Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I just went through about 10 portfolios, all photographers with thousands of photos and all more experienced than I, and only one was marking photos as editorial when they include recognizable faces and logos in them. None of them had model or property releases. It was very surprising and made me wonder why others aren't worried about legal issues or if I'm being way too paranoid about marking "editorial" for photos with people and brands.

Share this post


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

I just went through about 10 portfolios, all photographers with thousands of photos and all more experienced than I, and only one was marking photos as editorial when they include recognizable faces and logos in them. None of them had model or property releases. It was very surprising and made me wonder why others aren't worried about legal issues or if I'm being way too paranoid about marking "editorial" for photos with people and brands.

There are a number of ways to make an image (s) "Editorial" You just need to see all the details and to understand them.

 

Chuck

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This information is all 'optional'. I tend not to do anything in there except for the exclusive tag which is set by default. 

 

If an image does not have releases then it is down to the user to decide how they use it. On the few occasions I actually have a release then I will say so.

 

I did go through and mark all pics of graffiti and modern paintings as 'editorial only' but wouldn't be surprised if I have missed some - I used the search function to find these. 

 

From my perspective there just isn't enough time to be ticking all these boxes - I don't even get around to doing Supertags very often.

Edited by geogphotos
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, geogphotos said:

This information is all 'optional'. I tend not to do anything in there except for the exclusive tag which is set by default. 

 

If an image does not have releases.....

You say 'optional' and indeed it all does come under that heading, but unless you enter the fact that the image has property or at least one person in the image it could be assumed by a prospective purchaser that it doesn't need releases

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, KFisher said:

... they include recognizable faces and logos in them. 

On Alamy they don't need to be recognisable. Any item which might be seen as 'owned' or the slightest part of a person counts as requiring a release for non-editorial. Just enter that info for each image and you'll be covered.

Share this post


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

You say 'optional' and indeed it all does come under that heading, but unless you enter the fact that the image has property or at least one person in the image it could be assumed by a prospective purchaser that it doesn't need releases

Those are the two things I actually do try to mark, but after all the publisher can see what's in the image. As long as I don't misrepresent it I'm in the clear as far as I'm concerned.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

You say 'optional' and indeed it all does come under that heading, but unless you enter the fact that the image has property or at least one person in the image it could be assumed by a prospective purchaser that it doesn't need releases

 

 

My view is that the user can see if there are people or property and if I show that I do not have releases the rest is down to them.

 

I use the 'editorial only' button only when I definitely want to restrict usage to editorial, for example, when I have permission to photograph in a museum and have told them the pics will be not used in advertising. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting comments and opinions. From reading other articles and threads on other sites and photography pages, I'm not comfortable with taking a chance and leaving the onus on the buyer who may or may not read the "No property release" and who may or may not understand what it means. That seems like it wouldn't hold up in a legal case since the buyer isn't the "expert" and he only sees that a photo is marketed as commercial or editorial. Very surprising to see how many are taking that chance. Hopefully you all know what you're doing. Thank you for all the answers.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With that being said (my above comment), I love the way Alamy lets you choose as opposed to the reviewers at other sites who go too far using "editorial" on images that are clearly not editorial. It's nice to have the option. I have many photos on Alamy as commercial that are forced editorial on other sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, KFisher said:

Interesting comments and opinions. From reading other articles and threads on other sites and photography pages, I'm not comfortable with taking a chance and leaving the onus on the buyer who may or may not read the "No property release" and who may or may not understand what it means. That seems like it wouldn't hold up in a legal case since the buyer isn't the "expert" and he only sees that a photo is marketed as commercial or editorial. Very surprising to see how many are taking that chance. Hopefully you all know what you're doing. Thank you for all the answers.

 

Possibly you have been reading what is said on RF agencies. I do know that some are very fussy about releases, property, logos, people - but that is because RF by definition is being made available for any and all uses into the future. 

 

Not saying anything at all about whether an image has property or people, and making clear that there are no releases, I think does not create any risk because it is not stating anything about the suitability of that image for commercial use. Since I don't know the intended use how can I take any responsibility over it? All I am doing is providing the relevant information for the decision maker. 

 

I am very relieved that the old Alamy system has gone where you constantly had to make decisions about whether the image contained anything that required a release. 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

That seems like it wouldn't hold up in a legal case since the buyer isn't the "expert" and he only sees that a photo is marketed as commercial or editorial. Very surprising to see how many are taking that chance.

On the contrary, the buyer is the expert- he's the publisher. All Alamy image pages have a disclaimer, or at least a link about releases as well.

In my view, as long as I haven't misrepresented the status of an image- and I haven't- I'm taking no chance at all.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

On the contrary, the buyer is the expert- he's the publisher. All Alamy image pages have a disclaimer, or at least a link about releases as well.

In my view, as long as I haven't misrepresented the status of an image- and I haven't- I'm taking no chance at all.

 

It's an interesting opinion though I still don't agree. For me, it boils down to a person seeing their likeness in an image in which they didn't give permission. The first thing they will do is go after the photographer as well as the publication. At least if I can show I clearly indicated this photo was for editorial use only, I have a better chance in any legal dispute. Legal issues do arise more than makes me comfortable (even if I don't like to think about it...).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, KFisher said:

 

It's an interesting opinion though I still don't agree. For me, it boils down to a person seeing their likeness in an image in which they didn't give permission. The first thing they will do is go after the photographer as well as the publication. At least if I can show I clearly indicated this photo was for editorial use only, I have a better chance in any legal dispute. Legal issues do arise more than makes me comfortable (even if I don't like to think about it...).

I believe my approach is correct in the UK. If you're in the US where suing is a participant sport you could be right, but of course there's generally no right to privacy there, as in the UK.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


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

I believe my approach is correct in the UK. If you're in the US where suing is a participant sport you could be right, but of course there's generally no right to privacy there, as in the UK.

 

You are correct about that, I'm in the US. With that being said, many countries have far stricter rules on using someone's likeness or even taking their photo in a public place. I try not to think about such things as much as possible... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, KFisher said:

With that being said (my above comment), I love the way Alamy lets you choose as opposed to the reviewers at other sites who go too far using "editorial" on images that are clearly not editorial. It's nice to have the option. I have many photos on Alamy as commercial that are forced editorial on other sites.

 

You are talking about micro stock sites and RF images. 

 

I agree with your comment above about how Alamy allows individuals to make decisions. That is what is happening. There is no 'right or wrong' here. Just different decisions. 

 

If it were a practical problem something would have changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, KFisher said:

 

You are correct about that, I'm in the US. With that being said, many countries have far stricter rules on using someone's likeness or even taking their photo in a public place. I try not to think about such things as much as possible... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people

Publishers in these countries are well aware of the restrictions and by and large follow them. I assume this is why I've never had, for example, a French licence for an unreleased image with people. That I have in Germany, whose law is a bit less restrictive, tends to support my assumption.

Share this post


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

With that being said (my above comment), I love the way Alamy lets you choose as opposed to the reviewers at other sites who go too far using "editorial" on images that are clearly not editorial. It's nice to have the option. I have many photos on Alamy as commercial that are forced editorial on other sites.

The funny thing is I have photos here as 'no releases' which need releases on Alamy but wouldn't in my other place, which is itself very tight on releases. As Alamy requires just about everything which might be considered property to need a release, I indicate almost all my images as 'needs release' / 'no release', even though I know they don't actually need one. However, I don't tick 'editorial' on these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Avpics said:

You say 'optional' and indeed it all does come under that heading, but unless you enter the fact that the image has property or at least one person in the image it could be assumed by a prospective purchaser that it doesn't need releases

If you don't indicate that you have a release, the file will show as having no model release and no property release.

If you have ticked that the file needs releases but you have no releases, the file will still show as having no model release and no property release.

After that, there is a link "Do I need a release?" which the prospective purchaser should click, if they don't know about such things.

The link takes them to this page:

https://www.alamy.com/help/what-is-model-release-property-release.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 24/08/2019 at 03:32, KFisher said:

I just went through about 10 portfolios, all photographers with thousands of photos and all more experienced than I, and only one was marking photos as editorial when they include recognizable faces and logos in them. None of them had model or property releases. It was very surprising and made me wonder why others aren't worried about legal issues or if I'm being way too paranoid about marking "editorial" for photos with people and brands.

Because of what I wrote above, I'm far more concerned about the many files of mass group events, like parades or performances where apparently the tog has got releases for every one of hundreds of visible people. Whether an honest mistake or deliberate lying, I couldn't possibly say.

 

For example, search Alamy for "Edinburgh Military Tattoo" with property and model releases, and 'group of people' ticked. (And incidentally, most of these are not the Edinburgh Military Tattoo!)

or

Try 'Parade', tick model and property released, tick 'group of people' (89 hits): and decide whether you think the tog is to be commended on garnering many model releases and has also carried out a massive research exercise to find the owners of copyright on each little bit of property, and all have agreed to sign releases. Or has made an honest mistake with two misclicks. Or ... ?

It's an extra 'insurance' to check inside IM search from time to time to see if you have made any misclicks. I just looked and found I had indicated one file had an MR. That happened once before too, though in both cases I was to a degree protected by not having clicked that I had PRs.

Edited by Cryptoprocta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Because of what I wrote above, I'm far more concerned about the many files of mass group events, like parades or performances where apparently the tog has got releases for every one of hundreds of visible people. Whether an honest mistake or deliberate lying, I couldn't possibly say.

 

 

I did the exercise and found what you did...at least one photo anyway and I'm wondering if the "tog?" may have gotten a release for the prominent person and not the others and checked model release for that reason.  I have a few photos where I have a release only for the main person in the shot and I have indicated so in the caption but checked "no model release" which I think is the best way to do it but I would be interested in other's comments on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

If you don't indicate that you have a release, the file will show as having no model release and no property release.

It's never occurred to me that not answering the question would answer the question. I'm of the mind though that if there's anything, however small, that I can to do attract a sale then I'll do it, such as entering the number of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Avpics said:

It's never occurred to me that not answering the question would answer the question. I'm of the mind though that if there's anything, however small, that I can to do attract a sale then I'll do it, such as entering the number of people.

I do too, but only if the people are actually clearly visible. If they are blobs or out of focus bits of people, I don't indicate. They show up as not being released, but buyers won't get p*ssed off when they want to see people but there are no really visible people in the image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, rickboden said:

 

I did the exercise and found what you did...at least one photo anyway and I'm wondering if the "tog?" may have gotten a release for the prominent person and not the others and checked model release for that reason.  I have a few photos where I have a release only for the main person in the shot and I have indicated so in the caption but checked "no model release" which I think is the best way to do it but I would be interested in other's comments on that.

Indicating a release when you only have a release for one person would not follow Alamy's guidelines, so IMO you're doing it correctly.

Also I'm not all that sure what the value is in getting a model release without property releases, which according to Alamy's guidelines would almost certainly be needed, unless it were a nude on a plain background, or in water, on grass etc.

Edited by Cryptoprocta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.alamy.com/blog/releases-alamy-says-relax

 

 

 

Without a release, you are free to upload your images to license editorially. All you need to do is;

  • Make sure you are not breaking any laws by taking the photo in the first place (like whilst trespassing)
  • Annotate that your images contain people and/or property
  • Mark that you don’t have any releases
  • Sit back and relax and let our sales team do the rest

If you have annotated the images per the above, customers are notified with the following; “If you want to use the image commercially, you might also need permission from the model, artist, owner, estate, trademark or brand”. This puts the onus on them to ensure that should they wish to use an image commercially, they will need to seek releases themselves.

There may be occasions where they risk using and unreleased image commercially e.g. crowd shots of unrecognizable people, but so long as you have correctly annotated your image, it isn’t your responsibility.

So, what is the take away from all of this…

You don’t need a release to upload and license your images for editorial uses.

  • Like 1

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.