Alamy's New licensing Model

[Sally Robertson]

4 hours ago, Martin L said:

I have always filled in the optional fields and if I have answered yes to people and/or property I always tick 'Sell for editorial only'.

 

With the changes seems like I might not have much to do 🤞

 

Martin, that seems to be in line with what they are now advising. In relation to the following quote from the Alamy blog post:

 

We’d advise that you either lift all the restrictions (if your images are suitable for both commercial and editorial uses), or restrict your images to sell for Editorial Only uses.

 

...I took this to mean if there is any probability of an image not being permitted to be commercial, it is advised we do tick the editorial only box. I have ensured this is done where any people are visible and property with branding on. With some buildings I haven't necessarily done this, like an abandoned church or unmarked building, but have still indicated there is property. Likewise, things like generic signs or a jetty on a river I have not necessarily ticked the editorial box but have ticked for property. But my sense from the blog post is that it is now being advised to tick editorial if there could be an issue re: commercial usages. But I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly?

[Harry Harrison]

From discussions on here over the years on I don't think it was common practice to always check the 'Sell for editorial only' box if the image contained either People or Property and there were no releases, and I think that's partly because Alamy never properly explained the circumstances when one should check that extra box. If it was meant to apply to any image that contained either People or Property where there were no releases then the 'Editorial only' restriction could surely have been be applied automatically.

 

They can't do that retrospectively across all images because those were Optional fields so there is no way to identify whether an image contains either People or Property if the contributor (or Agency?) hasn't specified one way or the other, but they could do it for instances where they have.

 

In light of this new Licensing Model does this mean that all images that have either People or Property but no releases must now only be sold as Editorial so none of these will be in the so-called Creative Collections, or in particular in Uncut where that type of image would reside at the moment?

 

Edit:

Perhaps I should add, for those who don't look at the Creative Collections, that 'Uncut' is full of images with either People or Property where there are no releases. Try searching for 'UK' in Uncut.

Edited July 31 by Harry Harrison

[Nick Hatton]

Perhaps Alamy could clarify today  if we need to tick editorial only if we have ticked no releases,  if so what about the thousands of our images not ticked?

[M.Chapman]

I'm starting to get boggled.... 

 

In the original AIM we were prompted to only tick "Contains property" if the image contained property that needed a release. This was complex for the contributor since deciding whether  property required a release or not varies from country to country and on context/composition (e.g. a building on distant skyline vs main subject).

 

In the current AIM we are prompted to tick "Contains property" if there's any property in the image at all. Much simpler for contributors. But, as a result there are many, many images that are suitable for commercial use which have been marked as having property without releases. Branding such images as "Editorial Only" may eliminate the risk of litigation, but could also dissuade Customers from licensing such images for calendars etc.

 

I think Alamy need to soften the category branding from "Editorial only" to just "Editorial". It gives the publisher a little more freedom to decide, based on what is in the image, and on their actual use and local legislation whether to use for commercial or not. 

 

If this isn't done, then I probably need to go back through my images and untick "Contains Property" from any images where I'm comfortable the image could be used commercially (city skylines, distant house in landscape etc.)

 

A similar issue arises with people in images. If the people are so small as to be unrecognisable, why tick contains people?

 

Mark

Edited July 31 by M.Chapman

[Martin L]

I didn't tick 'Editorial only' if there was property and/or people because Alamy said it was the correct thing to do or not to do 

I did it because I felt it was the correct thing to do for my images and how I thought they should be used based on the subject matter.

I think Alamy placing this info under a heading 'Optional' is/was a bit misleading that seemed to relegate what I consider is quite important info.

Not adding this info and allowing somebody else to 'do the right thing' on my behalf wasn't something i was prepared to do.

Told you I was risk averse 👍

 

 

 

 

 

[Harry Harrison]

I've seen people agonise over whether a disembodied hand counts as a person. In my view that is completely irrelevant unless you are intending to have releases, in which case it may be that the disembodied hand requires a release, if not, who cares. I see the number of people as an aid to searches because there is a filter for that which corresponds precisely to what we enter in 'Optional'. There is no corresponding filter for Property and I'm not sure if the buyer is ever told whether we think an image contains property or not, perhaps someone does know?

[gvallee]

21 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

I've seen people agonise over whether a disembodied hand counts as a person. In my view that is completely irrelevant unless you are intending to have releases, in which case it may be that the disembodied hand requires a release, if not, who cares. I see the number of people as an aid to searches because there is a filter for that which corresponds precisely to what we enter in 'Optional'. There is no corresponding filter for Property and I'm not sure if the buyer is ever told whether we think an image contains property or not, perhaps someone does know?

 

In the early days, there used to be Alamy meets in London. I went to one where Alan Capel, then Head of Contents, spoke about this very subject. Does a hand need a release? He stated that it did. Perhaps someone would be able to identify it because of a ring, place or other clue. This might now be outdated info but I always erred on the side of caution and went along with saying I don't have a model release even if the person is not recognisable.

 

 

 

[Harry Harrison]

7 minutes ago, gvallee said:

This might now be outdated info but I always erred on the side of caution and went along with saying I don't have a model release even if the person is not recognisable.

Yes, I can understand why you might have done this, particularly after receiving advice from Alan Capel and where the hand plays an important part in the image. Would you have also ticked 'Sell for editorial only' though? Rhetorical question really but this type of image will need to be Editorial from now on as far as I can understand.

[Alamy]

Hi Everyone,

 

Picking up some more queries and comments

- 

@Reimar - yes if your images have no restrictions currently then they will automatically be mapped to All Uses and there is nothing more you need to do.

 

@geogphotos - yes the best way to see it is that basically a 'commercial use' combines the current Advertising & Promotion, Consumer Goods and Personal Use in to one broader category. In doing so commercial images would also be suitable for 'editorial uses' which is why we're moving the options to be All Uses or Editorial Only. The releases remain an optional field as they have always done, but @Harry Harrison yes it's good to fill it in if you can as this extra information can help some customers understand more in deciding whether they want to license the image or not. Different customers will have different needs and search in many different ways, some using 'All', some using the filters like Vital (or date taken or model release etc. - or not!). It does not mean that your images won't or can't be found, but as with the use of any filter, some images will be edited out of the results - it all depends on how the customer wants to search for images.

 

@Martyn  @Betty LaRue  @Michael Ventura @ReeRay @Rubens Alarcon @gvallee - You can wait and see if we write to you as if any of your images have varying restrictions not mentioned in the blog then they won't be automatically mapped. If we don't write to you then you can safely assume that your images got automatically mapped based on your current restrictions/criteria outlined in the blog. If any images don't fit in that criteria then we'll be temporarily removing them from sale until you confirm how you want them to be moved (we'll write to you direct about this) at which point we'll transfer them to the restriction you request.

@Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg - if you have no restrictions placed then we'll automatically move them to be available for ALL Uses (which in essence would be what they are now)

 

@Nick Hatton @M.Chapman @Martin L - every image is different and depends on individual context so we can't say categorically whether you should tick 'sell for editorial only' if there is property in the image, as there are nuances to this for every individual image, but there's a link in the blog pointing to the differences between whether to sell for editorial or commercial. Essentially, as above in response to @geogphotos this is about seeing how the current restrictions of Advertising, Consumer Goods and Personal Use are just falling under a broader category of 'commercial'. Also that if you have entered the metadata correctly (e.g. contains property/has model release - Y) then that is a piece of information to help the customer understand better the context before licensing the image or use the 'number of people' filter). It's always been the responsibility of the customer to decide whether the context of the image is appropriate for their use, but they will get a warning that they might need releases if it's not restricted and they select the commercial licence.

 

Thanks,

 

Sophie

[Harry Harrison]

6 minutes ago, Alamy said:

yes it's good to fill it in if you can as this extra information can help some customers understand more in deciding whether they want to license the image or not.

Thanks, I don't think it's just that though is it? Alamy seems to discriminate against images where that information has not been filled in by the contributor because they are not channelled into Vital, and never will be, that seems to be how it has worked for mine anyway.

 

Also is there a stage in the buying process where the customer gets to see whether the contributor has actively stated that there is either '0' People or 'No' Property? It seems on the face of it that they only get to see if there are Releases.

[gvallee]

20 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Yes, I can understand why you might have done this, particularly after receiving advice from Alan Capel and where the hand plays an important part in the image. Would you have also ticked 'Sell for editorial only' though? Rhetorical question really but this type of image will need to be Editorial from now on as far as I can understand.

 

Apart from artwork images, with some exceptions, I do not tend to bother ticking the 'editorial only' box. Yes or No release says it all for me. It's up to the buyer to decide. Sometimes it feels silly and frustrating to say there is one person when it's only a tiny barely noticeable dot on the image but that's what I do. And I'm a risk taker! 😜 

[Harry Harrison]

3 minutes ago, gvallee said:

And I'm a risk taker! 

Well, I certainly know that with your adventures in the Australian Outback! It will be interesting to see where your hand image ends up after the 'reshuffle'.

[Lynchpics]

21 minutes ago, Alamy said:

@Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg - if you have no restrictions placed then we'll automatically move them to be available for ALL Uses (which in essence would be what they are now

So what happens if a contributor only fills in the mandatory details in the AIM? For example i have an image taken inside a building for example inside the Roman Baths in Bath, there are identifiable people in the image but the contributor has not bothered to fill in the optional tab in the AIM and label the images as having people and property in the image. Will that image be available for both editorial and ALL uses? 

[Martin L]

24 minutes ago, Alamy said:

Hi Everyone,

 

Picking up some more queries and comments

- 

@Reimar - yes if your images have no restrictions currently then they will automatically be mapped to All Uses and there is nothing more you need to do.

 

@geogphotos - yes the best way to see it is that basically a 'commercial use' combines the current Advertising & Promotion, Consumer Goods and Personal Use in to one broader category. In doing so commercial images would also be suitable for 'editorial uses' which is why we're moving the options to be All Uses or Editorial Only. The releases remain an optional field as they have always done, but @Harry Harrison

 

@Martyn  @Betty LaRue  @Michael Ventura @ReeRay @Rubens Alarcon @gvallee

@Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg

 

@Nick Hatton @M.Chapman @Martin L commercial. Essentially, as above in response to @geogphotos information to help the customer understand better the context before licensing the image or use the 'number of people' filter). It's always been the responsibility of the customer to decide whether the context of the image is appropriate for their use, but they will get a warning that they might need releases if it's not restricted and they select the commercial licence.

 

Thanks,

 

Sophie

Hmmmm....begs the question as to why there is a 'Sell for editorial only' button if this is the case.

Just entering property/people - Yes, Releases - No should be sufficient as Gen says.

I did it for belt and braces maybe my trousers will stay up with just the belt.

[gvallee]

4 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Well, I certainly know that with your adventures in the Australian Outback! It will be interesting to see where your hand image ends up after the 'reshuffle'.

 

😂 Out of curiosity, to see what clients see, I searched for the first thing that came to my mind: 'Australia, Pink'. Very pleasant surprise, out of 32,628 results, I have an image in second place!

 

It contains a very small sailing boat in the distance, for which I have indicated I have no property release. It is a minor element in the composition. It will be a shame to lose the commercial potential as it's a very moody landscape shot. I have probably taken this property release thing too far. 

[Martin L]

5 minutes ago, Lynchpics said:

So what happens if a contributor only fills in the mandatory details in the AIM? For example i have an image taken inside a building for example inside the Roman Baths in Bath, there are identifiable people in the image but the contributor has not bothered to fill in the optional tab in the AIM and label the images as having people and property in the image. Will that image be available for both editorial and ALL uses? 

Seems to be the case and the buyers won't get a warning that they may need releases so it could be down to the contributor if there is an issue

Edited July 31 by Martin L

[Lynchpics]

16 minutes ago, Martin L said:

Seems to be the case and the buyers won't get a warning that they may need releases so it could be down to the contributor if there is an issue

Edited 14 minutes ago by Martin L

So if that is the case then the optional tab needs to be made mandatory in order to protect the contributor. 

[Martin L]

16 minutes ago, Lynchpics said:

So if that is the case then the optional tab needs to be made mandatory in order to protect the contributor. 

👍

[Alexander Hogg]

Just wondering if some images need to be changed from Royalty Free to RM as well for being able to tick the boxes at the bottom of the page in optional tab 

[Sally Robertson]

1 hour ago, Alamy said:

Also that if you have entered the metadata correctly (e.g. contains property/has model release - Y) then that is a piece of information to help the customer understand better the context before licensing the image or use the 'number of people' filter). It's always been the responsibility of the customer to decide whether the context of the image is appropriate for their use, but they will get a warning that they might need releases if it's not restricted and they select the commercial licence.

 

 

Hi Sophie,

 

Thanks for the clarifications.

 

I think I misunderstood the blog post as advising us to be stricter at delineating between editorial only and all uses and therefore thought it was more critical to tick the editorial only box if in any doubt about the image being used commercially. But I think now from what I understand it is only about the removal of the restriction categories that sit below the editorial option in AIM. I have always entered the optional metadata and the only restriction I have ever placed on some images is to tick the editorial only box (which automatically precludes advertising, promotion and consumer goods), but have never ticked those boxes below the editorial box separately myself. So I'm assuming I do not need to do anything at all unless I so choose to.

 

So am I correct in assuming these two options going forward:

 

Tick the Editorial Only box - can only be used editorially.

Tick All Uses - the responsibility of the usage lies with the customer and a warning is provided if the optional metadata indicates unreleased people or property. (I'm assuming it is imperative contributors complete the optional metadata otherwise a customer may use an image commercially that potentially shouldn't be).

 

 

[Sally Robertson]

1 hour ago, Alexander Hogg said:

Just wondering if some images need to be changed from Royalty Free to RM as well for being able to tick the boxes at the bottom of the page in optional tab 

 

Hi Alexander,

 

I'm assuming that everyone will just have the two options for each image which will be Editorial Only or All Uses, regardless of whether they are RM or RF. So I don't think you would need to change to RM from RF, because those additional restrictions that can be applied to RM won't exist anymore anyway, but hopefully Sophie will clarify.

[Harry Harrison]

Since I've opted out of Personal Use it seems that if I do nothing all my images will go to Editorial Only. Sophie has suggested that if someone is in that position (Sally for example) they can email contributors@alamy.com and they will make them available for All Uses. Since I've only got 3000 images to go through I thought I would try and do it myself by selecting 'Newest 500 passed' in AIM, uncheck the checkbox for that restriction and Save.

 

It didn't work, didn't appear to make any difference at all.

 

Edit:

Correction: I've not used this '500 newest' method before. It seems that although it relatively quickly seems to have finished (the progress pattern finishes) in fact it seems that it needs to be left much longer even though there is no sign of anything happening. When I then deselect the 'Restricted' filter and select it again the total with restrictions and 'On sale' has indeed gone down by 500. Rinse and repeat.

Edited July 31 by Harry Harrison

[IKuzmin]

3 hours ago, gvallee said:

4 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

I've seen people agonise over whether a disembodied hand counts as a person. In my view that is completely irrelevant unless you are intending to have releases, in which case it may be that the disembodied hand requires a release, if not, who cares. I see the number of people as an aid to searches because there is a filter for that which corresponds precisely to what we enter in 'Optional'. There is no corresponding filter for Property and I'm not sure if the buyer is ever told whether we think an image contains property or not, perhaps someone does know?

 

In the early days, there used to be Alamy meets in London. I went to one where Alan Capel, then Head of Contents, spoke about this very subject. Does a hand need a release? He stated that it did. Perhaps someone would be able to identify it because of a ring, place or other clue. This might now be outdated info but I always erred on the side of caution and went along with saying I don't have a model release even if the person is not recognisable.

Years ago I received an email from Alamy saying that going across my images they identified one with such a hand which was not identified by availability of a release, and wanted me to do it mandatory. It was for this image, not even a hand but a couple of fingers:

[Harry Harrison]

8 minutes ago, IKuzmin said:

Years ago I received an email from Alamy saying that going across my images they identified one with such a hand which was not identified by availability of a release, and wanted me to do it mandatory. It was for this image, not even a hand but a couple of fingers:

I wonder if they would do the same now, would that have been before the new AIM? You might think that the fact that the default displayed to the customer is 'No' for release would cover it. If you don't enter anything for 'No of people' then it won't come up in a search for People, 0 or otherwise, at least that's how I remember it as working.

[Alamy]

Hi Everyone,

 

Just to clarify again about the new licensing model which relates to restrictions, all that's happening is that the current Advertising & Promotion, Consumer Goods and Personal Use are being folded together with the coverall sense that these are technically 'commercial' uses. This means that if you sell an image for commercial use, it should also be available for 'editorial use' (or really any use). There will be only the 'Sell for Editorial only' option to apply restrictions once the new licensing model goes live.

 

The key to remember here is that both commercial and editorial licences will be available to purchase by the customer, but the responsibility is on that end user to seek third party clearances / rights (should they be needed) for their end use. 
 
That is entirely on their own risk and the contributor of the image would only be at fault if they broke laws in taking the image, do not have the right to make it available for sale for editorial use or if they declare an image has a release but doesn't. 
 
If an image has restrictions, there is a further step where the buyer has to declare they have acknowledged the restrictions but as with images without them, the responsibility to clear the image for rights if needed will still be on them.

 

@Sally Robertson @Alexander Hogg  - yes the restrictions do not affect how you enter RM/RF or the optional metadata on releases, so this remains the same.

 

Thanks

 

Sophie