Jump to content

Question

Help Please,

 

I'm confused about the rules on car photography. I am a keen car photographer - mostly old cars - and I can see lots of pictures for sale on Alamy but I thought you could not sell images without release - but all the ones I looked at state no release needed ? So can I sell pictures of cars on Alamy - either my own or others I have shot at races or shows ?

 

Cheers

 

Martin 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

What I do for cars or any property without a release is in AIM under the Optional tab mark the question "Is there any property in the image?"  as "Yes".  That will automatically mark and put the image on sale as ""Sell for editorial only".

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 05/03/2020 at 20:11, Xkeg4 said:

Help Please,

 

I'm confused about the rules on car photography. I am a keen car photographer - mostly old cars - and I can see lots of pictures for sale on Alamy but I thought you could not sell images without release - but all the ones I looked at state no release needed ? So can I sell pictures of cars on Alamy - either my own or others I have shot at races or shows ?

 

Cheers

 

Martin 

 

 

Why do you think that pictures of cars need to be released and who do you think could provide those releases - certainly the owners of the car could not unless they have designed and built it themselves? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Posted (edited)

Alamy's own guidance has an example image that tells us the truck manufacturer would need to sign a release if not an editorial image. 

 

"Property is not just limited to buildings, it’s anything identifiable that’s copyrighted/trademarked e.g. logos and branded items. This release must be signed by the property or brand owner."

"In the example below, you’d need a property release from Pepsi and Coca-Cola and the manufacturer of the truck:"

 

https://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/model-property-releases-stock-images/?section=7

 

 

 

 

Edited by Phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
17 hours ago, Phil said:

What I do for cars or any property without a release is in AIM under the Optional tab mark the question "Is there any property in the image?"  as "Yes".  That will automatically mark and put the image on sale as ""Sell for editorial only".

 

 

 

OK Thanks sounds as if I need to just sell them for editorial use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Posted (edited)

Hi Martin, you don't need a release to sell photos that contain people or property. As you have found, they can be sold as editorial only. You don't need to do anything other than tick whether or not there's property or people in your picture on Image Manager. Alamy automatically marks the photo as editorial then if you don't upload a release. Alamy principally is an editorial website, most photos on here are unreleased with property or people in. It's also up to the buyer about how they use the photo, it's not your responsibility. Unreleased photos with people or property in cannot be used for advertising purposes and that is the buyer's responsibility to make sure they don't use such a photo for advertising. There's other threads on the forum about what constitutes property and people in images. Alamy is quite strict on the definition. Hope this helps.

Steve

Edited by Steve F
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 

 

1 hour ago, Steve F said:

tick whether or not there's property or people in your picture on Image Manager. Alamy automatically marks the photo as editorial then if you don't upload a release.

This hasn't been done to my images.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

 

This hasn't been done to my images.

 

Perhaps true if a newly QC approved image's License Type in AIM is initially selected as RM. 

 

My experience is if a newly approved image's initial default license type of RF is used then the lack of a property release will auto check "Sell for editorial only". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
18 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Perhaps true if a newly QC approved image's License Type in AIM is initially selected as RM. 

 

My experience is if a newly approved image's initial default license type of RF is used then the lack of a property release will auto check "Sell for editorial only". 

That makes sense.

In my book images with property shouldn't be listed RF at all. But I assume that's what the "editorial only" category was all about.

My only remaining RF images shouldn't be (there was a lot I didn't know in 2009) but have sold that way so can't be changed. Some I've changed to editorial, some not. There are only 19.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

When I first joined Alamy, I mistakenly thought I needed releases from all people or property to even submit them to Alamy. While I had studied as extensively as I could about stock, even buying a book, I never gleaned anything about editorial or what it meant.

While running about taking all sorts of pictures, when I got them up on my computer, I looked at some really good ones occasionally of people doing interesting things.

One in particular that sticks in my mind was of two children under the age of four sitting in a mud puddle in the park splashing away. I took it with the mother’s permission but didn’t have a release with me. It was, considering my early days, exceptional. Stupidly, I deleted everything I didn’t have releases for.

When I found out through reading the forums about editorial, I sunk into depression for a few days. Also gone was the one-year-old boy closeup beaming up at a fountain jet of water coming down on his head. Storage was high back then and I’d already spent a bundle on camera, flash, computer and software.

Ah, well. Live and learn.

Good on you, Martin, getting it straight now.

Betty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
23 hours ago, spacecadet said:

 

 

This hasn't been done to my images.

Yeah, sorry, my default in AIM is rights managed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Posted (edited)
On 08/03/2020 at 05:17, Xkeg4 said:

 

OK Thanks sounds as if I need to just sell them for editorial use.

 

That's what I do, works just fine and makes the license notice correct. The end use is up to the user, so the proper license, Editorial, protects you.

 

Edited by Klinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 08/03/2020 at 21:49, Betty LaRue said:

When I first joined Alamy, I mistakenly thought I needed releases from all people or property to even submit them to Alamy. While I had studied as extensively as I could about stock, even buying a book, I never gleaned anything about editorial or what it meant.

While running about taking all sorts of pictures, when I got them up on my computer, I looked at some really good ones occasionally of people doing interesting things.

One in particular that sticks in my mind was of two children under the age of four sitting in a mud puddle in the park splashing away. I took it with the mother’s permission but didn’t have a release with me. It was, considering my early days, exceptional. Stupidly, I deleted everything I didn’t have releases for.

When I found out through reading the forums about editorial, I sunk into depression for a few days. Also gone was the one-year-old boy closeup beaming up at a fountain jet of water coming down on his head. Storage was high back then and I’d already spent a bundle on camera, flash, computer and software.

Ah, well. Live and learn.

Good on you, Martin, getting it straight now.

Betty

 

I am in the same boat, though minus the deletions and depression. I have some cracking photos of my car that I honestly would love to upload but haven't yet because I thought simply the badge being in view would lead to the car manufacturer potentially coming after me. Then I started seeing loads of images of cars, brands etc on here and thinking surely all these can't have a release. I wish I'd read the Alamy guidelines more properly than I did but this thread has been a big help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, Cal said:

 

I am in the same boat, though minus the deletions and depression. I have some cracking photos of my car that I honestly would love to upload but haven't yet because I thought simply the badge being in view would lead to the car manufacturer potentially coming after me. Then I started seeing loads of images of cars, brands etc on here and thinking surely all these can't have a release. I wish I'd read the Alamy guidelines more properly than I did but this thread has been a big help.

 

 

i would say beyond reading Alamy guidelines, to understand that different use of different images content in different jurisdictions have different rules.  And the whole domain moves continuously, something that is fine today might be challenged tomorrow.   

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.