travelphotgraphy Travel editorial

[Neil Bussey]

Hi. I would like to know if I can upload my travel photography as editorial as it has many people and buildings featured which would need releases (impossible to get on many occasions) if submitted as commercial?

I'm wondering if travel publications source their images sometimes from editorial sections of stock sites like Alamy. I have hundreds of images that are dying to get out there!

 

Thanks.

[Ed Rooney]

It is my understanding that it is the contributor's responsibility to follow laws and rules regarding the images we put on Alamy. That is a sobering thought. And here's another: an Alamy search of "people Spain" bring up 437, 822 images. You don't really think that they all have MR, do you?

 

In the now long ago film age the ASMP in NYC said in an interview that they had never had a case concerning a PR. 

 

Edo

[Marianne]

I get the feeling these laws are to protect real privacy with the advent of cells phone everywhere, teens & adults publishing private pix & videos for revenge. The law may be drafted broadly but a judge would need to balance competing interests of the press, free speech, etc  i didntsee anything that severe. Nodding your head or smiling at the camera is consent imho ( keep those outtakes). And food doesn't have a right to privacy does it? But perhaps animals do have a right to credit for their pix (it's always a monkey trial isn't it?)

 

[John Mitchell]

5 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

Harry, I knew about France but somehow I missed the news that Spain is just as bad. 

 

Honestly, Edo, I don't see how any of your Seville images would offend anyone. You're always careful to paint the subjects in a positive light, and they don't look as if they mind being photographed. Sometimes "the law is a ass — a idiot", as Mr Bumble said. 

[Martyn]

Pretty similar scenario in Hungary, so much so that I don't take street candids here and will refrain from doing so until the law actually becomes clearer ! I will still take images that contain people but I make sure that they know I am there and will ask permission if needs be ! So far, I have not encountered any problems taking photos here ...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/14/hungary-law-photography-permission-take-pictures

 

 

 

[John Mitchell]

8 hours ago, Martyn said:

Pretty similar scenario in Hungary, so much so that I don't take street candids here and will refrain from doing so until the law actually becomes clearer ! I will still take images that contain people but I make sure that they know I am there and will ask permission if needs be ! So far, I have not encountered any problems taking photos here ...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/14/hungary-law-photography-permission-take-pictures

 

 

 

 

Interesting article. It seems that going forward, the trick might be to make sure that people aren't readily identifiable when photographing in places that have strict privacy laws. I find myself doing that more often these days even where I live. The Christmas market image ( from Alamy) in the article is a good example. That approach doesn't usually make for inspiring street photography, though.

[Martyn]

5 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Interesting article. It seems that going forward, the trick might be to make sure that people aren't readily identifiable when photographing in places that have strict privacy laws. I find myself doing that more often these days even where I live. The Christmas market image in the article is a good example. That approach doesn't usually make for inspiring street photography, though.

 

As you rightly point out John, trying to capture images where people are unidentifiable is difficult and the end results are pretty uninspiring !

I also found this earlier which may prove to be a useful guide as to what is allowed where ....

 

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements

[Betty LaRue]

Thank You USA. I have quite a few people pictures.

[Harry Harrison]

9 hours ago, Martyn said:

Pretty similar scenario in Hungary

Yes, very interesting, I was surprised to see that even 5 years ago when the article was written it states that judges had already overseen hundreds of such cases and from what you say things haven't moved on in the intervening period. On the other hand I've never been to Hungary but judging from what we read in the papers freedom to photograph in the street may not be a top priority for the current government.

[John Mitchell]

2 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

Thank You USA. I have quite a few people pictures.

 

Yes, you do seem off the hook when it comes to editorial use, although privacy laws no doubt vary somewhat from state to state.

 

In Canada, things seem a bit vague to say the least:

 

"Generally if the person(s) in the photograph in a public place is not intentionally identified, it is generally okay to take and publish the photograph even if the person(s) are identifiable. "

 

Huh? Can you run that by me again again please...

[Marianne]

New York has always been pro photographer when it comes to editorial at least. Given how many magazines & newspapers are headquartered here it's no surprise. Given all we have to feel bad about these days nice to know the good ole USA is doing something right. 

[John Mitchell]

2 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

I'm assuming, or perhaps hoping, that there is a particular problem if you happen to live in the country concerned as Ed does. Common sense seems to mean less and less but surely a photographer can't be expected to keep up with the nuances of case law in every country, at least for RM images with no releases, or am I kidding myself?

 

Full marks to whoever compiled that table, those red cells are pretty alarming but so are the "Yes (with exceptions)" because France is not that different from Spain. I thought the article by Olivier Laurent that referenced Nick Turpin and Martin Parr was very interesting, though a few years old now:

 

https://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/paris-city-of-rights/

 

On the other hand they could be considered as 'Art' photographers rather than stock, certainly I doubt if Martin Parr had any releases for his Benidorm pictures:

 

https://www.martinparr.com/2019/benidorm/

 

Both worthwhile articles. Thanks for the links. Remind me not to take my next vacation in Benidorm (even though I do now fit the demographic).

[John Mitchell]

7 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

It is my understanding that it is the contributor's responsibility to follow laws and rules regarding the images we put on Alamy. That is a sobering thought. And here's another: an Alamy search of "people Spain" bring up 437, 822 images. You don't really think that they all have MR, do you?

 

In the now long ago film age the ASMP in NYC said in an interview that they had never had a case concerning a PR. 

 

Edo

 

Does "giving consent" necessarily mean signing a model release, though? Model releases are typically needed for commercial uses only. Perhaps a "nod and a wink" plus a positive response from a subject qualifies as consent if an image will be -- or at least might be -- used editorially. If someone swears at you or covers her face when you point your camera her way, I guess that's enough evidence that no consent is being given.

 

A search for "france people" brings up over 670K images. Check out "quebec people" as well.

[Ed Rooney]

You're right about model releases not being needed for editorial use, John. A good point. 

 

But I have no proof of a "nod and a wink." That's he said, she said. 

 

Let me point out the obvious. Nobody to suing me for snapping their image, not in Spain or anywhere else. It is highly unlikely that that should happen. But like healthcare and a resident visa, this will have to be another unsettled issue. Unsettled is very unsettling. 

[John Mitchell]

12 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

You're right about model releases not being needed for editorial use, John. A good point. 

 

But I have no proof of a "nod and a wink." That's he said, she said. 

 

Let me point out the obvious. Nobody to suing me for snapping their image, not in Spain or anywhere else. It is highly unlikely that that should happen. But like healthcare and a resident visa, this will have to be another unsettled issue. Unsettled is very unsettling. 

 

I'd be unsettled as well, especially if access to healthcare was still unsettled, super important to get that one sorted out.

[Bryan]

Just read through this thread, and have to confess that I have many shots including people from France, Spain and Italy (not to mention a few from Quebec). To be honest I find the none UK European market to be challenging, with proportionally fewer sales than from elsewhere, but my one repeat seller from Spain includes clearly recognisable unreleased people, (it includes the magic selling  keyword "couple") and you would expect that the end users would know and understand what is permissible. 

 

The only non UK problem that I have encountered to date was with a photo of a statue, where the sculptor insisted that I remove it from sale. Image speedily deleted.

 

Maybe  the lawyers are busily preparing their cases against me as I write this response......

 

 

[Ed Rooney]

To be clear, Bryan, Italy does not have the privacy laws that France and Spain do. I'm less worried about releases today. 🤪

 

Sapping artwork is a different problem. With art, I always try to include other things in the fame, even people. 

 

Bryan, did you get New York's mayor to sign a PR for your pics of the Brooklyn Bridge? Oh oh.

[John Mitchell]

I had four Montreal images zoomed earlier this week, all with identifiable people in them. Can't say I'm terribly worried.

 

Regarding The Brooklyn Bridge, I seem to remember Bryan mentioning that he is now the proud owner of said bridge. Apparently, some nice guy -- Parker I think the name was -- sold it to him on his last visit. 😉

[Bryan]

On 18/05/2019 at 18:09, John Mitchell said:

I had four Montreal images zoomed earlier this week, all with identifiable people in them. Can't say I'm terribly worried.

 

Regarding The Brooklyn Bridge, I seem to remember Bryan mentioning that he is now the proud owner of said bridge. Apparently, some nice guy -- Parker I think the name was -- sold it to him on his last visit. 😉

 

Yeah, used last month's Alamy income to buy it. Intend to have it shipped over and added to the collection already across the river Tyne. 

[Ed Rooney]

They used to say a Cockney was someone who lived in the hearing of the Bow Bells and can spit into the Thames. A Geordie is someone who lives Tyneside and can spit into the Thames. 

[Bryan]

8 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

They used to say a Cockney was someone who lived in the hearing of the Bow Bells and can spit into the Thames. A Geordie is someone who lives Tyneside and can spit into the Thames. 

 

Doesn't apply to me as a Mackem, rather than a Geordie.

[John Mitchell]

21 minutes ago, Mr Standfast said:

 

Just looked at el pais the biggest Spanish newspaper, there's still a lot of people in the backgrounds, just like a uk paper. Did they all sign releases?

 

I imagine that the issue would be with "identifiable" people in isolation or in small groups where they are the main subject(s) of the image, not people incidental to a scene -- e.g. in the background -- or in large groups. Also, there must be exceptions for legitimate news pics.

 

P.S. Here in BC, it's OK to photograph people in a public place and then publish the image editorially. However, I once knew someone who wanted to sue a local newspaper because she saw her teenage daughter in a news photo. It wouldn't have gone anywhere if she had, but this goes to show how uptight some people can get.

[Matt Ashmore]

The short answer is yes... but you might want to quickly double check that none of the countries featured have any restrictions (e.g. in Spain it is illegal to photograph children with out the parents' consent).

[Joseph Clemson]

Editorial is precisely the right way of selling images with no model or property releases. In the optional info tab, tick the people and property  present boxes and tick 'no release' in both cases. You can sell  them as RM or RF-Editorial only, as you prefer.  

[Ed Rooney]

2 hours ago, Matt Ashmore said:

The short answer is yes... but you might want to quickly double check that none of the countries featured have any restrictions (e.g. in Spain it is illegal to photograph children with out the parents' consent).

 

Really? Hmmm. I better do some deleting. I guess a nod and a smile does not count as much as a model release? 

[NYCat]

I was curious about this and found this...... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements Often seems very complicated.

 

Paulette