Release needed for editorial pic with person in it?

[Chris Jenks_1000WordsPic]

Hi all,

 

I'm new to the forum so apologies if my question has been covered already.😀

 

I have had this situation come up a few times (and I believe I contacted Alamy over it some time ago without quite getting the answer)...

 

I have photos where there are people who are recognisable but maybe not the main focus of the image. 

Can I still use these for editorial use, without their authorisation ie release? (These people are often strangers and there is no chance of me getting a release from them now)!

 

I would be glad to know as I sometimes have pictures in this situation.

 

Thanks

 

Chris

[M.Chapman]

15 hours ago, Chris Jenks_1000WordsPic said:

Can I still use these for editorial use, without their authorisation ie release? (These people are often strangers and there is no chance of me getting a release from them now)!

 

Yes.

Make sure you fill in/tick questions in Alamy Image manager correctly.

Enter number of people in image (even if they are unrecognisable, or even just part of a person, e.g. a hand)

Do you have model releases = No, 

Sell for editorial only = Yes (if you want maximum protection or have set the licence type as RF)

Traditionally the licence type would also have been set to RM, but I believe it's now OK to use RF if you tick the editorial only box.

 

Mark

 

 

Edited March 31, 2020 by M.Chapman

[Chris Jenks_1000WordsPic]

Thanks Mark, 

 

That's helpful. 

 

I still find it hard to comprehend how a visible person can make their way without their authorisation on to a published document, even if for editorial purposes! 

 

But I will look out for those points that you have made,

 

Thanks

 

Chris

[spacecadet]

10 minutes ago, Chris Jenks_1000WordsPic said:

I still find it hard to comprehend how a visible person can make their way without their authorisation on to a published document,

What would prevent it? It's a common-law principle that, in general. you may do what is not expressly forbidden.

In the UK and in many other countries, it's lawful to publish an image of a person without their permission in a wide range of circumstances.

 

[meanderingemu]

54 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

What would prevent it? It's a common-law principle that, in general. you may do what is not expressly forbidden.

In the UK and in many other countries, it's lawful to publish an image of a person without their permission in a wide range of circumstances.

 

 

which brings one caveat, make sure you are not breaking local laws. 

[spacecadet]

5 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

which brings one caveat, make sure you are not breaking local laws. 

The laws are usually about publication rather than taking- as long as we annotate accurately it's up to the publisher.

Edited March 31, 2020 by spacecadet

[Niels Quist]

23 hours ago, Chris Jenks_1000WordsPic said:

Hi all,

 

Chris,

I just checked one of your football images. You have said yes to releases for the property. I don't think you have an actual release - and it is not enough that no trademark is showing - the design will tell, so what you should do is to tick that there is property in the image and that you don't have a release.

 

Niels

 

PS it seems that you have ticked your images of footballs differently - but better check them. You can use the filters in the AIM to find the images in question.

I would also say that you have way too many similar images.

Edited March 31, 2020 by Niels Quist

[Graham]

4 hours ago, spacecadet said:

It's a common-law principle that, in general. you may do what is not expressly forbidden.

Pity the police do not seem to understand that very basic and undeniably correct proposition.  At least Jonathon Sumption is prepared to restate and reinforce this basic right.  
 

Graham

[Chris Jenks_1000WordsPic]

 

3 hours ago, spacecadet said:

The laws are usually about publication rather than taking- as long as we annotate accurately it's up to the publisher.

Interesting principle...reminds me of the principle of 'innocent until proven otherwise' which I think has lost some of its power with the media often helping to taint or tarnish someone's image before they've even been questioned. Anyway, that's one for another time!...

 

3 hours ago, Niels Quist said:

 

Chris,

I just checked one of your football images. You have said yes to releases for the property. I don't think you have an actual release - and it is not enough that no trademark is showing - the design will tell, so what you should do is to tick that there is property in the image and that you don't have a release.

 

Niels

 

PS it seems that you have ticked your images of footballs differently - but better check them. You can use the filters in the AIM to find the images in question.

I would also say that you have way too many similar images.

Re: my images, the reason I was saying that I had a release for my football images was simply that I did, in the sense that the photos showed an unbranded football together with football kit (unbranded) and my legs (!) which I own and am happy to provide a release for!

Was it the fact that you think there's copyright on the equipment even when the brand is not visible? Is that what you mean by 'design will tell'?

 

Thanks

 

Chris

[Niels Quist]

56 minutes ago, Chris Jenks_1000WordsPic said:

Re: my images, the reason I was saying that I had a release for my football images was simply that I did, in the sense that the photos showed an unbranded football together with football kit (unbranded) and my legs (!) which I own and am happy to provide a release for!

Was it the fact that you think there's copyright on the equipment even when the brand is not visible? Is that what you mean by 'design will tell'?

 

Thanks

 

Chris

 

That a product will be recognised by the design. Alamy is different from microstock, where images sometimes are accepted if you remove the logo or brand. On Alamy this is property that would need a release not  from you but from the maker.

So a piece of good advice would be to tick that the image contains property and you don't have a release. Check your  MMRJPY - that you provide a model release for your legs is absolutely correct. but think about your football boots, etc.

 

Edited March 31, 2020 by Niels Quist

[Avpics]

22 hours ago, Chris Jenks_1000WordsPic said:

.....showed an unbranded football together with football kit (unbranded)....

I remember an incident where a contributor had taken a huge amount of time removing the airline colour scheme from an airliner to produce an all white anonymous aircraft but was upset that they couldn't offer it on Alamy as 'no property' because it was still clearly a Boeing/Airbus machine. I wouldn't fancy taking on their lawyers!

[M.Chapman]

2 hours ago, Avpics said:

I remember an incident where a contributor had taken a huge amount of time removing the airline colour scheme from an airliner to produce an all white anonymous aircraft but was upset that they couldn't offer it on Alamy as 'no property' because it was still clearly a Boeing/Airbus machine. I wouldn't fancy taking on their lawyers!

 

Yes, it's bizarre. One of the MS libraries seems happy that if the logo is removed, it's no longer "property". Alamy's approach is simpler and IMHO more sensible.

 

Mark