Property Releases?

[Martin L]

Had a thought last night about property releases that I wasn't sure about.

If you took a picture of a car for example and you wanted a property release, presumably you need a property release from the owner of the vehicle AND the manufacturer?

[Jill Morgan]

You would certainly need a release from the manufacturer, which I think would be almost impossible to get. If a very distinct vehicle, such as an antique, you would definitely need the owner as well.  If a common vehicle, as long as there were no identifying marks to relate to a specific person, then you probably could get away with no release from the owner as for example one grey Honda Accord looks much like another.  License plate certainly could not be visible. No visible decals, parking permits, items showing through windows, etc. But that would be moot, as no manufacturer is going to give you a release so people could use their vehicles in advertising or commercial work.

 

Jill

[Harry Harrison]

For me an associated problem is deciding whether an image contains 'Property' in terms of commercial use. So street scenes, scenic landscapes with identifiable buildings, even household items, some have even suggested farm animals. Easy with respect to a classic car I would have thought, though just a quick search for 'car' in Vital comes up with a few identifiable classics in the first couple of pages with no releases so these must be marked (incorrectly I would have thought) as not containing property. As you know, an image will only come up in Vital if it is marked as having no Property and no People, and so no releases - or alternatively it has Property or People but it has the appropriate releases. The same will be true of Ultimate I presume.

[Martin L]

Thanks both for that, it's kinda what I assumed.

I have no intention of getting Henry Ford to sign a release, it was something that just popped into my head after discussing with Harry and Jean Francois on another thread

[Allan Bell]

54 minutes ago, Martin L said:

Thanks both for that, it's kinda what I assumed.

I have no intention of getting Henry Ford to sign a release, it was something that just popped into my head after discussing with Harry and Jean Francois on another thread

 

Aim higher get Mr Rolls and Mr Royce's signatures.

 

Allan

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by Allan Bell

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

For me an associated problem is deciding whether an image contains 'Property' in terms of commercial use. So street scenes, scenic landscapes with identifiable buildings, even household items, some have even suggested farm animals. Easy with respect to a classic car I would have thought, though just a quick search for 'car' in Vital comes up with a few identifiable classics in the first couple of pages with no releases so these must be marked (incorrectly I would have thought) as not containing property. As you know, an image will only come up in Vital if it is marked as having no Property and no People, and so no releases - or alternatively it has Property or People but it has the appropriate releases. The same will be true of Ultimate I presume.

 

Exactly the whole Vital thing really messes it up, and the lack of feed-back from Alamy really is annoying.

 

 

A Ford car is obvious, but what about a cake on an IKEA plate (no logo)?  How am I to know of IKEA designs are protected?  

[Harry Harrison]

3 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

Exactly the whole Vital thing really messes it up, and the lack of feed-back from Alamy really is annoying

I suspect they can't tell us the actual criteria for Vital, because "This high-end creative collection is built on authenticity and created with emerging trends in mind."

[meanderingemu]

5 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

I suspect they can't tell us the actual criteria for Vital, because "This high-end creative collection is built on authenticity and created with emerging trends in mind."

 

yep my squirrel became an emerging trend overnight, nothing to do with changing my view of "property"

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by meanderingemu

[Harry Harrison]

1 hour ago, Martin L said:

Thanks both for that, it's kinda what I assumed.

There is I suppose the slight caveat that if you don't say there is Property, and so you have no release, then the buyer also has to think about whether a release is needed for whatever application. I think quite a lot here clicked on 'Sell for Editorial only' for ones they weren't sure about, I did anyway, and sometimes Alamy would contact us to see if an image could be used for a particular application outside of Editorial, there is a bit of a spectrum I suppose. Happened with me for this one, so two people no model releases. I said yes please, but it was just a company brochure, not an International Marketing Campaign. I see that I've still got this in Editorial but since the changes who is going to look for it there? It will never get into Vital but maybe it's better in Uncut now. I see that I haven't said there is Property, but there is isn't there, the pub? Hmmm. Decisions.

 

 

 

[Martin L]

13 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

There is I suppose the slight caveat that if you don't say there is Property, and so you have no release, then the buyer also has to think about whether a release is needed for whatever application. I think quite a lot here clicked on 'Sell for Editorial only' for ones they weren't sure about, I did anyway, and sometimes Alamy would contact us to see if an image could be used for a particular application outside of Editorial, there is a bit of a spectrum I suppose. Happened with me for this one, so two people no model releases. I said yes please, but it was just a company brochure, not an International Marketing Campaign. I see that I've still got this in Editorial but since the changes who is going to look for it there? It will never get into Vital but maybe it's better in Uncut now. I see that I haven't said there is Property, but there is isn't there, the pub? Hmmm. Decisions.

 

 

 

It would be interesting if it was a company brochure for Wetherspoons saying how Brakspear was cr*p (very unlikely however, I admit).

I would have labelled it as containing 'Property' and 'Sell for Editorial Only' and if they wanted to use it it would be up to them just to keep Mr Brakspear out of my bank account.

[Harry Harrison]

5 minutes ago, Martin L said:

I would have labelled it as containing 'Property' and 'Sell for Editorial Only' and if they wanted to use it it would be up to them just to keep Mr Brakspear out of my bank account.

Yes, It's an illustration of the dilemma(s) facing us, now exacerbated by the new Creative Collections, and the demotion of Editorial. Personally I don't think the pub is instrumental to the picture, it just happens to be there, different if I'd posed them enjoying a pint outside. But everyone will have their own view, I might have a different one tomorrow.

[Martin L]

6 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Yes, It's an illustration of the dilemma(s) facing us, now exacerbated by the new Creative Collections, and the demotion of Editorial. Personally I don't think the pub is instrumental to the picture, it just happens to be there, different if I'd posed them enjoying a pint outside. But everyone will have their own view, I might have a different one tomorrow.

Agree, I was playing Devils Advocate.

I might be a little too cautious with my own labeling but just trying to cover my skinny backside with the thin cushions that Alamy provide (not that they would  probably work very well if it came to it).

[meanderingemu]

42 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Yes, It's an illustration of the dilemma(s) facing us, now exacerbated by the new Creative Collections, and the demotion of Editorial. Personally I don't think the pub is instrumental to the picture, it just happens to be there, different if I'd posed them enjoying a pint outside. But everyone will have their own view, I might have a different one tomorrow.

Interesting i don't worry too much about the demotion of editorial, actually sales (in numbers) have been fine since the change. on other hand i have not had One sale of non editorial images since, and i really wonder if my strict definition of "Property" is hurting me.  On the squirrel above there is clearly a public bench so i never questioned and answered "yes there is property" knowing full well, and from experience, that the buyer would have no problem licencing it for non editorial needs. But now this means they were being told the image is "Unconventional Stock", and not "emerging trend",  if they even see it at all

[meanderingemu]

37 minutes ago, Martin L said:

Agree, I was playing Devils Advocate.

I might be a little too cautious with my own labeling but just trying to cover my skinny backside with the thin cushions that Alamy provide (not that they would  probably work very well if it came to it).

 

It's not "Cautious", Alamy TOLD us to put there was Property if there was anything in, and not to worry as the customer would realise that there was no release needed for the non-descript plate (or bench, or whatever).  Same with people , if there is one hand, if there is a silhouette in back you put YES People, Clients do the decision. 

 

Now those of Us who trusted them are at a disadvantage. 

[Harry Harrison]

1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:

"Unconventional Stock"

Yes, that is particularly ridiculous knowing what we know about how images get to be in Uncut, and so is "emerging trends" for similar reasons. I suspect that whoever came up with those headings had absolutely no idea what they were actually describing.

 

Mind you, I have to say that I have always been rubbish at marketing.

Edited November 3, 2022 by Harry Harrison