Tripleman Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Having uploaded an image I am trying to assign a licence type. The problem is that when I mention that there are three pedestrians in the image (all in the distance and unidentifiable and therefore no model release) the system will not allow me to select a licence type. Do I need to say that there are people in the picture in a case like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylineboy Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 good question, and one i would like to know too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 People 3, MR no. RM will be selected automatically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyMelbourne Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 As per Alamy's rules yes. If they are so minor then if possible why not clone them out. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zigzagmtart Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 One little part of someone's finger = 1 person. `Identifiable` is immaterial. As noted above sometimes better to clone it out. However, if the image is considered news or photojournalistic then cloning it out might not preserve the accuracy of the scene and you should mark `digitally altered`. If you don`t have a MR and it has any part of a person then it should be RM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Tripleman, I see only one of your images with a problem: the VW with all the people around it. You will have to write to Members Services and ask them to change the license type from RF to RM. memberservices@alamy.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Wasn't there something about banknotes needing releases to be RF as well? Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 One little part of someone's finger = 1 person. `Identifiable` is immaterial. As noted above sometimes better to clone it out. However, if the image is considered news or photojournalistic then cloning it out might not preserve the accuracy of the scene and you should mark `digitally altered`. If you don`t have a MR and it has any part of a person then it should be RM. Interesting section under "For Buyers" / "Helpful Stuff" quoted here. See specifically number 2. When don't I need a release for commercial use? If the image or clip does not feature people, buildings, trademarks, brands or works of art or other 3rd party intellectual property. If the featured buildings or people are not recognisable. Since an image or clip may be used in a large variety of ways and since laws vary country by country, it is your responsibility to determine whether or not a release is needed. You need to ensure that the release is suitable for your requirements and obtain any additional permissions from 3rd parties if applicable. Just for info. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 Fascinating, Allan. So what is the deal here? Where do we all stand? This info is on Alamy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 Having uploaded an image I am trying to assign a licence type. The problem is that when I mention that there are three pedestrians in the image (all in the distance and unidentifiable and therefore no model release) the system will not allow me to select a licence type. Do I need to say that there are people in the picture in a case like this? The thing is,just because you might think they are unrecognizable,does not mean the subjects in the photos would not recognize themselves in an image.You'd be surprised...Back in the late 70s I did some hand modeling for jewelry.I was trying on rings and bracelets at a jewelry store and the owner snapped a photo of my hand and had it blown up and put in his store and small use in a brochure. I negotiated a very nice discount on a piece of jewelry for this unauthorized use. People usually recognize themselves. So,if people are in a pic,you always need to note this and put that you do not have a release and sell it as RM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariaJ Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 I had assumed that even if there was a person was a blob of a few unrecognizable pixels, it had to be RM image without a release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 That has been my understanding, too, MariaJ. But Allen is quoting something very different . . . but he does not credit the quote. ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariaJ Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 It's here, under information for Buyers. Probably why I hadn't read it before. http://www.alamy.com/customer/help/releases.asp I guess if it were unrecognizable pixels, a release wouldn't be required. However, if it was enough to be recognizable, like Linda recognizing her hands, then a release would be needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 An agency like Alamy cannot have dozens of different criteria, so the just say "if you can see any part of a person you need a MR." We are contributors, not buyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Holmes Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 I suppose that as it's the ultimate responsibility of the publisher, they should be the ones to make the judgement about what is recognisable, not the contributor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 Appologies I should have quoted Alamy. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Clone people out or declare the image as RM, even though they are not recognizable. I also blur license plates and remove names of boats Legally the publisher is responsible when people complain, but in practice the problem often comes back of the photographer, so you are protecting yourself. I know of an advertiser who received a complaint letter from a mother demanding a financial settlement for using her unrecognizable kids in the background of a stock photo used in the advertisement. The photographer knocked on her door prepared to make a settlement. She was surprised but friendly, until the photographer asked to see her kids or at least some pictures of them. She slammed the door in his face, and stopped harassing the advertiser. She had no kids. It was a scam. Unrecognizable can be dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariaJ Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 She had no kids. It was a scam. Unrecognizable can be dangerous. Gee, I had never thought of that possibility! Thanks for mentioning it. I have cloned people out for RF or just made it RM, like you mentioned. And I have often found people when viewing at 100% that I had not seen before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philmar Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 What about silhouettes where the person and all clothing are black and unidentifiable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDoug Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 I'm curious as to what percentage of Alamy's sales are RM vs. RF, i.e., whether simply making all of one's submissions RM amounts to much loss in potential income. Don Douglas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariaJ Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 What about silhouettes where the person and all clothing are black and unidentifiable? Silhouettes require a release to be RF. As long as someone might be able to recognized, you would need a release. http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/image-releases.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 I'm curious as to what percentage of Alamy's sales are RM vs. RF, i.e., whether simply making all of one's submissions RM amounts to much loss in potential income. Here is a thread dealing with some of your considerations: http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/158-rm-vs-rf/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDoug Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Thanks, Niels. So far I've just put RM on everything and will probably continue that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Thanks, Niels. So far I've just put RM on everything and will probably continue that. That is probably a very good idea. And if in doubt about any property rights at all (even some flags, etc. are more protected than others) tick that there is property in the image that you have no release for and leave the responsibility for the use of it to the buyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7horses Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 I once received a kind email of Alamy pointing me to my pictures with licence problems. Most of them were pictures where a body part (hand or finger) was seen and I had to change there licence to "Right Managed" as i had no model release. Unfortunaly most of them were also on an other stock site as RF so I had to delete them from Alamy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.