Trade names and trade marks

[Roy Q]

As a newcomer I've carefully read Alamy's advice on property and model releases. Like many, I don't really want to be involved with them (unless a model is friend/family etc). Therefore if a photo includes a brand name, I've been restricting it to editorial. However I notice many images with product labels, trade names and faces for sale on Alamy without being restricted to editorial use, and relying on checking the "No" field for model and prop. releases. I'm particularly cautious as I seem to be going through a "crushed drinks and food cans" phase (hopefully I'll soon be over it) and some litter-themed images might be seen as pejorative. Am I being too cautious or might some others be risking action for infringing intellectual property rights?

Regardless of whether anyone replies, having looked through many q&a's, I'd really like to say how refreshing it is to be part of a community where everyone is so supportive and helpful, even though in one sense we're all competing with one another! 

Thanks & best wishes all.

Edited March 18, 2022 by Roy Q
Spelling

[Joseph Clemson]

It really comes down to each contributors sense of risk and limiting exposure thereto. I am very risk averse so all my images are RM, marked as having no model or property releases and, in the vast majority of cases, I have also marked my images as 'Sell for editorial only'.  I started marking most images as 'editorial only, and became more risk averse when Alamy introduced their updated contributor contract last year, which made it abundantly clear that the contributor is responsible for any breach of copyright or IP infringement in images they submit. 

 

Nothing about the way contributors mark their images can actually prevent a purchaser misusing their image and perhaps precipitating legal action, but marking images  for editorial use makes it less likely that an errant customer could argue that he 'wasn't told'.

 

I have little doubt this risk averse approach has cost me sales, but I can sleep a little easier at night.

[meanderingemu]

one more note, i had an image that i overly zealously marked as "For editorial only" after he last contract change, and when i client wanted it for commercial use Alamy Sales Rep contacted me to remove restriction, with assurance that client was taking proper actions to protect me, so not all is lost by being risk averse. 

[Tatiana]

Thanks for bringing this up. It was also interesting to me that many photos without published model releases and containing brands are also posted for commercial use. And even bought for advertising.

[Taina]

 I checked this with Alamy in July 2021, here's the reply I got:

 

"Licensing the images as "Rights Managed", marking them "Property-Yes, release available-No" is the minimum you should do but you should really be marking unreleased images as editorial only."

 

 

[meanderingemu]

i would venture that most contributors don't venture into the "optional tab" to be honest, so they just get the default.  In the end as long as you don't misrepresent facts you should be ok (state that you have release).  

 

Personally i only add "Editorial only" on images i want to restrict and anything with art work as an Alamy requirement.  

[Roy Q]

Thank you Joseph, that's very helpful, think I'll take a similarly cautious approach!

[Roy Q]

Thank you everyone, those replies are all really helpful, and make the position clearer. Wish you all every success on Alamy.

Roy

[meanderingemu]

3 hours ago, Taina said:

 I checked this with Alamy in July 2021, here's the reply I got:

 

"Licensing the images as "Rights Managed", marking them "Property-Yes, release available-No" is the minimum you should do but you should really be marking unreleased images as editorial only."

 

 

 

but then Alamy back-tracked by saying these are still "Optional" and you would not suffer adverse consequences from not filling them in, 

 

 

"The people / property questions will remain optional. A problem for you would only arise if you say there is a release for either, and there isn't one. If you haven't told us either way then you would not be in breach of contract as a contributor supplying false/incorrect information. "

 

 

Posted June 16, 2021

[Avpics]

On 18/03/2022 at 21:43, meanderingemu said:

one more note, i had an image that i overly zealously marked as "For editorial only" after he last contract change, and when i client wanted it for commercial use Alamy Sales Rep contacted me to remove restriction, with assurance that client was taking proper actions to protect me, so not all is lost by being risk averse. 

Alamy have contacted me regarding a couple of restricted images which they wanted me to un-restrict for a client to purchase. I asked them for a signed letter that they or the customer would take full responsibility for any consequences from their publication. I didn't hear anything back.