Opinion on record album/book image backgrounds

[MilesbeforeIsleep]

Hello folks, 

Been on the forum a couple of years, but haven't posted since my first few months, as I recall.

 

Do you think I've made a mistake in formatting of the several hundred record album cover images I've uploaded--in putting them on a white (or in the case of white covers, black) backgrounds?   It seemed a good idea when I started the project and haven't thought much about it since--but now I'm wondering if it will harm sales.  Seems like a dumb idea to me now.

 

Also, will Alamy object if I now upload the same images without the backgrounds?  Since I already have those files, would take little work to do so.

 

Thanks for your opinions and advice,

Michael

 

 

[geogphotos]

3 hours ago, MilesbeforeIsleep said:

I'm confused by the use of the word  "exclusive" in several of these replies.  The only option for declaring an image exclusive, to my understanding, pertains to whether or not I'm offering the same image at other stock agencies.  How is that a problem for record album cover or book images?

 

 

 

Alamy has another definition of exclusive that is unrelated to whether the image is not on sale anywhere else. 

 

Basically could another person contribute much the same or exactly the same image as yours?

 

When it comes to LP covers obviously you can't claim to be the only possible person who can send in a straightforward picture which is a copy of a famous album that has sold millions of copies ( or actually if it has only sold two copies!). 

 

To make your image exclusive you need to add something that other people haven't - such as somebody holding it or taking the record out of the sleeve - not just a head on straight copy of a 2D image. 

Edited April 27, 2021 by geogphotos

[MilesbeforeIsleep]

I want to offer a  delayed thanks to those who responded to my post--asking about formatting for record album covers.  It led in a direction I hadn't asked about--the propriety/legality of uploading album covers at all.  Not being a very experienced stock shooter, I was uploading both album covers and books based on the observation of some others' doing so.  My looking at the practice from the standpoint of having copyright to any images I take, I failed to see the violation of copyright infringement of the artwork itself.  Not  a brilliant decision, and it's not one that I thought a lot about--just following the  lemmings--but it's what I did. 

 

I have since deleted any of these images which--according to Alamy (and I asked)--could be seen as copyright infringements. 

As for Alamy allowing the images to be there in the first place, and for their selling such images, I'll say nothing, save to point out those facts.

 

Thanks again for the responses to my post. 

Michael

[Steve F]

3 hours ago, MilesbeforeIsleep said:

As for Alamy allowing the images to be there in the first place, and for their selling such images, I'll say nothing, save to point out those facts.

 

 

Hi Michael, glad it's all sorted. Just a note on your observation above:

Alamy spot checks submissions from contributors, and I believe 5* contributors can upload with little or no checks at all. Alamy relies on contributors to do their own checks as professionals. So there is opportunity for unsuitable images to slip through.

Likewise, Alamy staff may not have been directly involved in any particular sale to a client as it can be done by the automated website system. Again, this leaves some possibility for unsuitable imagery to be sold.

I imagine in both cases, Alamy would only become aware of particular images if their attention is actually drawn to the images by someone - normally the copyright holder.

Steve

Edited May 3, 2021 by Steve F

[MilesbeforeIsleep]

5 hours ago, Steve F said:

 

Hi Michael, glad it's all sorted. Just a note on your observation above:

 

I imagine in both cases, Alamy would only become aware of particular images if their attention is actually drawn to the images by someone - normally the copyright holder.

Steve

 

Thanks for the observations, Steve.   

[geogphotos]

6 minutes ago, MilesbeforeIsleep said:

 

Thanks for the observations, Steve.   

 

 

Steve is more generous to Alamy than I would be. My feeling is that even if there is staff involvement in a sale ( not just an automated sale) it is highly unlikely, certainly on the vast majority of occasions,  that they would call a halt even if there might be a copyright problem.

 

Every contributor agrees that they have the right to sell the image. It is a win-win for Alamy as I stated above.

 

Having said that I don't want to be sanctimonious. I'm sure that I have some dubious ones. But the risk is mine not Alamy's. 

Edited May 3, 2021 by geogphotos

[MizBrown]

I suspect this is an "it depends" situation in that the book cover and the album cover photos are promoting the books and the music.  But my instincts now are to set up scenes where the book is part of a celebration of the writer, that pure cutouts are more likely to be in breach of someone's copyright.

 

Do the book and album producers charge more or less for photos of covers?  And some small presses are out of business, so nobody would be available to get photos from.   Seems like this one is more a problem for the cover designer, but unless that person has retained copyright, the media company may control the copyright.  My impression is a lot of book covers are works for hire as copyright for the covers.  Just checked some covers and where stock photos were used as part of a cover design, there's a C in circle for copyright in the acknowledgements, but not a copyright notice for the book cover as a whole though the cover designers does get a credit but not with a copyright notice.