logos, signs, etc. revisited

[John Mitchell]

I have a fair number of unreleased (of course) images of corporate logos, brand names, business signs (e.g. restaurants and stores), and the like. There are thousands of these types of images on Alamy, and the vast majority have not been marked "for editorial use only" by contributors. In light of the legal changes -- which I don't pretend to understand at all -- in the new contract, should we now be adding 'editorial only' restrictions to this type of imagery ? Are there other kinds of images that will now likely need to be restricted as well? Microstock sites restrict all images containing unreleased people and property to editorial use as a matter of course. Shouldn't that be happening here?

 

Permanently confused in Vancouver... 😕

 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2021 by John Mitchell

[geogphotos]

The same thought crossed my mind today. 

 

More positively, another thought  was that since all responsibility is being passed to contributors would it be possible that Alamy stops deleting images from the likes of the National Trust because Alamy itself is at no risk at all?

Edited May 22, 2021 by geogphotos

[meanderingemu]

based on fact Alamy seems to actively request for changes at client's request, i did go and change them to Editorial Only when it came out, will reassess   when my emotions are less confused. 

 

 

 

as for MS, the last statement is not as simple as it appears, they restrict images that contain "identifiable" people and property , and the identifiable part can be really fluid, and many contributors just play a game of resubmitting until it goes through on some segments, 

[NYCat]

I have gone through my images and marked people and property (including zoo animals) as editorial use only. I am lucky that the vast majority of my images are wildlife in the wild. I hope I am sufficiently protecting myself. I've always tried to be honest about it all.

 

Paulette

[John Mitchell]

25 minutes ago, NYCat said:

I have gone through my images and marked people and property (including zoo animals) as editorial use only. I am lucky that the vast majority of my images are wildlife in the wild. I hope I am sufficiently protecting myself. I've always tried to be honest about it all.

 

Paulette

 

Sounds like a wise idea. It's a jungle out there now. 🐅

 

I've started revisiting my images and marking more of them as editorial. Still not sure how far I'll go. It will be interesting to hear what others plan to do.

 

 

Edited May 22, 2021 by John Mitchell

[Colblimp]

Will Alamy change all my images to editorial only if I email and ask, or are we not allowed to make eye contact with it anymore? 

[Martin L]

23 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Sounds like a wise idea. It's a jungle out there now. 🐅

 

I've started revisiting my images and marking more of them as editorial. Still not sure how far I'll go. It will be interesting to hear what others plan to do.

 

 

 

If my images have the slightest chance of having people or property in them I have always marked them as 'people/property - yes', 'no releases' and 'editorial only' since I started

Whether that will still cover me on the expanded/newly worded new contract I am still trying to work out

Edited May 22, 2021 by Martin L
typo

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:

based on fact Alamy seems to actively request for changes at client's request, i did go and change them to Editorial Only when it came out, will reassess   when my emotions are less confused. 

 

 

 

as for MS, the last statement is not as simple as it appears, they restrict images that contain "identifiable" people and property , and the identifiable part can be really fluid, and many contributors just play a game of resubmitting until it goes through on some segments, 

 

Which ones did you change -- People? Commercial signs? Identifiable buildings? Identifiable people? All people? All of the above?

 

Yes, "identifiable" people makes sense. However, Alamy has never chimed in on this, so we don't know where they stand.

[meanderingemu]

23 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Which ones did you change -- People? Commercial signs? Identifiable buildings? Identifiable people? All people? All of the above?

 

Yes, "identifiable" people makes sense. However, Alamy has never chimed in on this, so we don't know where they stand.

 

 

at this point, mainly businesses and pictures with person as main subject- images that should not have been licensed for commercial use in first place.  I probably went too wide, and will adjust when i get my head clearer.  

[John Mitchell]

14 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

at this point, mainly businesses and pictures with person as main subject- images that should not have been licensed for commercial use in first place.  I probably went too wide, and will adjust when i get my head clearer.  

 

I can't help feeling that going too far with this will limit sales. For instance, I've had images with "property" in them (e.g. banks) license for "marketing packages," which can often pay well. I'm going to sit on things for awhile as well.

[meanderingemu]

3 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I can't help feeling that going too far with this will limit sales. For instance, I've had images with "property" in them (e.g. banks) license for "marketing packages," which can often pay well. I'm going to sit on things for awhile as well.

 

 

yeah i will probably adjust the other way as i assess. I add been lax in my other info over last few months because i felt Alamy had my back (ie if i left empty they would be risk averse and not take a chance), but i didn't feel this way when the new text came around.    I have left enough breadcrumbs in my KW to be able to identify quick enough to adjust. 

[Normspics]

Doesn’t the publisher still accept the risk in they publish and should know the limits of use for an image.

[meanderingemu]

41 minutes ago, Normspics said:

Doesn’t the publisher still accept the risk in they publish and should know the limits of use for an image.

 

we would like to believe so.  

[Ed Rooney]

 

I have tons of signs and logos. I'm waiting to get some clarification on this and other parts of the new contract from Alamy. They said they would be doing that soon. 

[MizBrown]

47 minutes ago, Normspics said:

Doesn’t the publisher still accept the risk in they publish and should know the limits of use for an image.

 

The Big Issue case proves not.   Assuming publishers hire people who know the rules?  One employer of mine didn't pay into state and federal unemployment taxes and blamed this on a clerical worker (nobody who worked for the company believed this).  Another company bought them and let many of us go.  We heard that we'd only worked one quarter according to state unemployment tax records (we had federal tax forms for all the quarters).  The company that acquired the firm ended up paying a fine of three quarter million since it was on them to do due diligence.  

 

If firms are going cheap on media, they can also be going cheap on staffing.  

 

I also had a colleague who decided that one of my novellas would be a good student movie script project since it was out of print (um, no).   Assuming people understand copyright or contract restrictions is naive.   I thought I'd checked the editorial only tick box earlier than today on my unreleased people photos.   I'll be keeping an eye on that.

 

Blaming ignoring a restriction on a photo on a very junior employee would work.  It's not like they were evading copyright.

[John Mitchell]

18 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

I have tons of signs and logos. I'm waiting to get some clarification on this and other parts of the new contract from Alamy. They said they would be doing that soon. 

 

... they may have already done so. 😕

[John Mitchell]

From another large stock agency that shall remain unnamed, here is a partial list of what "commercial use" images should not contain:

 

artwork, sculptures, architecture (?), exhibits, trademarks, logos, unreleased identifiable people and unreleased private property.

 

This covers a lot of ground. I put a question mark next to "architecture" because I'm not totally sure what types of buildings it pertains to. 

 

 

[Ed Rooney]

6 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

... they may have already done so. 😕

 

Really? Can you point that out? I didn't see it.

[Radim]

My common sense says (perhaps stupid)

 

that a photo that is marked as not having a release model and property release cannot be used by the end customer (publisher) for advertising, etc.

But if he does, then he takes responsibility.

 

The "Sell for editorial only" shelf is also related to this.

Why should I determine how where by whom ap can the photo be used.

In my opinion, the publisher assumes responsibility for publishing. The publisher must say "Everything is ok".

 

Alamy has been trying to tell us for a long time that we photographers are responsible for how the photo will be used. It is not like that.
I say again that the responsibility lies with the publisher and also with Alamy if he sells a photo that has certain restrictions and yet sells such a photo.
How is it possible that a photo that is sold for marketing or advertising did not have a model release and property release.
If a client calls me and says he wants to use a photo for which I don't have these confirmations, I won't give it to him.

But Alamy will do it, how is that possible?

 

In my opinion,  

Alamy has no control over the conditions under which it sells.

This is also related to copyright infringement. The photos are happily stolen and if we don't point them out ourselves, nothing happens.

 

Alamy is fully aware of this.

Therefore, they tries to get rid of and transfer his responsibility to someone else.

They thinks "we throw it at the contributors - it's a weak link in the chain, we can still plow with them". Unfortunately

 

Sorry my googlish

[John Mitchell]

2 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

Really? Can you point that out? I didn't see it.

 

I was being a bit facetious. Let's hope there will be some clarification.

[Keith Douglas]

I've just set all my images to editorial only. It seems the safest option for now, particularly as my trust in Alamy has been seriously eroded with the recent contract changes. It's clear to me that they're trying to pass more responsibility onto contributors in areas where the contributor has no control at all.

 

I could have done this selectively on an image by image basis, but what's the point of wasting more time when the conclusion might be that the risk of working with Alamy is too great and I'm out by the end of June. 

 

I can't see me investing more time submitting images to Alamy so I looked at what the likely revenue is from my existing portfolio through to the end of the decade. I based my projections on the trend in Alamy revenues per image over the last few years. It's about £2000 net in total over 9 years. I'd be better off doing a few hours paid work each year at no risk to my other assets rather than taking on some of Alamy's risk and ending up embroiled in an expensive law suit. You don't get many hours of legal services for £2000.  

[Ed Rooney]

Keith, how did you (or rather how can I) change ALL my Alamy images to 'editorial only' (and non-exclusive) in one go rather than one at a time? 

 

The Star in Woodstock used to be my local. 

 

Edo

[Colblimp]

3 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

Keith, how did you (or rather how can I) change ALL my Alamy images to 'editorial only' (and non-exclusive) in one go rather than one at a time? 

 

Edo

This is what I want to know. 

[spacecadet]

8 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

Keith, how did you (or rather how can I) change ALL my Alamy images to 'editorial only' (and non-exclusive) in one go rather than one at a time? 

 

The Star in Woodstock used to be my local. 

 

Edo

Ed and Col, you can change it in batches of up to about 500 at a time in image manager. Click on the newest sub, then scroll down an shift click on another, then click on "select all passed" above the filter bar and it will select everything in between. Then go to optional. It will take a while for those of us with thousands of images, or you can ask Alamy to do it.

Edited May 23, 2021 by spacecadet

[Colblimp]

2 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Ed and Col, you can change it in batches of up to about 500 at a time in image manager. Click on the newest sub, then scroll down an shift click on another, then click on "select all passed" above the filter bar and it will select everything in between. Then go to optional. It will take a while for those of us with thousands of images, or you can ask Alamy to do it.

Thanks Mark, I might just do that as opposed to asking Alamy and getting a completely negative response.