Just Realized When I Should Use For Editorial Use Only

[Jill Morgan]

With the discussions on the various collections on which images with which releases go in which collections, I was looking at the individual page of some of my images.  When looking at the Harris Hawk image, which I had marked as Property - Yes, Release - No, I noticed that on the page Alamy just says Property Release - No.  It does not say that it requires one.

 

An image such as that would appear not to need one as it is of a wild bird so a buyer wouldn't look any further.  Who would need a release for a wild bird image?  So unless they search beyond those criteria, they may buy it with good intentions as Alamy has not informed them that this image does require a release, only that it doesn't have one.

 

I will be marking all my images of subjects that would be assumed to not require a release as "For Editorial Use Only".  I'm not sure how protected I would be in any future legal hassle.

 

I also noted that although Alamy requires us to say there are people, even if we can't recognize them (which keeps images out of Vital Collection) it informs buyers that property or people that can't be recognized do not require a release.

 

From the buyers information page on releases:

 

How do I know if I need a release?

1. Check if your use is commercial  or editorial . You don’t normally need a release for editorial use but there are some exceptions which we explain later. If your use is commercial and your image features people or property then you will probably need a release.
2. If the buildings or people are not recognisable you don’t need a release.

 

So why do we need to put people - yes on non-recognizable people if Alamy is telling their buyers they don't need a release for them?

 

Jill

 

[Harry Harrison]

43 minutes ago, Jill Morgan said:

I will be marking all my images of subjects that would be assumed to not require a release as "For Editorial Use Only".

Bear in mind that they will then only be found in an 'All images' search, or in Editorial, never in Creative, if you don't do that they'll come up in Creative - Uncut.

 

As far as I know the buyer is never told whether we think there is any property, and if we don't click into Optional they're not told whether we think there are any models either, at least they won't come in the 0 People filter.

[Jill Morgan]

33 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Bear in mind that they will then only be found in an 'All images' search, or in Editorial, never in Creative, if you don't do that they'll come up in Creative - Uncut.

 

As far as I know the buyer is never told whether we think there is any property, and if we don't click into Optional they're not told whether we think there are any models either, at least they won't come in the 0 People filter.

 

It's a tough decision, restricting images, but don't want to get in any legal issues either.  I'll have to think on it.

 

Jill

[Reimar]

Jill, I read your post twice, but I'm still confused.

Why would you mark an image of a wild bird as "Property - Yes"?

Further, why would you limit an image of a wild bird to Editorial Only?

[M.Chapman]

I think the particular Harris Hawk Jill is referring to isn't acually wild (hence property = yes) although it may look like it is. See 

Mark

Edited November 7, 2022 by M.Chapman

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, Reimar said:

Jill, I read your post twice, but I'm still confused.

Why would you mark an image of a wild bird as "Property - Yes"?

Further, why would you limit an image of a wild bird to Editorial Only?

 

because the image was taking in a wildlife rescue site.  Not sure why you would mark them as editorial only, except if it was a condition of paid admission. 

[meanderingemu]

2 hours ago, Jill Morgan said:

 

 

So why do we need to put people - yes on non-recognizable people if Alamy is telling their buyers they don't need a release for them?

 

Jill

 

 

 

one of the main reason is it puts the onus of the decision on the client, not on the contributor nor Alamy

[gvallee]

@Jill Morgan Your hawk cannot be mistaken for a wild bird as it clearly has a ring.

[Martin L]

2 minutes ago, gvallee said:

@Jill Morgan Your hawk cannot be mistaken for a wild bird as it clearly has a ring.

Lots of wild birds have rings, I suppose it depends if the ring number or style of the ring (if it can be clearly identified) attributes it to a particular owner like racing pigeons for example.

[Steve F]

1 minute ago, Martin L said:

Lots of wild birds have rings, I suppose it depends if the ring number or style of the ring (if it can be clearly identified) attributes it to a particular owner like racing pigeons for example.

 

I try to be pragmatic about it too. If it's not identifiable property, I mark as 'no property' in AIM.

[meanderingemu]

9 minutes ago, Steve F said:

 

I try to be pragmatic about it too. If it's not identifiable property, I mark as 'no property' in AIM.

 

but that is the problem, those were not the instructions from Alamy- the question is Is there property, not is there identifiable property.  and it never created an issue since we were all treated the same and clients would be trusted.  But now Alamy has changed the rules, and some people have a marked advantage.  

 

Worse the info was supposed to be Optional.

[Steve F]

3 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

but that is the problem, those were not the instructions from Alamy- the question is Is there property, not is there identifiable property.

 

I realise it's not consistent, because I follow the Alamy advice with respect to people being in images, which is much more stringent...

[meanderingemu]

6 minutes ago, Steve F said:

 

I realise it's not consistent, because I follow the Alamy advice with respect to people being in images, which is much more stringent...

 

and i don't blame you, but now as we see the examples in the Vital thread, it is obvious that Alamy gives a preferred status to those that are "pragmatic" version "literal", and I have no issue with that now that i know this is what Alamy promotes. 

[meanderingemu]

27 minutes ago, Martin L said:

Lots of wild birds have rings, I suppose it depends if the ring number or style of the ring (if it can be clearly identified) attributes it to a particular owner like racing pigeons for example.

 

plenty of birds i encounter in wild which are tagged for migration and movement tracking.  

[gvallee]

31 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

plenty of birds i encounter in wild which are tagged for migration and movement tracking.  

 

Fair enough. I hadn't thought of that angle. 

[Jill Morgan]

2 hours ago, Reimar said:

Jill, I read your post twice, but I'm still confused.

Why would you mark an image of a wild bird as "Property - Yes"?

Further, why would you limit an image of a wild bird to Editorial Only?

 

It isn't wild.  Bred by the Canadian Raptor Conservancy.  

 

1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:

 

because the image was taking in a wildlife rescue site.  Not sure why you would mark them as editorial only, except if it was a condition of paid admission. 

 

There is no paid admission.  You pay for the right to photograph the birds.

 

Jill

[meanderingemu]

5 minutes ago, Jill Morgan said:

 

 

 

There is no paid admission.  You pay for the right to photograph the birds.

 

Jill

 

 

wouldn't that be your release then?

[Martin L]

21 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

wouldn't that be your release then?

That's an interesting point, wonder what the rights Jill has paid for if it wasn't admission?

[M.Chapman]

I think I just noticed something else that's changed with the new website when searching in the ALL category.

 

If I recall correctly - with the old Alamy website front end,  if I asked for Property Released images, then it would display both

• Images marked as containing property AND with a property release
• Images marked as NOT containing property (i.e. no property release required)

But now it ONLY displays

• Images marked as containing property AND with a property release

This is now inconsistent with the behaviour of Model Released filter which, with the new and old website displays

• Images marked as containing some People WITH model release(s)
• Images marked as NOT containing people (i.e. no model release required)

What a mess!

 

Mark

Edited November 9, 2022 by M.Chapman

[Rebecca Ore]

2 hours ago, Jill Morgan said:

 

It isn't wild.  Bred by the Canadian Raptor Conservancy.  

 

 

There is no paid admission.  You pay for the right to photograph the birds.

 

Jill

 

I'd get in touch with them and ask if they were willing to sign a property release.  They would be getting publicity from your photo.   If not, editorial only.

[meanderingemu]

On 07/11/2022 at 13:41, Steve F said:

 

I try to be pragmatic about it too. If it's not identifiable property, I mark as 'no property' in AIM.

 

Since Alamy has made it clear that they intend to maintain the status quo and give a preferential label (Trending/Vital) to those who push the boundary, and even those that go over it as illustrated in the now locked Vital thread, I am starting to think you have the best approach.  It is obvious that the decision is to leave the rules vague, encouraging Contributor to push the limit to not get a label of "unconventional stock", so that later Alamy can claim deniability if a usage goes bad. 

 

One thing to note, the answer about property and people is not provided to the client, only the release question.  An image marked as No Property still gets the same link to "Do I need a release?"

 

 

[Martin L]

1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:

 

Since Alamy has made it clear that they intend to maintain the status quo and give a preferential label (Trending/Vital) to those who push the boundary, and even those that go over it as illustrated in the now locked Vital thread, I am starting to think you have the best approach.  It is obvious that the decision is to leave the rules vague, encouraging Contributor to push the limit to not get a label of "unconventional stock", so that later Alamy can claim deniability if a usage goes bad. 

 

One thing to note, the answer about property and people is not provided to the client, only the release question.  An image marked as No Property still gets the same link to "Do I need a release?"

 

 

I'm screwed then because I ain't taking the risk.

My photos will be found covered in dust in a corner of Alamys draw marked 'Unconventional Stock- Do Not Use'

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, Martin L said:

I'm screwed then because I ain't taking the risk.

My photos will be found covered in dust in a corner of Alamys draw marked 'Unconventional Stock- Do Not Use'

 

and this is the problem that the new structure has created.  i am now working at re-uploading images that i did as Live News that warrant to be non editorial stock.  so much extra work 

Edited November 9, 2022 by meanderingemu

[Rebecca Ore]

On 07/11/2022 at 11:57, Steve F said:

 

I realise it's not consistent, because I follow the Alamy advice with respect to people being in images, which is much more stringent...

 

People in images are more likely to complain if their hand appears in an ad for Alzheimer's meds or a sexually transmitted disease clinic, or something like that.   I just checked my portfolio and had already marked hands patting pets as people without releases.  And the mirador photo is no longer in Vital after the change yesterday. 

 

As for advertising, it's not just a matter of the optional annotations.  James said that what advertisers tend to look for is released people doing things.   Lifestyle in the advertiser sense of the word.   Some of us will want to pursue this as a specialty.   Some won't.

 

 

 

 

[Steve F]

2 minutes ago, Rebecca Ore said:

James said that what advertisers tend to look for is released people doing things.

 

Sure. But then you need to make sure all the clothes and props are not recognisable property either. Hard work... Definitely not my speciality, for now anyway.