logos, signs, etc. revisited

[spacecadet]

Best to do it in batches of just under 500 so you know which you've done.

Edited May 23, 2021 by spacecadet

[Ed Rooney]

Thank you so much, Mark.

[Keith Douglas]

1 hour 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

spacecadet has answered it I think, but here's what I do. 

 

1. Go into Image Manager
2. Select a number of submissions on the left hand panel. It will display how many images you have selected in the middle panel
3. If there's more than 500 images select fewer submissions
4. In the middle panel at the very top click the Select All Passed box (don't use the ones lower down as they only apply to each submission)
5. In the right hand panel select the Optional tab
6. Click the tick box  'Select for Editorial only'
7. Accept that you want to override existing selections
8. Save
9. Repeat 2 to 8 with the next lot of submissions

[Jill Morgan]

3 hours ago, Colblimp said:

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

 

With a full mailbox, it might be awhile before Alamy could even get back to you on it.

 

Jill

[ManfredG]

In theory it should be enough to mark the images as "no release". "For editorial only" is just an extra option for special situations. - In theory...

But if you mark a "not property released" image as "editorial only" you may miss sales depending on the type of property:
- The owner of the property might want to use the image himself.

- The buyer may get a permission from the owner of property.
- The buyer will eliminate trademarks etc.

 

[meanderingemu]

14 minutes ago, Sally R said:

In relation to this general topic, all of my images are RM. I have indicated where there is property and no release, and where there are people and no release. Additionally, I have made some images editorial only as an extra safeguard, namely images with any form of artwork and objects with brand names/ logos that are the main subject.

 

However, I have not made storefronts editorial where there is a logo present as part of the overall scene. I realise now I haven't done this with cars either. Now, with the contract changes, I am wondering if everything should be editorial? Is this overkill? I am really not sure about this now.

 

I'm also wondering if RM even has a future at Alamy or whether they will make everything RF given they have stated that as their preference anyway. I have thought of emailing contributor relations regarding whether it is wise to make everything editorial and also whether they are likely to remove RM as an option, but it sounds from reports here that I will be lucky to get through to contributor relations anytime soon.

 

Just wondering if anyone has thoughts on the above? I am leaning towards leaving but still trying to figure out what to do if I did stay.

 

As I'm writing this I can just see ManfredG's comments above which I think partially answer my question, or at least address the issue of the consequences of marking everything as editorial. Thanks ManfredG. I guess a property owner who wishes to use an editorial image for his or her own business may contact Alamy and this may be a case where they may ask if we will remove restrictions.

 

is it overkill?

 

all this depends on your risk tolerance to be honest.  The risk of malicious misuse when you have already marked that you have no release is relatively small.  You then have Alamy's own reputation risk of using the clauses literally- we saw for example in the David Lynch image case it was their name on the front page so they were involved in the process of settling the issue, and i would have to assume had they then taken action against the photographer we would have heard about it.

 

i personally went with the go immediately safe, and adjust back way as dust settles, especially since regardless, i already will have to review my portfolio in next 6 weeks on the whole "exclusive" status, and i was finding too many gaps in my optional data.  

 

 

 

 

my view, if you still trust Alamy as a partner, it probably is overkill.  and if you don't the "editorial" issue is only one of the thing needed to review

Edited May 23, 2021 by meanderingemu

[Martin L]

1 hour ago, ManfredG said:

In theory it should be enough to mark the images as "no release". "For editorial only" is just an extra option for special situations. - In theory...

But if you mark a "not property released" image as "editorial only" you may miss sales depending on the type of property:
- The owner of the property might want to use the image himself.

- The buyer may get a permission from the owner of property.
- The buyer will eliminate trademarks etc.

 

 

Isn't the risk that the contract places on us that the buyer may not get permission from the owner and the buyer may not eliminate trademarks?

I too am staying ultra cautious at the moment. I may lose some sales but at the moment that seems the lesser of any possible losses.

[ManfredG]

BTW: None of the other (RM) agencies I work with offer options to restrict the use of images. All the contributor can and must do is to state whether he/she has a release or not.

The "editorial only" option is relatively new at Alamy and was introduced a couple of years ago after heavy demand of contributors. (During that time a very complex and fine tuned set of options existed to restrict usage. - Having exclusive usage in mind.)

 

[Martin L]

4 minutes ago, ManfredG said:

BTW: None of the other (RM) agencies I work with offer options to restrict the use of images. All the contributor can and must do is to state whether he/she has a release or not.

The "editorial only" option is relatively new at Alamy and was introduced a couple of years ago after heavy demand of contributors. (During that time a very complex and fine tuned set of options existed to restrict usage. - Having exclusive usage in mind.)

 

 

I agree but this is Alamy, not another agency and RM/RF is pretty blurred at the moment

If an image is marked 'editorial only' there is a banner on the image stating that 'get in touch for commercial uses'. By all accounts they do contact contributors to possibly remove restrictions, so I can make a decision then based on the potential riskiness of the image.

It just seems to me like an added protection buffer amidst the new contract furore at present

[John Mitchell]

4 hours ago, ManfredG said:

In theory it should be enough to mark the images as "no release". "For editorial only" is just an extra option for special situations. - In theory...

But if you mark a "not property released" image as "editorial only" you may miss sales depending on the type of property:
- The owner of the property might want to use the image himself.

- The buyer may get a permission from the owner of property.
- The buyer will eliminate trademarks etc.

 

 

Good points. Setting all our images to "for editorial use only" can't help but result in fewer sales, which would be bad for both us and Alamy. This is another reason why Alamy needs to supply some clarification and advice on what we need to do in light of the changes to the contract.