property release Oxford

[Flick Merauld]

Hi everyone, I live in Oxford and many of my photos are taken there (I'm gradually uploading to Alamy). I can't get a clear answer either from Alamy support or online, as to whether I need a property release for photos taken round the city, given that almost every photo taken in the centre will include at least one college facade taken from the street. Each college is privately owned, at least by a faculty, yet the colleges make up the city scape in the centre of Oxford. This also includes St Mary's church on the high street, the Martyrs Memorial and many other buildings and landmarks. Anyone know the answer please? Especially contributors living in Oxford. I've looked at the many photos of Oxford on Alamy and have yet to see a property release mentioned (I might have missed it!), but I'm wary of trusting what may be lack of awareness on the part of the contributors of those photos.

Similarly, do I need property release for residential narrowboats on the river?

Flick

Edited November 4, 2023 by Flick Merauld

[Martin L]

You don't need property releases, on the Optional tab just select 'Contains property' and set 'Property release to ' No'.

For belt and braces I usually set 'Sell for editorial only', some people don't as they think it restricts sales possibilities and put the onus on the user to source releases or take the risk.

Its up to you.

If you were to sell it for commercial, advertising use then you require property releases or as previously let the user take the risk.

However if you don't protect yourself and the sh*t hits the fan, it's down to you and a bun fight helping to buy your lawyer a new Merc

[Joseph Clemson]

Broadly speaking, the question boils down to whether your images are going to be used for commercial purposes (example, advertising) or editorial (newspaper, magazine etc). In most cases no release is required for editorial use. You, as the contributor, mark each image as Martin describes and it is then up to whoever licences your image to use it appropriately.

 

If the 'no releases' tickbox isn't checked, the image will be shown as available for commercial use. That may not matter as a savvy, professional buyer will know what is required of them in terms of obtaining appropriate releases or not for their particular requirements. However, a more casual buyer may simply take the apparent availability of an image for commercial use as a go-ahead for use in an promotional leaflet, for example, leaving the door open for a possible kickback from the property owner.

 

The same goes for images containing people and whether there are signed releases for them. If the relevant 'contains people' and 'have signed releases' boxes aren't ticked then the image will be shown as being available for commercial use and a naive purchaser may blithely use it as such. This aspect has even more potential for aggravation as individuals depicted may complain bitterly if their likeness is portrayed in a way they consider detrimental to themselves.

 

Like Martin, I tick the 'no releases' boxes for both property and people on nearly every image I produce. I also tick the 'sell editorial only' box for good measure. And for belt and braces, I add an 'editorial use only' disclaimer paragraph in the additional info section of the photo description.

 

I can't actually prevent a purchaser using one of my images inappropriately, but, my goodness, they will not be able to claim that they didn't know they couldn't!

 

I'm sure being so explicit about my images being editorial only hurts my sales, but I'd rather that than contemplate even the remote possibility of a legal kickback somewhere down the road.

 

What sometimes worries me is that all these important aspects of the image description are in the 'Optional' tab in the Alamy  image manager. How these things may be regarded as optional is a mystery to me. Yet, even some seasoned contributors say they ignore the Optional tab. Oh well. Unlike some of the microstock sites who check photos for possible intellectual infringements etc. and carry responsibility for such infringements themselves, at Alamy pretty well all the responsibility and all the risk is carried by the contributor. I, for one, feel that weight on my shoulder every time I submit an image.

 

 

[Flick Merauld]

Thanks @Martin L and @Joseph Clemson.. alas, it was as I feared. It's crazy, I live here, this is my city! Most of my images are going to have to be marked editorial only. Thanks again chaps.

PS: I strongly suspect Adobe Stock are going to turn down every one of my images for this reason

Edited November 6, 2023 by Flick Merauld

[John Morrison]

5 minutes ago, Flick Merauld said:

I live here, this is my city!

 

Well... kind of! But you don't actually own those "dreaming spires", any more than I hold the deeds to more than one property in Yorkshire.

 

We're all in the same boat, and it's really not a problem. 'Yes' to property, 'no' to property release. Job done...

[Flick Merauld]

Thanks @John Morrison I didn't mean it's my city in that I own it, but more in the ack, how on earth do I take a photo that doesn't include the forbidden sense. But point taken, and I'm glad to have got clarification at last!

[geogphotos]

52 minutes ago, Flick Merauld said:

Thanks @Martin L and @Joseph Clemson.. alas, it was as I feared. It's crazy, I live here, this is my city! Most of my images are going to have to be marked editorial only. Thanks again chaps.

PS: I strongly suspect Adobe Stock are going to turn down every one of my images for this reason

 

 

These pictures are what Alamy specialises in so don't worry about other agencies. Alamy is primarily known for editorial images. You are not expected to have Property Releases for them. I have tens of thousands of similar pictures.

 

You do not need to do anything with the 'Optional' choices - that is what optional means, you can complete that area if you want to or feel it necessary. Equally, you can chose not to do anything in the Optional area. I hardly ever bother unless I have a specific reason. 

[geogphotos]

Do really have a Property Release for this?

 

"Inside the Radcliffe Camera, Bodleian Library, Oxford UK" 

[Flick Merauld]

Thanks @John Morrison I didn't mean it's my city in that I own it, but more in the ack, how on earth do I take a photo that doesn't include the forbidden sense. But point taken, and I'm glad to have got clarification at last!

[Flick Merauld]

@geogphotos yes

[Flick Merauld]

29 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

These pictures are what Alamy specialises in so don't worry about other agencies. Alamy is primarily known for editorial images. You are not expected to have Property Releases for them. I have tens of thousands of similar pictures.

 

You do not need to do anything with the 'Optional' choices - that is what optional means, you can complete that area if you want to or feel it necessary. Equally, you can chose not to do anything in the Optional area. I hardly ever bother unless I have a specific reason. 

Thanks, that's interesting. And you've never run into any trouble with that? It's a learning curve. I uploaded to Alamy around 20 years ago then forgot all about it. Back needing to pursue it now

[Flick Merauld]

33 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Do really have a Property Release for this?

 

"Inside the Radcliffe Camera, Bodleian Library, Oxford UK" 

yes

[Harry Harrison]

I'm slightly curious in case something has changed. You have 16 images, 14 of these are in the 'Creative' Uncut section, 2 are in Editorial.  You have model releases for 2 in Uncut and Property releases for several more taken inside the Radcliffe Camera. For the first 2 with model releases did you say that there was no propertty in Optional? For the Radcliffe Camera images did you say in Optional that there were no people? I'm only asking because my understanding is that if you had they would appear in Vital rather than Uncut.

 

Not suggesting that it's going to make any difference in terms of sales but Alamy have set up these categories so presumably they believe that they do something. The rationale is that Alamy tell potential customers that images in Vital are eminently saleable for commercial use because there are no problems with releases.

 

The same is actually true for images that have no property and no people. Unless you enter that in Optional the images will stay in Uncut, if you go into Optional and enter that information then the images automatically go into Vital. Also there is no way to find images of this last type (no property, no people) where you haven't entered it in Optional either in Alamy Image Manager or in the downloadable csv.

Edited November 6, 2023 by Harry Harrison

[Flick Merauld]

35 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

I'm slightly curious in case something has changed. You have 16 images, 14 of these are in the 'Creative' Uncut section, 2 are in Editorial.  You have model releases for 2 in Uncut and Property releases for several more taken inside the Radcliffe Camera. For the first 2 with model releases did you say that there was no propertty in Optional? For the Radcliffe Camera images did you say in Optional that there were no people? I'm only asking because my understanding is that if you had they would appear in Vital rather than Uncut.

 

Not suggesting that it's going to make any difference in terms of sales but Alamy have set up these categories so presumably they believe that they do something. The rationale is that Alamy tell potential customers that images in Vital are eminently saleable for commercial use because there are no problems with releases.

 

The same is actually true for images that have no property and no people. Unless you enter that in Optional the images will stay in Uncut, if you go into Optional and enter that information then the images automatically go into Vital. Also there is no way to find images of this last type (no property, no people) where you haven't entered it in Optional either in Alamy Image Manager or in the downloadable csv.

 

Harry, I have absolutely no idea what you mean about vital, uncut etc. I'm feeling my way in here, still recovering from a traumatic brain injury early this year, so forgive me if I'm being totally stupid. Also I'm editing my descriptions in the light of what I've learned today, so things may have changed since you viewed them. The first 9 images are very old, from a 6MP camera back in the day, and I need to revisit them. I think I probably just need to make everything editorial to be on the safe side. The Radcliffe Camera images have no recognisable people and I have permission to sell them.  

Edited November 6, 2023 by Flick Merauld

[Harry Harrison]

4 minutes ago, Flick Merauld said:

I'm feeling my way in here, still recovering from a traumatic brain injury early this year,

That's terrible, I hope your recovery is proceeding at pace. This is not down to you not understanding though, I'm simply not explainiing myself well so not to worry, and certainly don't worry about Uncut & Vital at this stage (or ever?).

Forgetting about them and narrowing it down, I was really wondering whether when you went in to Optional in order to say that those Radcliffe Camera images had property releases did you also answer the 'Number of people in the image?' question? I'm thinking that you didn't and if not then I was going to suggest that 'going forward' you probably should do. 

[Flick Merauld]

5 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

That's terrible, I hope your recovery is proceeding at pace. This is not down to you not understanding though, I'm simply not explainiing myself well so not to worry, and certainly don't worry about Uncut & Vital at this stage (or ever?).

Forgetting about them and narrowing it down, I was really wondering whether when you went in to Optional in order to say that those Radcliffe Camera images had property releases did you also answer the 'Number of people in the image?' question? I'm thinking that you didn't and if not then I was going to suggest that 'going forward' you probably should do. 

 

Thank you, I'm getting there. Just a few cognitive issues if I'm tired now. And yes, all three are property release yes and number of people none (actually there are two sort of people blobs in one image but not recognisable)

[geogphotos]

3 hours ago, Flick Merauld said:

yes

 

Permission to use this image for commercial uses such as advertising products?

[geogphotos]

3 hours ago, Flick Merauld said:

Thanks, that's interesting. And you've never run into any trouble with that? It's a learning curve. I uploaded to Alamy around 20 years ago then forgot all about it. Back needing to pursue it now

 

All my images are Rights Managed so not automatically released for commercial uses.

[Harry Harrison]

10 minutes ago, Flick Merauld said:

And yes, all three are property release yes and number of people none (actually there are two sort of people blobs in one image but not recognisable)

Thanks, sorry for the confusion. I don't have any images with either model or property releases so I was interested to see how they were dealt with. My theory goes out of the window though because they should be found in Vital by my reckoning. It is true that if there are no images and no property then you need to say so in Optional and then they move to Vital automatically, if you don't then they stay in Uncut.

 

These are new categories for 'Creative' images that were brought in last year - Ultimate, Vital, Uncut and Foundation - but really I wouldn't concern yourself with them, after arriving with a great fanfare they've now vanished from the Home page altogether.

[Flick Merauld]

34 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

Permission to use this image for commercial uses such as advertising products?

Why are you cross questioning me?

 

[geogphotos]

16 minutes ago, Flick Merauld said:

Why are you cross questioning me?

 

 

 

Because you started a thread asking for advice and have said that you are confused about it all. 

 

No worries I have better things to do.😀

Edited November 6, 2023 by geogphotos

[Flick Merauld]

18 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Because you started a thread asking for advice and have said that you are confused about it all. 

 

No worries I have better things to do.😀

Ah right well, the bit you keep asking about is the bit I know about. thank you and enjoy the rest of your day 

[geogphotos]

24 minutes ago, Flick Merauld said:

Ah right well, the bit you keep asking about is the bit I know about. thank you and enjoy the rest of your day 

 

 

How am I supposed to know that?

[Flick Merauld]

23 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

How am I supposed to know that?

because I answered. Look, this is getting silly. I've no desire to ruffle feathers. Thank you, sincerely for your help. It contradicted what others have said in that they advised caution, whereas you have obviously sold a lot of images while not worrying about property release for buildings - if I understand you correctly. It's good to get a spread of views. 

[Inchiquin]

15 hours ago, Flick Merauld said:

 

Thank you, I'm getting there. Just a few cognitive issues if I'm tired now. And yes, all three are property release yes and number of people none (actually there are two sort of people blobs in one image but not recognisable)

 

Strictly speaking, blobs are people. They may be unrecognisable to you or me but if the person concerned saw the picture and could prove they were there and were wearing similar clothes they might feel they have a case against you if the image is used for commercial purposes. This is why Alamy say that any part of a person must count, even if it's just a fingernail.

 

As for property releases, I just mark my pictures as containing property with no release, and I do this as a blanket setting for all images uploaded in every batch on the assumption that every photo I take is likely to show something that's owned by someone.

 

Oddly enough, I've never taken a single photo of Oxford in my life!

Alan

[Flick Merauld]

14 minutes ago, Inchiquin said:

 

Strictly speaking, blobs are people. They may be unrecognisable to you or me but if the person concerned saw the picture and could prove they were there and were wearing similar clothes they might feel they have a case against you if the image is used for commercial purposes. This is why Alamy say that any part of a person must count, even if it's just a fingernail.

 

As for property releases, I just mark my pictures as containing property with no release, and I do this as a blanket setting for all images uploaded in every batch on the assumption that every photo I take is likely to show something that's owned by someone.

 

Oddly enough, I've never taken a single photo of Oxford in my life!

Alan

 

Ah, thanks, this is so helpful. I guess it's no release for most of my images, bar fruit and veg (with no labels!). I'm now positive Adobe will reject all my uploads when they finally review them ...