Property revisited

[Jansos]

Known property restrictions (UK): Does Alamy publish a list of known property restrictions in the UK? I know Adobe does but am not sure how up-to-date it is. With the new contract I'm going to mark everything as 'no property permission' just to be on the safe side, even cityscapes. Not worth the hassle of being challenged legally for a few $$. Am I overreacting? 

[Cryptoprocta]

18 minutes ago, Jansos said:

Known property restrictions (UK): Does Alamy publish a list of known property restrictions in the UK? I know Adobe does but am not sure how up-to-date it is. With the new contract I'm going to mark everything as 'no property permission' just to be on the safe side, even cityscapes. Not worth the hassle of being challenged legally for a few $$. Am I overreacting? 

I've always done that, as OldAlamy required it. But now I've gone through and ticked 'editorial use only'. Such a tedious process and I hope I haven't inadvertantly missed any.

[meanderingemu]

29 minutes ago, Jansos said:

Known property restrictions (UK): Does Alamy publish a list of known property restrictions in the UK? I know Adobe does but am not sure how up-to-date it is. With the new contract I'm going to mark everything as 'no property permission' just to be on the safe side, even cityscapes. Not worth the hassle of being challenged legally for a few $$. Am I overreacting? 

 

 

i'm confused so you had images with property in them and mark that them as having a "property waiver" even if you didn't?

[Harry Harrison]

35 minutes ago, Jansos said:

With the new contract I'm going to mark everything as 'no property permission' just to be on the safe side, even cityscapes.

Keen to do the right thing myself also but do you mean that you'll put this in the caption or in 'additional info', or simply check 'No' for 'Do you have a signed release for the property? '

[meanderingemu]

1 minute ago, Harry Harrison said:

Keen to do the right thing myself also but do you mean that you'll put this in the caption or in 'additional info', or simply check 'No' for 'Do you have a signed release for the property? '

 

 

i think i really over interpreted the question since day one i have always done.   If there was any material thing in picture:

 

Is there property?  "Yes"

DO you have a release?  "No"

 

 

 

the only image where i don't have that are wildlife, nature and flowers, and i even have some flowers where i'll state there is property if named  speciality species, and i am using the name. 

[John Mitchell]

52 minutes ago, Jansos said:

Known property restrictions (UK): Does Alamy publish a list of known property restrictions in the UK? I know Adobe does but am not sure how up-to-date it is. With the new contract I'm going to mark everything as 'no property permission' just to be on the safe side, even cityscapes. Not worth the hassle of being challenged legally for a few $$. Am I overreacting? 

 

A similar list from Alamy of known "property" restrictions around the world would be VERY welcome (hint, hint).

[Jansos]

16 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

i'm confused so you had images with property in them and mark that them as having a "property waiver" even if you didn't?

Sorry, I probably worded it badly. Not so much a specific property but one where someone, if they chose to be difficult, could argue that the photo included a part of their property. I'm thinking of shots where there is no singular property in the shot - more a cluster of buildings. 

[Jansos]

16 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Keen to do the right thing myself also but do you mean that you'll put this in the caption or in 'additional info', or simply check 'No' for 'Do you have a signed release for the property? '

Don't have a signed release - who can be arsed to get one for a few $$? Just going to be stating "No property release" on everything so as to avoid any doubt/confusion, even where a property release is probably not required - e.g. cluster of buildings with no identifiable single point of focus.

[Harry Harrison]

 

 

Edited June 18, 2021 by Harry Harrison
Duplicate

[Harry Harrison]

1 hour ago, Jansos said:

17 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

 

Don't have a signed release - who can be arsed to get one for a few $$? Just going to be stating "No property release" on everything so as to avoid any doubt/confusion, even where a property release is probably not required - e.g. cluster of buildings with no identifiable single point of focus.

 

Thanks, in the other 'contract change' thread James Allsworth confirms the following

 

"The people / property questions will remain optional. A problem for you would only arise if you say there is a release for either, and there isn't one. If you haven't told us either way then you would not be in breach of contract as a contributor supplying false/incorrect information. 

Of course there can still be liability issues for you if you've broken laws by taking / supplying the image or you've breached copyright etc. But for the release information example, the clause is concerned with false information, not lack of information on a field that is optional.

And as a final point, again this is not a new part of the contract. It's essentially been there forever in one form or another."

 

To me I take this to mean that since the default is 'No property release' then in terms of our contract with Alamy then we aren't under any obligation to say whether there is property in the picture or not, since that is in any case optional, same with the number of people. 'No model release' and 'No property release' will be clearly displayed by our images in any case.  Going a step further and setting all your images as containing property is possible and fairly quick to do in batches of 500 but perhaps isn't necessary. Going through our images and specifying how many 'people' on the other hand is a pain in the neck so I think I'll opt out of that one given that I never will have releases of either kind.

 

There is the other matter of our liabilities to external parties - copyright holders, property owners etc. but again surely we are clearly stating that we have no releases and the buyer is warned of that so it is their responsibility. In the example of AlbertSnapper in the other thread an issue was raised with Alamy by the copyright holders of the memorial in France and Alamy decided to remove all such images since the legal position was unclear and I remember this has happened before. Whether Alamy sometimes rebuff such approaches as without foundation I have no idea.

[meanderingemu]

2 hours ago, Jansos said:

Sorry, I probably worded it badly. Not so much a specific property but one where someone, if they chose to be difficult, could argue that the photo included a part of their property. I'm thinking of shots where there is no singular property in the shot - more a cluster of buildings. 

but i still thought we were supposed to indicate there was Property for those.   Yes the client likely has no issue using it, and under a system where i have to state Commercial/Editorial i would likely put as "Commercial" but not sure i could claim there was "No Property" in image.  

 

I agree with many, it is probably time for Alamy to issue what are the expectations of that Question. 

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

. Going through our images and specifying how many 'people' on the other hand is a pain in the neck so I think I'll opt out of that one given that I never will have releases of either kind.

 

 

 

I will take time to indicate if there is One or zero person, but this is for search optimisation, not contractual obligation.  My people counts are like birds, Zero, One, Many (5+).  If someone wants to argue they only saw four, i'll say i included the people in the bus, in case they are visible magnified 😉 

[Allan Bell]

I have just finished going through my port marking every image as "YES" there is property and "NO" there is NO release.

 

I have always marked images with people in them as "YES - how many" and having  "NO" release.

 

Allan

 

[John Mitchell]

3 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

but i still thought we were supposed to indicate there was Property for those.   Yes the client likely has no issue using it, and under a system where i have to state Commercial/Editorial i would likely put as "Commercial" but not sure i could claim there was "No Property" in image.  

 

I agree with many, it is probably time for Alamy to issue what are the expectations of that Question. 

 

Yes, the question "Is there any property in the image?" is much too vague. Just about anything can be "owned" by someone. What is needed is a clear definition of what Alamy considers to be "property." General guidelines and lists of specific subjects like those supplied by some other agencies would be a good place to start (it's never too late). Until this happens, confusion will continue to reign. Personally, I don't think that marking all images as containing property is a wise idea. It will just confuse and perhaps chase away potential customers.

[Michael Ventura]

I have always taken the cautious route on this and marked every image that has "man made" materials in, as unreleased property....I suppose the only exception has been when I have had Model Released photos (mostly of my own family) wearing pretty generic clothing.  Those would be an extremely small amount of my portfolio.

[Jansos]

16 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Yes, the question "Is there any property in the image?" is much too vague. Just about anything can be "owned" by someone. What is needed is a clear definition of what Alamy considers to be "property." General guidelines and lists of specific subjects like those supplied by some other agencies would be a good place to start (it's never too late). Until this happens, confusion will continue to reign. Personally, I don't think that marking all images as containing property is a wise idea. It will just confuse and perhaps chase away potential customers.

Not sure about that - too risky in my opinion to not indicate that there is property in the image. The rewards "$', '$$' or occasionally '$$$' do not cover the risk.

[meanderingemu]

2 hours ago, Jansos said:

Not sure about that - too risky in my opinion to not indicate that there is property in the image. The rewards "$', '$$' or occasionally '$$$' do not cover the risk.

 

I would love Alamy to chyme in,"Is there any rewards?".  What proportion of sales for commercial use indicated "No Property" vs "With Property No waiver" for images with physical man made things in them. 

 

This is one thing i think Alamy should be addressing in Blog instead of what Tourist destination already well covered in photo bank should i Go to? 

[Cal]

On 13/06/2021 at 05:20, John Mitchell said:

I'm currently sifting through my images (for the umpteenth time) in AIM, and I'm discovering quite a number where I was unsure about whether or not they contained property. For instance, I have a lot of images of handicrafts (mainly in Latin America) taken in markets, etc. Handicrafts, especially traditional ones, are not copyrighted as far as I know, but would they still be considered "property" for Alamy's purposes? Should they be marked as such?

 

What, me confused? 🥴

 

I used to take the approach that I would most often leave the optional fields for property and people blank, unless there was a very obvious piece of property such as a car or prominent logo in the image in which case I'd mark as property yes, release no. 

 

Property to me is anything that is privately owned, whether IP, a physical thing, or even land, and I think we would all agree that fits a broad definition of property. Since the recent changes and the commission cut I have taken the attitude of reducing risk and so any image that now has anything that could even vaguely represent property has the optional field answered and the editorial box checked. In your case I would absolutely mark these images as containing property.

 

[Harry Harrison]

I've never licensed an image from Alamy, is the buyer made aware of whether the contributor has stated how many people are in the picture or if there is any property?

[meanderingemu]

I was curious so went to check what Alamy tells clients.

 

I tried on two imaged one where i said there was property, no release and one image that I indicated there was no Property.   Both images were available for Commercial licence. 

 

On BOTH images, the image stated "Release:  Property- No", sending clients to the below link where they make their decision.

 

 

Based on this, it appears we have no control beyond saying Released or Not, and responsibility is ALL on the client, which shows that the question appears to be Purely optional for non-released images.  Adding fact Alamy representative have stated that having not answered does not mean misrepresentation on our part under the new contract, i will mainly focus on the "Editorial" yes/no field for my limitations. 

How do I know if I need a release?

1. Check if your use is commercial  or editorial . You don’t normally need a release for editorial use but there are some exceptions which we explain later. If your use is commercial and your image features people or property then you will probably need a release.
2. If the buildings or people are not recognisable you don’t need a release.

An image or clip can be used in a large variety of ways and since laws vary country by country, it’s your responsibility to determine whether or not a release is needed. You need to make sure that the release is suitable for your requirements and get any additional permissions from 3rd parties if needed.

Alamy does not generally have releases available for trademarks, brands, logos, copyright works - such as works of art and other similar intellectual property. We recommend you seek specialist legal advice for use of any images or clips featuring any of these intellectual properties.

 

 

 

 

 

[Harry Harrison]

33 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

I tried on two imaged one where i said there was property, no release and one image that I indicated there was no Property.   Both images were available for Commercial licence. 

That's what I've found with mine but wonder if there are any circumstances where the information goes beyond that, or if the buyer gets provided with this information somehow. If there aren't then it would suggest that this information (No. of people & Property - Yes/No) is really for internal Alamy use only and so James Allsworth's comments quoted above directly apply. In other words they are simply there to prompt you to think if you have a release and, in the case of people, how many. The concern for both Alamy and any buyer would only be if you state there is a release and there isn't otherwise the fact that you have no releases is plain to see anyway.

 

Of course, as he goes on to say, you still have to be confident that you had permission to take the picture if any was required (zoos, concerts, museums, galleries, public ticketed events etc.).

 

Still, I'm jumping to conclusions, a bit early for that.

[meanderingemu]

13 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

That's what I've found with mine but wonder if there are any circumstances where the information goes beyond that, or if the buyer gets provided with this information somehow. If there aren't then it would suggest that this information (No. of people & Property - Yes/No) is really for internal Alamy use only and so James Allsworth's comments quoted above directly apply. In other words they are simply there to prompt you to think if you have a release and, in the case of people, how many. The concern for both Alamy and any buyer would only be if you state there is a release and there isn't otherwise the fact that you have no releases is plain to see anyway.

 

Of course, as he goes on to say, you still have to be confident that you had permission to take the picture if any was required (zoos, concerts, museums, galleries, public ticketed events etc.).

 

Still, I'm jumping to conclusions, a bit early for that.

 

 

Number of people is clearly used in the search engine pulldown, though not sure if any clients use it.  

But i can't find anywhere the with/without property is used. 

[M.Chapman]

8 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

though not sure if any clients use it.  

I've certainly had seaches reported with [WOP] on the end (With Out People) and some with [WP] on the end (With People], so it looks like some clients do use them. But they don't crop up that often. The most specific search I've had was [pt] [wp] [teenager] [adult] [senior]

 

Mark
 

 

 

[meanderingemu]

1 minute ago, M.Chapman said:

I've certainly had seaches reported with [WOP] on the end (With Out People) and some with [WP] on the end (With People], so it looks like some clients do use them. But they don't crop up that often. The most specific search I've had was [pt] [wp] [teenager] [adult] [senior]

 

Mark
 

 

 

sorry should have been more clear, same as you i've seen WOP and WP, but not sure what they used for WP.  Most of my WP were crowds, so i assuming clients would mainly use 5+.    Can't remember from top of my head one were it was only One person in example, since i guess those the subject matter made that irrelevant.  I guess if someone wanted a specific individual with no one else in image. 

[Michael Ventura]

With all this talk about legal liability and property, I went ahead and deleted the handful of album covers and book covers that I had in my collection....then today I wake to a near $300 sale of an album cover for TV use in the EU.  I suppose I will keep them deleted, but tough to do with a sale like that.  Better safe than sorry.