Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Did anyone else get an e-mail from Alamy like this one?

 

"You have restrictions applied to 63 of your images. Our customers find images with restrictions scary and confusing and tend not to buy them. To increase your chances of making sales, check your restrictions are still needed and if they're not, remove them."

 

I've always wondered about this. The restrictions that I have are to ensure editorial use. Is it better to remove the restrictions and just write "for editorial use only" in the description field? Alamy's system for setting restrictions does seem a bit intimidating.I wonder why they keep the current system if it limits sales.

Edited by John Mitchell
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I got it. When I first started I used to set restrictions for non-released images, but soon realised that

 

a) it wasn't necessary.

B) it was flipping time consuming

 

So I stopped!

 

It was about 130 images out of 1700+, so I let Alamy do the work as they suggested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I got it. When I first started I used to set restrictions for non-released images, but soon realised that

 

a) it wasn't necessary.

B) it was flipping time consuming

 

So I stopped!

 

It was about 130 images out of 1700+, so I let Alamy do the work as they suggested.

Why did you decide it wasn't necessary? Also, if it truly isn't necessary, I wonder why Alamy has set up such an involved system for setting restrictions.

Edited by John Mitchell
Link to post
Share on other sites

You need not even say, Editorial Use Only, John.  All you have to do is declare no MR and possibly no PR.  It's up to the client to decide on their use.  Keep things simple, as Alamy suggests. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need not even say, Editorial Use Only, John.  All you have to do is declare no MR and possibly no PR.  It's up to the client to decide on their use.  Keep things simple, as Alamy suggests. 

 

Maybe I'm just over-twitchy about this but I also like to put 'EDITORIAL USE ONLY' in the description box. If there is ever any comeback about a non-released image of mine being used for commercial purposes, I want the image release status be as clear as possible to all concerned, and that the purchaser had no excuse for not realising the image was for editorial purposes only.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need not even say, Editorial Use Only, John.  All you have to do is declare no MR and possibly no PR.  It's up to the client to decide on their use.  Keep things simple, as Alamy suggests. 

Yes, that has always been my understanding as well. Alamy is the only agency I've dealt with that has such an elaborate system for setting restrictions.

Edited by John Mitchell
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You need not even say, Editorial Use Only, John.  All you have to do is declare no MR and possibly no PR.  It's up to the client to decide on their use.  Keep things simple, as Alamy suggests. 

 

Maybe I'm just over-twitchy about this but I also like to put 'EDITORIAL USE ONLY' in the description box. If there is ever any comeback about a non-released image of mine being used for commercial purposes, I want the image release status be as clear as possible to all concerned, and that the purchaser had no excuse for not realising the image was for editorial purposes only.

 

Right, I usually do that as well. Twitch, twitch...

Edited by John Mitchell
Link to post
Share on other sites

John - it was purely on advice on the old forum. The general consensus seemed to be "let the buyer decide" on the release/editorial scenario and only put on a restriction if it was something you specifically wanted to exclude, such as certain territories etc.

Yes, I recall those discussions on the old forum. I've now removed the restrictions on most of my 63 restricted images using "Manage Your Images" and have added "EDITORIAL USE ONLY" in the description fields for good measure. It's quite easy to do as you can process them in batches. Just leave the restriction choices blank and click "Save all Changes," and the restrictions disappear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I received the same but I have just advised them again that all of my restrictions (worldwide, editorial, editorial websites) will remain because I would rather not license my work for next to nothing.  As they refused to let me know how much the client was going to pay for a restricted image should I remove the restrictions, I told them that the restriction stays.  I probably "lost" about ten bucks!  

 

Sheila

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a buyer decides to use an image of mine for a package cover or an ad, even though I've selected RM and stated that I have no model release for that arm that's sticking into the frame and no PR for that fast food cart, that's fine by me.  And regarding property releases, the ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers) have never been involved in a case concerning a PR.   B)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Different lawyers I've worked with thru the years have advised me that according to the TOS of most agencies,it would be the photographer that would get hauled into court by a subject that was in the photo and used for commercial purposes.

Even though we have no idea where these images will be used or how they will be used,the fact that we are the copyright holder,photographer and submitted them for sale to an agency would make us a big part of the lawsuit.

 

Many editors(and some lawyers) believe it or not do not know that you can read the caption info in Photoshop. In some programs not all the fields show up either.So,if you noted in the Alamy description area 'Editorial Used Only' that might not be a permanent part of your image an editor can or will read.

 

I restrict all of my people and especially celebrity images. I knew a photog that was a law student back in the 1980s whose agency sold images of his to a calendar in Europe featuring several rock stars. All of those artists filed suit against the photog,agency and calender company.

I heard they settled out of court and he had told someone he'd be working that debt off for years.

 

I know we live in a litigious society,so I'd rather cover my rear!

 

L

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Different lawyers I've worked with thru the years have advised me that according to the TOS of most agencies,it would be the photographer that would get hauled into court by a subject that was in the photo and used for commercial purposes.

Even though we have no idea where these images will be used or how they will be used,the fact that we are the copyright holder,photographer and submitted them for sale to an agency would make us a big part of the lawsuit.

 

Many editors(and some lawyers) believe it or not do not know that you can read the caption info in Photoshop. In some programs not all the fields show up either.So,if you noted in the Alamy description area 'Editorial Used Only' that might not be a permanent part of your image an editor can or will read.

 

I restrict all of my people and especially celebrity images. I knew a photog that was a law student back in the 1980s whose agency sold images of his to a calendar in Europe featuring several rock stars. All of those artists filed suit against the photog,agency and calender company.

I heard they settled out of court and he had told someone he'd be working that debt off for years.

 

I know we live in a litigious society,so I'd rather cover my rear!

 

L

Linda, when you say that you restrict all of your people, do you mean that you set the restrictions as Alamy suggests so that your images will be available for editorial use only?

 

No rock stars or litigious celebs in my collection, fortunately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Different lawyers I've worked with thru the years have advised me that according to the TOS of most agencies,it would be the photographer that would get hauled into court by a subject that was in the photo and used for commercial purposes.

Even though we have no idea where these images will be used or how they will be used,the fact that we are the copyright holder,photographer and submitted them for sale to an agency would make us a big part of the lawsuit.

 

Many editors(and some lawyers) believe it or not do not know that you can read the caption info in Photoshop. In some programs not all the fields show up either.So,if you noted in the Alamy description area 'Editorial Used Only' that might not be a permanent part of your image an editor can or will read.

 

I restrict all of my people and especially celebrity images. I knew a photog that was a law student back in the 1980s whose agency sold images of his to a calendar in Europe featuring several rock stars. All of those artists filed suit against the photog,agency and calender company.

I heard they settled out of court and he had told someone he'd be working that debt off for years.

 

I know we live in a litigious society,so I'd rather cover my rear!

 

L

Linda, when you say that you restrict all of your people, do you mean that you set the restrictions as Alamy suggests so that your images will be available for editorial use only?

 

No rock stars or litigious celebs in my collection, fortunately.

 

I don't have 'Editorial Use Only' written in the fields on Alamy. But I have restrictions set for no advertising,commercial use whatever so if someone is looking for an image of say of a certain 'celebrity' well they will see it red-lined with restrictions and move on. On the other hand,those shopping for editorial use know those restrictions mean no advertising  use but they know they will just be using for editorial. Years ago I almost got in trouble with a band when Rolling Stone Magazine licensed one of our images for an 'advertorial.' It was a new 'scheme' at the time and quite borderline ad use. For the life of me,can't remember the band as the photo belonged to one of my photogs. The band had a fit,record company banned us for a few weeks until they 'got over it' and that was back in the mid 80s when lawsuits were not at the drop of a hat. I'm just very careful because I know that sometimes the new breed of researcher or temp help doesn't really know some of the things they should know.  L

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.