Is any branding acceptable

[Ian Cartwright]

I have just completed a shoot in a barbershop which has lots of branded products around. Even the gowns covering the customers contain large advertisements. Am I expected to retouch out or blur everything, or can things remain 'real'. The walls are covered in vintage American memorabilia. Is that likely to present problems?
I've had images rejected by QC before and I have become paranoid about everything I submit. 
Can anyone give me definitive answers on this subject?

Ian Cartwright

[Steve F]

16 minutes ago, Ian Cartwright said:

I have just completed a shoot in a barbershop which has lots of branded products around. Even the gowns covering the customers contain large advertisements. Am I expected to retouch out or blur everything, or can things remain 'real'. The walls are covered in vintage American memorabilia. Is that likely to present problems?
I've had images rejected by QC before and I have become paranoid about everything I submit. 
Can anyone give me definitive answers on this subject?

Ian Cartwright

 

Branding is acceptable, but the photo can't be used for commercial purposes by the buyer. Just mark that you don't have a property release under the Optional tab in AIM. If you really want to make sure, tick the 'Sell for editorial only' box (but you don't have to).

I can't recall ever seeing stock images with brands blurred out.

 

On a broader level, don't reproduce artwork or a branded object without showing some context around, i.e. show someone looking at a painting rather than just a simple reproduction of the painting.

 

Edited June 21, 2021 by Steve F

[Joseph Clemson]

If you wanted to make the image available for commercial use (advertising etc.), you would need to remove all branding and make sure iconic designs were not the focus of the image. You would also need to get model releeases from all people in the image and a property release for the premises. I would also recommend a strong drink and a close examination of the contributor contract to make sure you are familiar with the terms you have signed up to.

 

Most people here would not contemplate doing any of the above.

 

The usual pattern is to submit such images for editorial use only. Indicate that you have no model or property releases (unless you have). You might also want to tick the box 'editorial use only'. 

 

 You might also like to read the extensive thread on the new Alamy contract and espcially on how you will be indemnifying Alamy, its distributors, customers and various other entities against legal action in case you get anything wrong in all this before deciding how to use the image.

 

Me, cheesed off? Nah, not at all.

 

ETA. Having just looked at your latest Live News images, i guess you are faily well versed in the risks associated with being a stock photographer. Take my whinging with a pinch of (albeit serious) salt

Edited June 21, 2021 by Joseph Clemson

[spacecadet]

Alamy only QCs for image quality, so they won't be rejected for trademarks.

 

In the longer term, you may find the forum becoming less helpful, as quite a number of us have decided not to provide Alamy with free labour anymore by answering forum questions, the reasoning being that it is taking 20% of our income away, so why should we? Let Alamy pay someone to do it out of the extra money it's taking from us.

 

Me, cheesed off? Nah, not at all.

Edited June 21, 2021 by spacecadet

[Ian Cartwright]

12 minutes ago, Steve F said:

 

Branding is acceptable, but the photo can't be used for commercial purposes by the buyer. Just mark that you don't have a property release under the Optional tab in AIM. If you really want to make sure, tick the 'Sell for editorial only' box (but you don't have to).

I can't recall ever seeing stock images with brands blurred out.

 

On a broader level, don't reproduce artwork or a branded object without showing some context around, i.e. show someone looking at a painting rather than just a simple reproduction of the painting.

 

Thanks for the advice, Steve. I have model releases. I could probably get a property release but I shall not seek one out, and take onboard the advice to make the images for editorial use only.

[geogphotos]

Best to ask Alamy.

[Mr Standfast]

Some of those cyclists don't have bells on their bikes! Shocking!😀

[Ian Cartwright]

16 minutes ago, Joseph Clemson said:

If you wanted to make the image available for commercial use (advertising etc.), you would need to remove all branding and make sure iconic designs were not the focus of the image. You would also need to get model releeases from all people in the image and a property release for the premises. I would also recommend a strong drink and a close examination of the contributor contract to make sure you are familiar with the terms you have signed up to.

 

Most people here would not contemplate doing any of the above.

 

The usual pattern is to submit such images for editorial use only. Indicate that you have no model or property releases (unless you have). You might also want to tick the box 'editorial use only'. 

 

 You might also like to read the extensive thread on the new Alamy contract and espcially on how you will be indemnifying Alamy, its distributors, customers and various other entities against legal action in case you get anything wrong in all this before deciding how to use the image.

 

Me, cheesed off? Nah, not at all.

 

ETA. Having just looked at your latest Live News images, i guess you are faily well versed in the risks associated with being a stock photographer. Take my whinging with a pinch of (albeit serious) salt

Thanks, Joseph.

I have model releases, but not a property release. I do not intend making the images available for advertising. Editorial only, then, and no need for retouching.

[Ian Cartwright]

1 minute ago, geogphotos said:

Best to ask Alamy.

I looked for how to ask Alamy and couldn't find any links. I don't do this very often, but am hoping to step things up.

[Ian Cartwright]

3 minutes ago, Mr Standfast said:

Some of those cyclists don't have bells on their bikes! Shocking!😀

Ha, ha! 

[Ian Cartwright]

18 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Alamy only QCs for image quality, so they won't be rejected for trademarks.

 

In the longer term, you may find the forum becoming less helpful, as quite a number of us have decided not to provide Alamy with free labour anymore by answering forum questions, the reasoning being that it is taking 20% of our income away, so why should we? Let Alamy pay someone to do it out of the extra money it's taking from us.

 

Me, cheesed off? Nah, not at all.

Reassuring about the trademarks, thanks.

[Joseph Clemson]

6 minutes ago, Ian Cartwright said:

Reassuring about the trademarks, thanks.

 

The point about QC not rejecting for trademarks etc is that the contributor, not Alamy, very firmly  accepts responsibility for any potential copyright or IP infringements in images they submit (unlike most microstock agencies where they inspect for content as well as technical quality and reject potential IP infringements etc). 

 

I'm not sure all contributors (especially those who cut their teeth in microstock) have taken this very important point on board and are just pleased they can get their images through QC so easily.  I'm not aiming these comments spcifically at you, Ian, but your query ilustrates points which suddenly have a hightened profile because of the new contract.

[geogphotos]

2 minutes ago, Joseph Clemson said:

 

The point about QC not rejecting for trademarks etc is that the contributor, not Alamy, very firmly  accepts responsibility for any potential copyright or IP infringements in images they submit (unlike most microstock agencies where they inspect for content as well as technical quality and reject potential IP infringements etc). 

 

I'm not sure all contributors (especially those who cut their teeth in microstock) have taken this very important point on board and are just pleased they can get their images through QC so easily.  I'm not aiming these comments spcifically at you, Ian, but your query ilustrates points which suddenly have a hightened profile because of the new contract.

 

And since we don't know the answers relating to the new contract I think that it would be best to ask Alamy. 

[Joseph Clemson]

23 minutes ago, Ian Cartwright said:

I looked for how to ask Alamy and couldn't find any links. I don't do this very often, but am hoping to step things up.

 

You need to email contributors@alamy.com. You might have to wait a short while as they seem to be rather busy just at the moment 🙂

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, Ian Cartwright said:

Thanks for the advice, Steve. I have model releases. I could probably get a property release but I shall not seek one out, and take onboard the advice to make the images for editorial use only.

 

 

Editorial only is the most restrictive.  You can also just state that their is Property, and You have no release, and leave it for the client to handle.  Just make sure your liability insurance is in order in case of misuse and you, or Alamy your agent being named in any subsequent legal actions.  

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, Joseph Clemson said:

 

The point about QC not rejecting for trademarks etc is that the contributor, not Alamy, very firmly  accepts responsibility for any potential copyright or IP infringements in images they submit (unlike most microstock agencies where they inspect for content as well as technical quality and reject potential IP infringements etc). 

 

I'm not sure all contributors (especially those who cut their teeth in microstock) have taken this very important point on board and are just pleased they can get their images through QC so easily.  I'm not aiming these comments spcifically at you, Ian, but your query ilustrates points which suddenly have a hightened profile because of the new contract.

 

 

though it may be true a bit more review happens, there are plenty of images at MS agencies that are in clear breach of potential IP infringements, and laws of the land.  just saying, it's not because something is on an MS image bank that it is fine. 

[Steve F]

1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:

 Just make sure your liability insurance is in order in case of misuse and you, or Alamy your agent being named in any subsequent legal actions.  

 

Not needed if you correctly mark whether or not you have releases.

 

How would you be legally responsible for misuse?

Edited June 21, 2021 by Steve F

[meanderingemu]

5 minutes ago, Steve F said:

 

Not needed if you correctly mark whether or not you have releases.

 

How would you be legally responsible for misuse?

 

 

not being legally responsible, needs to be demonstrated and doesn't stop you from having to defend yourself.  Plenty of brands have gone a long way to enforce what they believe is their property, and i can think of a few i wouldn't even dream of taking any chances and not mark as "editorial only" 

[Cal]

On 21/06/2021 at 20:03, meanderingemu said:

 

 

not being legally responsible, needs to be demonstrated and doesn't stop you from having to defend yourself.  Plenty of brands have gone a long way to enforce what they believe is their property, and i can think of a few i wouldn't even dream of taking any chances and not mark as "editorial only" 

 

I have taken the cautious approach and gone through everything in my port recently with a fine tooth comb and marked much of it Editorial only, but I think the chances of a multinational coming after you for selling a photo for $5 that you didn't mark as editorial is highly unlikely, unless you deliberately stated you owned the property within or had releases when you didn't.

[meanderingemu]

50 minutes ago, Cal said:

 

I have taken the cautious approach and gone through everything in my port recently with a fine tooth comb and marked much of it Editorial only, but I think the chances of a multinational coming after you for selling a photo for $5 that you didn't mark as editorial is highly unlikely, unless you deliberately stated you owned the property within or had releases when you didn't.

 

 

i generally agree, but i can think of at least one, something about rings, five of them to be exact,  that has been really petty with any use of names and logo to "protect" their integrity (which is a farce considering some of their internal process).  i even saw a message recently from an MS to not even use their name in keywords or caption.  

[M.Chapman]

1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

i generally agree, but i can think of at least one, something about rings, five of them to be exact,  that has been really petty with any use of names and logo to "protect" their integrity (which is a farce considering some of their internal process).  i even saw a message recently from an MS to not even use their name in keywords or caption.  

 

ISTR a similar issue about the sign/logo of the underground rail system in England's capital city. Even if the logo wasn't the main subject (i.e. lots of context).

 

Mark

[Cryptoprocta]

On 21/06/2021 at 16:57, Ian Cartwright said:

Thanks for the advice, Steve. I have model releases. I could probably get a property release but I shall not seek one out, and take onboard the advice to make the images for editorial use only.

You're fine for editorial if you mark them as advised above.

It's seldom the owner* of the property who could give you a release, but the manufacturer.

For example, even if I wholly-owned a Ferrari (for example), I couldn't give you permission to use it commercially, only Ferrari could do that. Ditto a Marks and Spencer sweater, or anything which could be recognised as being by a particular brand, manufacturer or designer - it's not just brand names or logos.

*unless s/he made it themselves, to their own design.

Edited June 25, 2021 by Cryptoprocta