A guide to third-party rights in images and rights clearance - new Alamy page

[Harry Harrison]

I think this is new, dated 29/6/21 by Matt Yau, seems more informative than those that came before.

 

https://www.alamy.com/blog/a-guide-to-third-party-rights-in-images-and-rights-clearance

[NYCat]

Interesting. It seems he starts out by saying this doesn't apply to editorial use. So now I wonder about taking down all my zoo images marked as editorial use only. Though, mind you, when I asked the NYC zoos I specifically said a stock agency and editorial use.

 

Paulette

[Steve F]

Useful blog, thanks.

[Joseph Clemson]

Interesting blog, even though it's written for the image buyer rather than the image maker. 

 

Deleted this comment, it would just lead the thread off course

Edited July 12, 2021 by Joseph Clemson
Deleted superflous comment

[meanderingemu]

3 hours ago, NYCat said:

Interesting. It seems he starts out by saying this doesn't apply to editorial use. So now I wonder about taking down all my zoo images marked as editorial use only. Though, mind you, when I asked the NYC zoos I specifically said a stock agency and editorial use.

 

Paulette

 that doesn't apply to the buyer,  since they would be entitled to assume the contributor had appropriate rights to take the image and make it licensable.   

Edited July 12, 2021 by meanderingemu

[NYCat]

17 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 that doesn't apply to the buyer,  since they would be entitled to assume the contributor had appropriate rights to take the image and make it licensable.   

 

Aha. Thank you.

 

Paulette

[BobD]

29 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 that doesn't apply to the buyer,  since they would be entitled to assume the contributor had appropriate rights to take the image and make it licensable.   

 

What would be the appropriate rights? If an image is marked as having no property release, the buyer would be wrong to assume the contributor has appropriate rights.

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, BobD said:

 

What would be the appropriate rights? If an image is marked as having no property release, the buyer would be wrong to assume the contributor has appropriate rights.

 

 

it's not the buyers responsibility to access if the photographers broke laws or rules of a certain property to obtain an image.  A buyer is in right to assumed the merchandise offered was acquired legally (same as you would not be criminally responsible if you bought stolen goods in good faith).   Actually the Contributor contracts clearly puts that responsibility on the Contributor.  

 

 

For example if i upload images from a professional baseball game to Alamy, where i am required to have authorisation even for editorial purpose, the buyer is in right to assumed I had such authorisation.  

 

Sections 4.1.14 and 4.1.15 of our agreement (based on new numbering, can't figure out what it was today)

Quote

1. the Content was not taken in any place where photography for commercial gain is forbidden, e.g. some museums, art galleries and other public or private buildings or areas; and
2. the Content complies with the privacy and property laws of the country in which it was taken, e.g. in certain countries before taking a photo of someone you are required by law to ask the subject’s permission.

 

[spacecadet]

10 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

it's not the buyers responsibility to access if the photographers broke laws or rules of a certain property to obtain an image.  A buyer is in right to assumed the merchandise offered was acquired legally (same as you would not be criminally responsible if you bought stolen goods in good faith).   Actually the Contributor contracts clearly puts that responsibility on the Contributor.  

 

 

For example if i upload images from a professional baseball game to Alamy, where i am required to have authorisation even for editorial purpose, the buyer is in right to assumed I had such authorisation.  

 

 

 

I disagree. The buyer is the publisher, not the contributor.

I have images of individuals taken in Germany, which has right of personality. They have been published in Germany. I have committed no offence because I did not publish them. The responsibility is entirely the buyer's. Offering for sale is not publication.

Edited July 12, 2021 by spacecadet

[meanderingemu]

8 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

I disagree. The buyer is the publisher, not the contributor.

I have images of individuals taken in Germany, which has right of personality. They have been published in Germany. I have committed no offence because I did not publish them. The responsibility is entirely the buyer's. Offering for sale is not publication.

 

would love to see how Alamy interprets this is regards to 4.1.15

[spacecadet]

18 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

would love to see how Alamy interprets this is regards to 4.1.15

As I said, I've complied with clause 2. I've even been challenged in Germany by someone who said I had "kein recht" to take a photograph, but they were mistaken- it's publication they can prevent, not photography. Alamy's assertion in that clause is dubious- in Spain for example you don't need permission to take a photograph of someone in a street scene, only potentially if they are the focus of the image. There is a great deal of misapprehension about this but the intent of the basic law seems clear.

Edited July 12, 2021 by spacecadet