Property, silly question!

[Jansos]

Ok, so you are at home and you take a pic of a book you have bought, a vinyl record, a board game, toy, TV, whatever. The property is in your home and belongs to you but the book, record, board game, toy, TV etc. are easily recognisable but without obvious trademarks. Do you have to declare "No" on your Property Release?

[M.Chapman]

32 minutes ago, Jansos said:

Ok, so you are at home and you take a pic of a book you have bought, a vinyl record, a board game, toy, TV, whatever. The property is in your home and belongs to you but the book, record, board game, toy, TV etc. are easily recognisable but without obvious trademarks. Do you have to declare "No" on your Property Release?

I'd answer the questions in AIM as follows;

 

Is there any property in the image? YES

Do you have a signed release for the property? NO

 

Mark 

[meanderingemu]

i actually have never had anything i felt i was able to sign a property release for.  I do not know what designs are registered, protected, copyrighted.  Has not stopped images to be used commercially,   

[Joseph Clemson]

What I would put is

 

Is there any property in the image = YES

Do you have a signed release for the property = NO.

 

Books, record covers, toys, games etc etc. may contain images which are themselves subject to copyright. The items may be your 'property' in the sense of belonging to you, but the intellectual property is what may be at issue is such cases. By marking the property release section in this way the onus is on the buyer of the image licence to decide if they need to obtain releases or nt for their particular usage.

 

As an aside, I'm about to trawl through my own portfolio and delete any images which show book covers or other copyright material with little or no context. The new contract is explicit about not infringing third party copyright. 

 

[M.Chapman]

8 minutes ago, Joseph Clemson said:

As an aside, I'm about to trawl through my own portfolio and delete any images which show book covers or other copyright material with little or no context. The new contract is explicit about not infringing third party copyright. 

 

I've just done the same - IMHO it's no longer worth the risk (lower commission + the new contract makes it clear Alamy will simply attempt to "pass the buck" even if they grant the wrong licence terms). I marked the images for deletion in AIM, but because this takes 90 days (or was it 180?) to have any effect I then asked Contributor Services to delete immediately so they have gone before the new contract comes into force. They have now gone.

 

Mark

Edited July 8, 2021 by M.Chapman

[meanderingemu]

3 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

I marked the images for deletion in AIM, but because this takes 90 days (or was it 180?) to have any effect I then asked Contributor Services to delete immediately so they have gone before the new contract comes into force. They have now gone.

 

Mark

 

 

It takes 180 days for image to be deleted, however they do not appear in searches, nor are they findable by clients, after 90 days.  So i guess in between if they had the details of the image (like ID) they could contact Alamy to licence it, but no one would find it then. 

 

[Jansos]

On 08/07/2021 at 21:49, Joseph Clemson said:

What I would put is

Is there any property in the image = YES

Do you have a signed release for the property = NO.

.....

As an aside, I'm about to trawl through my own portfolio and delete any images which show book covers or other copyright material with little or no context. The new contract is explicit about not infringing third party copyright. 

 

Thanks for the tips, everyone.  I have a number of pics of book covers/spines and the likes without too much context. I suppose sharp eyed 'no win, no fee' lawyers will be looking for a fast buck and could well target the confusion emanating from Alamy's change of T&Cs. Probably worth doing but there are only so many hours in a day. :-(

[Dave Richards]

May I add to the discussion by asking a similar question regarding statues or memorials, in particular the memorial to the Women of World War II which stands in Whitehall close to the Cenotaph. The memorial was sculpted by John W. Mills, I assume (rightly or wrongly) as a commissioned piece and as such I guess (rightly or wrongly) that it is publicly owned.

Would the artist retain the copyright to the work in this instance?

[spacecadet]

17 hours ago, Dave Richards said:

May I add to the discussion by asking a similar question regarding statues or memorials, in particular the memorial to the Women of World War II which stands in Whitehall close to the Cenotaph. The memorial was sculpted by John W. Mills, I assume (rightly or wrongly) as a commissioned piece and as such I guess (rightly or wrongly) that it is publicly owned.

Would the artist retain the copyright to the work in this instance?

He's still alive so it's well in copyright, but a photograph of a sculpture in a public place doesn't infringe its copyright. CDPA s62. Put it down as property, no release.

Edited July 12, 2021 by spacecadet

[Allan Bell]

Just to be safe I have annotated ALL my images as YES there is property and NO I do not have releases.

 

Those images include flowers, wild animals/birds etc.

 

Allan

 

[Dave Richards]

46 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

He's still alive so it's well in copyright, but a photograph of a sculpture in a public place doesn't infringe its copyright. CDPA s62. Put it down as property, no release.

Thanks Mark. As a general rule I do assign all my images as having property/people as applicable, with no releases.