Jump to content
  • 0

Query re: RM, editorial and property?


Sally R

Question

Hi Alamy people,

 

I'm a newbie and have chosen to go RM on everything I submit to Alamy, as well as making those images exclusive to Alamy. I just wanted to make sure I have a correct understanding about when to mark editorial or not, and when to indicate there is property.

 

I have images with just one other agency which is royalty free only, and therefore any people or property without releases must be made editorial with them. My understanding with RM here on Alamy is that editorial is not mandatory if you indicate there are no releases. For example, the city buildings where I live have the names of mining companies across the top, and those images with the royalty free agency must be made editorial or removed in post processing if commercial, and I'm assuming it's the same for RF on Alamy. Here on Alamy I can see plenty of examples of these buildings as RM with the mining company names visible, and obviously the buildings themselves are property. My understanding is that when making an image RM when you don't have releases, you are handing the responsibility of seeking releases if required over to the purchaser for their one time use, if they are planning to use it commercially rather than editorially. I just wanted to check if I understand that correctly?

 

Further to this, I have images that contain property such as a jetty on a river owned by a local council. I also have images looking across a river with property across the other side but it is not very discernable. Where there are boats on the river I have edited out all tags and logos. But I'm guessing I still mark this as property also? I've just read the thread about countryside and property, so I realise it can be a bit of a difficult area. But I'm guessing any property in the image at all needs to be marked as such.

 

I have only marked one of my images as editorial so far, which features an artwork (sculpture) overlooking the ocean. I wanted to do that to protect the artist, but maybe I didn't need to if it is RM already?

 

Sorry if asking questions you've heard many times before! I'm just seeking clarification and making sure I'm doing the right thing.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

P.S. Just realised one sentence didn't make sense. I meant to say the mining company signs on the buildings have to be edited out/blurred with the RF agency if commercial, not the buildings themselves!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

If RM and all boxes about persons and property are ticked correctly - including the boxes that tell you do not have any of these releases - you would handle it as many think is the good old-fashioned way here. Sensitive images should also be marked editorial. Could be art, persons or any other scenes you think should be further protected. Your judgement.

 

Property is much more here than at microstock. Buildings and flags f.inst. would be property when selling on Alamy - and much more - even countryside sometimes. But most of your images are shot in Austrialia, so I won't even try to be clever here. You should get a reply from an Aussie.

 

Edited by Niels Quist
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

We didn't have the ability to mark images as editorial until recently and I doubt that everyone has gone back and done it on older images so there are a lot here not so marked.

 

Paulette

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thanks Niels, I still need to go through and make sure I have ticked all the right boxes about releases including the one's I was a bit unsure about property wise. Better to be safe! But yes, I need to check on my local Australian requirements as well.

 

And thanks Paulette re: editorial. I was even wondering about my one with the kite surfer and what is possibly a logo/trademark on the kite, and the man himself might just be recognisable if you zoomed in enough, so I think I will tick the editorial box for this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I realised my first post mentioned the other agency I'm with (RF microstock) requires editorial for unreleased property, but realised this is slightly incorrect. Some unreleased property is allowed if it is generic without trademarks. For example, a Ferris Wheel photo I submitted was deemed ok for commercial even though it is property, but another photo I took of the same ferris wheel that had some advertising signs and people in it I made editorial, as I knew this would be a requirement.

 

I realise things are a bit different on Alamy, and we need to be proactive in recognising these things. Still not quite sure about things such as nature reserves, which are technically land owned by someone and therefore technically property.

 

I'm also not sure about signs which are generic. I have two of those. Technically they are property, but highly generic property. I guess I can put them as property without a release.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hi Sally,

Long story short, the purchaser of a photograph is responsible for making sure that the image is used legally. Alamy publish a lot of advice for purchaser's (clients) about this and also have a dedicated team I believe. As photographers we have the option (option because for some reason Alamy don't make it mandatory) to provide information to the client about whether we think there are people and property in our image and if so, whether or not we have model or property release available for the image. But the client is ultimately responsible for ensuring they have a release for an image if they want to use the image commercially.

 

There is mention in the posts above about marking for editorial use only. Personally I have never bothered ticking this box as I think if I mark if an image has property or people in, this already enough. But you can be extra careful if you like and mark some images for editorial use only. As NYCat notes, we didn't have the option to mark images like this until recently and I doubt many people are doing it retrospectively.

 

I tend to mark any object that's man-made as being property unless it's so generic you couldn't identify the brand or model. Ditto for jetty's, houses etc. it's all private property. But yes, it is a grey area sometimes...

Steve

 

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.