Jump to content
  • 0

Editorial or Not


Clarissa
 Share

Question

I understand that I need permission to sell any images that include people. I also have read that I need permission from the owner of a building to sell a photo with a building in it. However, as I did further reading online (not just Alamy), it seems like there are exceptions. For example, if the people are small and unidentifiable I read that permission is not needed and elsewhere it argued I still did. More immediately, I'm uploading photos of old buildings from a recent trip. Some places indicate that only certain buildings are under copyright, so I should be fine selling these as is. On the other hand, Alamy implies that I need permission for any building in a picture or else mark as editorial only.

 

Please help clarify when I need to mark photos as editorial only. At this time, I have no permissions granted for either individuals or buildings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

From the situations you describe all your images can be sold on Alamy. All you need to do is go to the options tag and enter the number of people and whether they include any property, state that you don't have releases and they are available to sell as editorial. A customer might decide to purchase them for commercial uses but that will be on their head as long as you are honest with how you fill out the information. Some people leave those options clear, but as long as you don't say that you have releases then you're fine.

Edited by Avpics
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 14/07/2020 at 00:19, Clarissa said:

I understand that I need permission to sell any images that include people. I also have read that I need permission from the owner of a building to sell a photo with a building in it. However, as I did further reading online (not just Alamy), it seems like there are exceptions. For example, if the people are small and unidentifiable I read that permission is not needed and elsewhere it argued I still did. More immediately, I'm uploading photos of old buildings from a recent trip. Some places indicate that only certain buildings are under copyright, so I should be fine selling these as is. On the other hand, Alamy implies that I need permission for any building in a picture or else mark as editorial only.

 

Please help clarify when I need to mark photos as editorial only. At this time, I have no permissions granted for either individuals or buildings.

 

I had a similar question though it was part of a more expansive query about where to draw the line when deciding whether or not an image has property (does a house occupying a few pixels in a landscape require a release to be sold commercially, etc). As I sometimes lack the ability to think of the obvious it was most refreshing to have someone reply with a solution of simply leaving the property/people fields on the optional tab blank - ie simply don't fill them in. This is fine to do (it is "optional") and leaves the decision of whether to obtain releases or to wing it completely up to the buyer. I would advise in your situation to do the same, potentially checking the editorial box might limit your sales opportunities needlessly and Alamy themselves have said when images contain unreleased property/people you don't need to do this as a matter of course, just annotate them correctly. It was an Alamy blog post but I have since lost the link to it.

 

Although I am still new to stock on Alamy and still learning what I have taken from the various pieces of advice so far is it's just better to not bother with the property/people part of the optional tab than fill it out and potentially get it wrong and be sued.

Edited by Cal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
21 hours ago, Cal said:

Although I am still new to stock on Alamy and still learning what I have taken from the various pieces of advice so far is it's just better to not bother with the property/people part of the optional tab than fill it out and potentially get it wrong and be sued.

 

It's really simple on Alamy. The questions asked in AIM are not "Does you image contain people or property which require releases". The question is simply "Does your image contain any property or people?" You don't need to make any complex judgements about whether the people or property need releases (which can vary from one country to another depending on local laws). If there are people (or even parts of people) or property, then simply answer yes and say you don't have releases. I only tick the "Editorial only" if I specifically want to prevent an image from being used commercially.

 

Mark

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
2 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

It's really simple on Alamy. The questions asked in AIM are not "Does you image contain people or property which require releases". The question is simply "Does your image contain any property or people?" You don't need to make any complex judgements about whether the people or property need releases (which can vary from one country to another depending on local laws). If there are people (or even parts of people) or property, then simply answer yes and say you don't have releases. I only tick the "Editorial only" if I specifically want to prevent an image from being used commercially.

 

Mark


you’ve missed my point. The point I was making (that was discussed in more detail on a thread I made) was where do you draw the line in defining what property is, and therefore whether to state the image does or doesn’t have property. If you’re shooting a landscape, how do you know whether there is property in the image? Can you categorically prove beyond doubt that every pixel only contains public land? What if an errant fence post creeps in that’s owned by someone who would try and sue if you sold the image without stating it contained property?

 

with respect I’m not thick, I know fine well that if I take an overt photo of a building or a person that it needs a release to be sold commercially and is a clear cut case of being marked as containing property. What I didn’t (and still don’t, because no one seems to) know is if I take a photograph of a sun setting on the horizon and a remote building appears as literally a spec on the horizon do I need to state that I have an image containing property, that I then don’t have a release for thereby limiting my opportunity to ever sell the image commercially. 
 

discussions of this type come up sometimes with some people even saying things like if you take a photo of a city skyline, even if it is obvious like the Chicago skyline, you can sell it commercially without releases because the objects of property are small and within a larger picture. In other words, that there comes a point where you effectively lose the ability to claim rights to property over an image when it’s within a wider context. Whether true or not I don’t know. 
 

as you can see it’s a complete minefield which is why I took the suggestion to simply leave those fields on the optional tab blank - and I don’t think it’s bad advice to give. 

Edited by Cal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
31 minutes ago, Cal said:

with respect I’m not thick, I know fine well that if I take an overt photo of a building or a person that it needs a release to be sold commercially and is a clear cut case of being marked as containing property. What I didn’t (and still don’t, because no one seems to) know is if I take a photograph of a sun setting on the horizon and a remote building appears as literally a spec on the horizon do I need to state that I have an image containing property, that I then don’t have a release for thereby limiting my opportunity to ever sell the image commercially. 

 

My understanding is that for something, ie a house etc, to be classed as property, it has to be recognisable. So a white blob in the distance wouldn't be be classed as property unless its distinctive features were recognisable. 

 

Adding a query of mine to the thread, I would assume pets are classed as property? My tabby cat would likely disagree, as he's a very independent member of the family.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
5 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

I only tick the "Editorial only" if I specifically want to prevent an image from being used commercially.

 

Thank you Mark. This is really what the question came down to for me. I also really appreciate everyone's insights on the people/property/release questions. I thought I had that part correct, but getting confirmation is a great relief. Explicitly knowing that I don't need to mark "editorial" in addition to disclosing my lack of release forms is the biggest deal. 

 

Thanks everyone for your insights and suggestions. I'm excited to get started!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
12 hours ago, Cal said:

with respect I’m not thick

I never said you were.

 

12 hours ago, Cal said:

I don’t think it’s bad advice to give. 

I didn't say that either.

 

Sorry if I caused offence. I didn't mean any.

 

12 hours ago, Cal said:

as you can see it’s a complete minefield

 

Agreed. The old Alamy Image Manager used to ask if images contained property that needed a release. With the new AIM Alamy have simplified it, which makes life easier. But you're right there's a limit somewhere and your method of leaving the boxes blank avoids the need to think about it.

 

But,  there maybe some downsides. I suspect such images are excluded from search results where the customer has ticked that they require model released or property released images. If the customer ticks the "Property Released" box, I believe the search results will include images that contain property with releases and also images that are marked as not containing property. It not a big deal, just something to be aware of. In my case I rarely see searches with [MR] or [PR], although that's probably got more to do with my portfolio which contains very few shots with people in.

 

More significantly though, not filling in the optional "Number of people" box will presumably exclude those images from any search results where the customer has specified the number of people they want to in the image. I see quite a few searches where [WOP] has been selected. 

 

So whilst there maybe advantages to leaving those optional boxes blank, there may also be downsides.

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Hi all

I'm also new to Alamy and have had worries about this issue. I have always ticked "editorial" for any images with people or property in and found my images were accepted. What is the difference if I tick editorial or don't tick editorial? What would happen if you took a picture of the New York skyline, that would be impossible to get releases for every building?  What should I put these images in...Rights Managed or Royalty Free? Is one better than the other?

Thanks for any help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
42 minutes ago, BuddyL said:

Hi all

I'm also new to Alamy and have had worries about this issue. I have always ticked "editorial" for any images with people or property in and found my images were accepted. What is the difference if I tick editorial or don't tick editorial? What would happen if you took a picture of the New York skyline, that would be impossible to get releases for every building?  What should I put these images in...Rights Managed or Royalty Free? Is one better than the other?

Thanks for any help.

 

If you mean the "Sell for editorial only" box in the image manager, checking it can limit your sales possibilities. I check the editorial box for very few images -- typically those that contain artwork or ones that I definitely don't want licensed for commercial use. For instance, I have agreements with some museums that my images will be used for editorial purposes only.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 14/07/2020 at 00:19, Clarissa said:

I understand that I need permission to sell any images that include people. I also have read that I need permission from the owner of a building to sell a photo with a building in it. However, as I did further reading online (not just Alamy), it seems like there are exceptions. For example, if the people are small and unidentifiable I read that permission is not needed and elsewhere it argued I still did. More immediately, I'm uploading photos of old buildings from a recent trip. Some places indicate that only certain buildings are under copyright, so I should be fine selling these as is. On the other hand, Alamy implies that I need permission for any building in a picture or else mark as editorial only.

 

Please help clarify when I need to mark photos as editorial only. At this time, I have no permissions granted for either individuals or buildings.

 

 

This is not true. There is no problem with photos taken in public places. The only problem is if you want to sell them as RF because the standard RF licence means that they should be released for commercial use. That is why this strange thing called an 'RF Editorial' licence was created. 

Edited by geogphotos
Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • 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.