Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Joseph Clemson
Deleted superflous comment
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by meanderingemu
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by spacecadet
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by spacecadet
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.