Editing out logos etc

[TEDDYHOLT]

As an example if I have an image of a fjord with a ferry in the distance with the name of the ferry, perhaps with a company logo as well then presumably I would have to notate it as identifiable without a release. But what if  was to edit out the name and the logo would it then be considered as unrecognisable property so ok for commercial use ? Hmmmm

[Pav]

22 hours ago, TEDDYHOLT said:

As an example if I have an image of a fjord with a ferry in the distance with the name of the ferry, perhaps with a company logo as well then presumably I would have to notate it as identifiable without a release. But what if  was to edit out the name and the logo would it then be considered as unrecognisable property so ok for commercial use ? Hmmmm

 

Erasing logos: RF - Yes, RM/Editorial - No

[Steve F]

If the image is not intended to be licensed for advertising, why bother? i.e. do you think someone would want to use the image for advertising purposes?

 

Also, I don't think removing the logo from a ferry would be good enough for it not be identifiable as property. The current owner may not be identifiable, but the ferry manufacturer would recognise their 'product'. And if any buildings are in the image, this also counts as property.

[Michael Ventura]

I would leave it in, as well as any other writings on the ferry.  Mark it as "no property release".   It is much more likely it could be sold for editorial anyway.

[wiskerke]

45 minutes ago, Pav said:

 

Erasing logos: RF - Yes, RM/Editorial - No

And then there's RF-Editorial Only: leave it in.

 

wim

[Mr Standfast]

All the above. Never underestimate the tenacity of someone trying to identify contents of a photo.  🦉🔬!

[TEDDYHOLT]

Thanks for all your comments. I think basically to just answer the questions and leave Editorial only unchecked unless the photo includes a recognisable person or a copyrighted building. So if the photos has 25 unknown persons in the distance and someone’s left thumbnail in closeup then answer yes to people and no to model release. Similarly if a photo includes a gate in the forefront with a pastoral scene as a backdrop then yes to property and no to property release.

I think this makes sense but maybe not ! I have just started a migraine !
 

[Steve F]

17 hours ago, TEDDYHOLT said:

Thanks for all your comments. I think basically to just answer the questions and leave Editorial only unchecked unless the photo includes a recognisable person or a copyrighted building. So if the photos has 25 unknown persons in the distance and someone’s left thumbnail in closeup then answer yes to people and no to model release. Similarly if a photo includes a gate in the forefront with a pastoral scene as a backdrop then yes to property and no to property release.

I think this makes sense but maybe not ! I have just started a migraine !
 

 

Yes, answer the questions. I never tick the editorial only box, it's optional. I think ticking the box affects which collection you get into now - doesn't seem to have affected my sales so I haven't worried about it.

 

Alamy are quite strict on their criteria for property and people in images, but it makes it easier in a way, just tick the boxes as you describe above. Any part of a person in an image counts as people in image, even a finger. To be honest, very few images will get used for marketing anyway, you'd need to do a proper set up in studio or spend a lot of time trying to get the right light and sky for a landscape shot rather than just shooting something when you're out and about.

 

As long as you have completed the people and property questions correctly, it's the purchaser who is responsible for the image use - editorial or marketing / advertising. I believe Alamy provide a lot of advice to purchasers on that front.

[Harry Harrison]

1 hour ago, Steve F said:

I think ticking the box affects which collection you get into now

Yes Steve, it does. It means it goes into Editorial so is not in any of the 'Creative' collections (Ultimate, Vital, Uncut, Foundation). Hard to tell how much difference that would make and these types of images with either Property or People but no releases will only ever appear in Uncut anyway.

 

Personally I don't agree about this 'part of a finger' stuff, to me that only matters if you have model releases in which case you would need releases for that finger as well. Similarly a field with a tractor or cow in it doesn't contain property in my book. The buyer is only told if there is a release, not if you have said whether there are people or property, and searching on the number of people gets a bit ridiculous if one of those 'people' is the tip of a finger.

[Steve F]

1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

The buyer is only told if there is a release, not if you have said whether there are people or property

I know that information doesn't show up if you search for an image through Alamy. I assumed it showed up if you actually went through the purchase process. Seems a bit redundant to ask the questions then (aside from number of people in image searches), particularly for property.

[Harry Harrison]

42 minutes ago, Steve F said:

I assumed it showed up if you actually went through the purchase process.

Well I've never bought an image and I don't think anyone has ever offered an answer to that question on here one way or another, but if you have stated that there are no releases then the number of people or the number of properties for which there are no releases doesn't seem to matter to me.

 

We now know that there is a distinction between actually entering that you have no people or property and no corresponding releases in Optional and leaving it as the default, which of course is also that there is no people or property and you have no releases as can be ascertained from the downloadable data csv. The distinction is that if you actively enter that information in Optional your image would automatically go into Vital (or even Ultimate though not automatically) rather than Uncut, if you don't it stays in Uncut for ever. Alamy have promised (twice now) to look at this problem with the downloaded csv and are suppoosed to be looking into it, although it has now been 4 years since it was first acknowledged by them.

 

This leads to another question, does it actually improve your chance of a sale if your image appears in the Vital collection? Alamy must think that it does otherwise the whole exercise starts to look a little pointless.

Edited August 18, 2023 by Harry Harrison

[Pav]

2 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Well I've never bought an image and I don't think anyone has ever offered an answer to that question on here one way or another, but if you have stated that there are no releases then the number of people or the number of properties for which there are no releases doesn't seem to matter to me.

 

We now know that there is a distinction between actually entering that you have no people or property and no corresponding releases in Optional and leaving it as the default, which of course is also that there is no people or property and you have no releases as can be ascertained from the downloadable data csv. The distinction is that if you actively enter that information in Optional your image would automatically go into Vital (or even Ultimate though not automatically) rather than Uncut, if you don't it stays in Uncut for ever. Alamy have promised (twice now) to look at this problem with the downloaded csv and are suppoosed to be looking into it, although it has now been 4 years since it was first acknowledged by them.

 

This leads to another question, does it actually improve your chance of a sale if your image appears in the Vital collection? Alamy must think that it does otherwise the whole exercise starts to look a little pointless.

 

Please note, that the question (not direct) was about legal(ity) of using/removing trade marks and brand restricted elements of the imagery. This is not free game, you cannot forge images for specific sales. Written release let you keep those elements on the images for future sales. You can't temper with images for specific sale models: Editorial / RM (except cleaning noise, various adjustment and cropping), but on the RF you HAVE TO remove them for legal reasons (i.e. to make a Apple laptop a generic one or this ferry to anonymise it). That should also explain you why all the faces on pro modes shots ONLY in RFs are sometimes heavy retouched beyond 'the normal'.

 

Pav

[wiskerke]

1 hour ago, Pav said:

 

Please note, that the question (not direct) was about legal(ity) of using/removing trade marks and brand restricted elements of the imagery. This is not free game, you cannot forge images for specific sales. Written release let you keep those elements on the images for future sales. You can't temper with images for specific sale models: Editorial / RM (except cleaning noise, various adjustment and cropping), but on the RF you HAVE TO remove them for legal reasons (i.e. to make a Apple laptop a generic one or this ferry to anonymise it). That should also explain you why all the faces on pro modes shots ONLY in RFs are sometimes heavy retouched beyond 'the normal'.

 

Pav

It would not work with the Apple. Nor with many consumer products like cars, washing-up liquid or soda bottles. It's not just the logo or the name.

This is being discussed on the micros for 23 years now.

 

wim

[Cryptoprocta]

Looks like a few people don't fully understand the difference between RF/RM and Commercial/Editorial.

RF/RM are models of sales.

The issue under discussion is when a file is suitable for commercial use.

FWIW, I tick 'editorial only' on almost every non-wildlife image I submit; maybe that's over-cautious, but it helps me sleep at night!

[Cryptoprocta]

On 15/08/2023 at 14:53, TEDDYHOLT said:

As an example if I have an image of a fjord with a ferry in the distance with the name of the ferry, perhaps with a company logo as well then presumably I would have to notate it as identifiable without a release. But what if  was to edit out the name and the logo would it then be considered as unrecognisable property so ok for commercial use ? Hmmmm

Almost certainly the ferry would be recognisable by its 'livery' if that's the word for the colour combination which it uses.

Also the manufacturer would recognise its shape, as mentioned above. Remember, that just because you bought e.g. a car, you don't own the copyright to it, so you can't photograph it and sell it for commercial use.

Edited August 18, 2023 by Cryptoprocta

[Cecile Marion]

14 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

 

FWIW, I tick 'editorial only' on almost every non-wildlife image I submit; maybe that's over-cautious, but it helps me sleep at night!

I do the same, and for the same reasons. It probably lowers my sale numbers, but also lowers the "risk" factor. 

[Avpics]

On 18/08/2023 at 08:05, Steve F said:

As long as you have completed the people and property questions correctly, it's the purchaser who is responsible for the image use - editorial or marketing / advertising. 

There was a lot of talk when the new (or one of the new) contributor contract(s) was published that much of the wording seemed to put more of the onus on the contributor than the purchaser should there be any legal issue over how images are used. I now only untick the editorial box if faces or property are relatively anonymous or distant, or don't contain either.