kyhn said:

 

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

Theoretically the person whose hand it is would recognise themselves if he or she was to walk past an advertising hoarding with that image, so yes, contains one person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has changed a lot in the last ten years. When I started with Alamy any people in the picture had to be recognisable, but with the ever increasing fear of lawsuits this has now ended up with even a gloved hand needing a model release. Absurd indeed, but its Alamy's game and we have to follow their rules. on the other hand, this way is less open to interpretation of the word recognisable, so I guess its safer all round even if it is a bit frustrating in obvious cases like a gloved hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I follow the Discussuion with amazement. 
Since when is it necessary to submit an MR for an item? 
I see the photo of the hand of a scarecrow with a bird on it, apparently amused by the stupid scarecrow. 
I see no person, only a bird and a small part of a scarecrow. 
I think the photo, with the appropriate description, can be used as an RF without MR. 

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

I follow the Discussuion with amazement. 
Since when is it necessary to submit an MR for an item? 
I see the photo of the hand of a scarecrow with a bird on it, apparently amused by the stupid scarecrow. 
I see no person, only a bird and a small part of a scarecrow. 
I think the photo, with the appropriate description, can be used as an RF without MR. 

That would be untruthful and would leave yourself open for legal action, however slight the chance.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

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.

 

I stand corrected.:)

 

Allan

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest I would say People .. 1, Release..  Yes  .. but you don't have to actually upload a release. My understanding is that Alamy will then contact you if their client needs the release.

Property .. No (the glove is so generic).

 

This way you satisfy Alamy's pedantic definition of whether or not an image contains a person but allow some common sense to kick in. On the off chance that you are asked for model release, just sign a release yourself and claim that it was your hand!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Matt Ashmore said:

On the off chance that you are asked for model release, just sign a release yourself and claim that it was your hand!

 

It's my wife's hand in the glove, so a release won't be any trouble. But, obviously, no one would be able to tell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Matt Ashmore said:

To be honest I would say People .. 1, Release..  Yes  .. but you don't have to actually upload a release. My understanding is that Alamy will then contact you if their client needs the release.

Property .. No (the glove is so generic).

 

This way you satisfy Alamy's pedantic definition of whether or not an image contains a person but allow some common sense to kick in. On the off chance that you are asked for model release, just sign a release yourself and claim that it was your hand!

Bearing in mind this is an open forum, isn't that a little like videoing yourself doing a 100mph and putting it on Youtube?

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

Bearing in mind this is an open forum, isn't that a little like videoing yourself doing a 100mph and putting it on Youtube?

 

Hmm.. I'm not sure I see it that way. Even prior to Thomas's most recent post in which he says the hand is owned by his wife, it was always likely that Thomas knew the owner of the hand if a model release was really, really needed. My point about Thomas signing a release himself was more a reference to the fact that I really doubt anyone would ask for the release and the true owner of the hand is very unlikely to have a problem with such a generic shot.

 

Alamy's rules and guidelines are there for good reason but I just think that this is a bit of an edge case where a slightly pragmatic approach doesn't really harm.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Matt Ashmore said:

In which case, getting a model release isn't really a problem.

 

Not at all. The reason I asked in the first place, though, was that it wasn't clear to me at what point exactly a release would be necessary, and this particular photo seemed a good example.

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.