RF requirements or policy change?

[Charles Stirling]

I'm getting confused about Alamy's requirements on Royalty Free with people. For a long time here its been required that any person, silhouette, even body part or so tiny that they are just a few pixels needs a model release for RF. Yet in Alamy promoting our images this often seems ignored. Are the requirements changed or simply ignored?

 

For instance just looking In Alamy's Visual Trends under the Moody filmic category ones such as “tourist is reflected in mirror”, “Walking in the underground”, “Conceptual photo showing concept” and others are all labelled as RF but also Model - no | Property - no.

 

The History of Activism others such as “A pro life demonstrator”, “Extinction Rebellion protest” and others also listed as RF yet no model release. Other sections have similar.

 

Alamy wants to promote our use of RF but has historically had very strict requirements on this. What's happening?

Edited December 1, 2021 by Charles Stirling

[Avpics]

8 minutes ago, Charles Stirling said:

I'm getting confused about Alamy's requirements on Royalty Free with people. For a long time here its been required that any person, silhouette, even body part or so tiny that they are just a few pixels needs a model release for RF....

That isn't correct. RF Editorial with no releases has been an option for many years.

[Charles Stirling]

8 minutes ago, Avpics said:

That isn't correct. RF Editorial with no releases has been an option for many years.

I gathered that but thought, maybe wrongly, it had to be RM for that if it had people. RF could be editorial without people.

[Joseph Clemson]

RF Editorial is a legitimate option. However I did get a response from Alamy on this subject which said that where unreleased people are depicted, RM is a better option as they can control the licencing for a particular use and customer. Once a RF image is licenceced there is no way of controlling or monitoring how it may be used in future. I've always stuck strictly to RM at Alamy  simply so I have some idea of how my images are being used and that they are licenced appropriately.

[meanderingemu]

9 minutes ago, Joseph Clemson said:

RF Editorial is a legitimate option. However I did get a response from Alamy on this subject which said that where unreleased people are depicted, RM is a better option as they can control the licencing for a particular use and customer. Once a RF image is licenceced there is no way of controlling or monitoring how it may be used in future. I've always stuck strictly to RM at Alamy  simply so I have some idea of how my images are being used and that they are licenced appropriately.

 

 

"Control" ,  considering Alamy allows licencing that allows client to reuse the same RM image for multiple articles, regardless of relevancy, not sure what that control is beyond telling contributor "yep this was as per terms".  

[Joseph Clemson]

44 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

"Control" ,  considering Alamy allows licencing that allows client to reuse the same RM image for multiple articles, regardless of relevancy, not sure what that control is beyond telling contributor "yep this was as per terms".  

 

It is true that even RM licences seem to be allowed to cover a multitude of conseqential uses these days, but even so, at least if such uses seem to go beyond the pale, you have grounds for complaint. If the licence is RF or RF Editorial there are no such grounds at all if additional usage is by the orginal purchaser.