Alamy's New licensing Model

[Foreign Export]

Thanks Sophie - thats very helpful

[Lynchpics]

Sophie, thanks for the update. If i was to upload this image could i upload it as being available for ALL uses?  If it was uploaded as a news image could i check the ALL uses checkbox in the AIM. 

 

[IKuzmin]

50 minutes ago, Alamy said:

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.

Interesting. So how about such personal (?) uses as student or otherwise scientific presentations? Because of such sales (which were quite cheap) I rigorously checked the box "Not for personal use", as they tend to explode into free disseminations via the internet (many conference organizers collect presentations and make them available for public at their web sites).

On the other hand, I used to have cheap sales marked as "Personal use" that further appeared at some travel web site(s). From this prospective it is reasonable to treat personal use as commercial.

But, all in all, I would certainly prefer a better differentiation rather than simplification.

[Allan Bell]

22 hours ago, Alamy said:

@Allan Bell - All the same advice applies as before in considering whether your images are editorial or commercial. We're just removing specific types of commercial licenses at a granular level, so that in a broader sense all those restrictions (Advertising & Promotion, Consumer Goods, Personal Use) were always considered 'commercial' uses. So in essence a similar logic can be applied in thinking about whether images are available for commercial use.

 

 

Thank you Sophie.

 

Allan

 

[vpics]

Hi Alamy,

 

It would have been nice, to have received an email about this forthcoming change. Only found out through some friends on Facebook and many contributors will be on holidays not aware of what is happening. 

 

Most of the images I have uploaded are for Editorial Use only. However, I would really like to go through my images in AIM to check if I have applied the correct settings. Unfortunately, it is not possible to make this selection.

 

Was the system broken? Why fix it?

[Martin L]

Thanks Sophie.

Still confused however over why there is a 'Sell for Editorial Only' check box?

I think I shall continue to select it if property/model - yes.

Let's face it, no buyer is going to be able to get releases therefore images like this will only be 'editorial only' anyway so I won't be cutting out any sales.

If the image is abused, at least I've covered my backside as much as poss 

[Lynchpics]

5 minutes ago, Martin L said:

Still confused however over why there is a 'Sell for Editorial Only' check box?

 

I would guess Images that are marked as 'editorial only' will only appear in the editorial collection. 

[Martin L]

15 minutes ago, Lynchpics said:

 

I would guess Images that are marked as 'editorial only' will only appear in the editorial collection. 

Thanks but does it mean other 'editorial only' images (by the nature they have property and or models with no releases) will not appear in that collection? 

Isn't that going to cheese a few buyers off?

They select what they think is a commercial image only to be warned that it has no releases and is in fact 'editorial only'.

 

Edit: Actually it doesn't really matter to me I don't think I'll be changing what I classify my images as but I guess other people maybe interested if Alamy provide an answer

Edited July 31 by Martin L

[John Mitchell]

9 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

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. 

 

 

 

Makes sense to me. Marking relevant images simply as "Editorial" is common policy at other agencies that I'm aware of. 

 

 

Edited July 31 by John Mitchell

[Harry Harrison]

The Blog links to this page to explain the difference between Editorial and Commercial uses:

 

https://www.alamy.com/blog/difference-between-editorial-and-commercial-photography

 

Written in June 2015 it paints quite a stark polarised picture of the differences between the two types of uses, such as "with {commercial photography} there cannot be people or property within the image unless they have signed a model and/or property release form.". But then as Sophie says today in this thread "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".

 

Her most recent post this afternoon seems to put the responsibility back on the buyer to decide if releases are required, provided we have stated correctly that there are no releases.

 

That's what I took from it anyway, others may decide differently. Unless I wasn't paying attention I'm stil not clear as to whether there is a (legal?) difference between the default that the buyer will see under every image of 'No'  for both Models and Property Releases and the situation where you have actually taken the trouble to enter the same in Optional.

Edited July 31 by Harry Harrison

[Martin L]

42 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

The Blog links to this page to explain the difference between Editorial and Commercial uses:

 

https://www.alamy.com/blog/difference-between-editorial-and-commercial-photography

 

Written in June 2015 it paints quite a stark polarised picture of the differences between the two types of uses, such as "with {commercial photography} there cannot be people or property within the image unless they have signed a model and/or property release form.". But then as Sophie says today in this thread "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".

 

Her most recent post this afternoon seems to put the responsibility back on the buyer to decide if releases are required, provided we have stated correctly that there are no releases.

 

That's what I took from it anyway, others may decide differently. Unless I wasn't paying attention I'm stil not clear as to whether there is a (legal?) difference between the default that the buyer will see under every image of 'No'  for both Models and Property Releases and the situation where you have actually taken the trouble to enter the same in Optional.

Yes, Harry, from the 2015 blog is what I have always thought so I'm going to stick with my existing approach, Sophie's response is understandable but inconclusive.

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

The Blog links to this page to explain the difference between Editorial and Commercial uses:

 

https://www.alamy.com/blog/difference-between-editorial-and-commercial-photography

 

Written in June 2015 it paints quite a stark polarised picture of the differences between the two types of uses, such as "with {commercial photography} there cannot be people or property within the image unless they have signed a model and/or property release form.". But then as Sophie says today in this thread "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".

 

Her most recent post this afternoon seems to put the responsibility back on the buyer to decide if releases are required, provided we have stated correctly that there are no releases.

 

That's what I took from it anyway, others may decide differently. Unless I wasn't paying attention I'm stil not clear as to whether there is a (legal?) difference between the default that the buyer will see under every image of 'No'  for both Models and Property Releases and the situation where you have actually taken the trouble to enter the same in Optional.

 

OK, so it appears that according to Alamy any image with people or body parts in it, even a faceless crowd or a random big toe, needs a signed model release (or releases) in order to be offered for commercial use. Now, please tell me once again, what Alamy's definition of "property" is. I'm a really slow learner. 😕

 

Also, would this new licensing model apply to historical/archival images sourced from the public domain as well, I wonder.

[Michael Ventura]

9 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

definition of "property" is.

 

My guess is anything other than the sky, wild plants and wildlife (not in a zoo).

[John Mitchell]

13 minutes ago, Michael Ventura said:

 

My guess is anything other than the sky, wild plants and wildlife (not in a zoo).

 

So anything in the "built environment" (as opposed to the world of nature) is considered "property" by Alamy?  That means that millions of images designated as commercial at other agencies would have to be offered as "Editorial Only" here. You'd think that I would have been able to figure this out by now. 🤔

 

 

 

Edited July 31 by John Mitchell

[IKuzmin]

11 minutes ago, Michael Ventura said:

My guess is anything other than the sky, wild plants and wildlife (not in a zoo).

Wait. What if they are photographed on the ground which is a property of... And how about water?

 

 

[Lynchpics]

38 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

OK, so it appears that according to Alamy any image with people or body parts in it, even a faceless crowd or a random big toe, needs a signed model release (or releases) in order to be offered for commercial use. Now, please tell me once again, what Alamy's definition of "property" is. I'm a really slow learner. 😕

 

Looks like it's up to the customer to make sure that the image has the required 3rd party clearances / rights for their end use if the contributor has stated there is no property or people releases . 

 

6 hours ago, Alamy said:

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. 

 

Edited July 31 by Lynchpics

[John Mitchell]

22 minutes ago, IKuzmin said:

Wait. What if they are photographed on the ground which is a property of... And how about water?

 

 

 

Which begs the question, is God available and willing to sign property releases?

 

OK, I'm being facetious, but we do need (still) further clarification about all this.

[M.Chapman]

To get an idea how complex it has become to decide on whether property needs a release or not see this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama

Different rules in different countries and there are "quirks" in many of them. For example in Germany a ruling in 2023 appears to have concluded;

 

The freedom of panorama legal right, according to the ruling, only protects images taken from the street level, and not images taken using special devices such as ladders; drone images are from airspace perspective and not the perspective of the street level.

 

I think this illustrates that it can sometimes be extremely difficult for the photographer to be able to decide if a release is required or not when submitting to Alamy because it will depend on the end usage and territory.

 

Mark (not a lawyer!)

Edited July 31 by M.Chapman

[Harry Harrison]

1 hour ago, John Mitchell said:

OK, so it appears that according to Alamy any image with people or body parts in it, even a faceless crowd or a random big toe, needs a signed model release (or releases) in order to be offered for commercial use.

I think that Blog page could do with updating to reflect more 'nuanced' situations, I mean it is 9 years old. No mention of AI in the new Licensing Model, hopefully that's still verboten.

[John Bingham]

The ambiguity of what's considered property together with my own lack of knowledge on the subject now has me a little concerned. I've just looked at some of my earliest submissions and I uploaded shots of WW2 German bunkers on the Channel Islands. While I suppose there's a chance some may lie on private land a lot appear to be on public land, in disrepair and open to the public.

 

Would people consider these private property?

 

As has been mentioned by Sophie there's a lot of nuance in rights management and I was hoping that Alamy being the experts (and taking 60%) would have contributor backs. Yes I know it's been mentioned that the ultimate responsibility lies with the purchaser but I want to avoid any potential future issues if contributors get thrown under the bus.

[Harry Harrison]

In an earlier post in this thread I asked if we could have extra Attribute filters in AIM for the current restrictions, in other words these:

 

Sell for Editorial only

Don't sell for advertising and promotion

Don't sell for consumer goods

Don't sell for editorial

Don't sell for personal use including single copy, non-retail wall art prints

 

Clearly some of these will disappear now as separate restrictions.

 

Q. Will the current Attributes filter for "Restricted images" still work, or at least will it be updated accordingly?

 

In the light of these changes please could we now have separate Attributes filters for "Sell for editorial only" and also "Not sold as editorial only"?

 

Note this woulld be comparable to the existing filters for "Property released" and "Not property released", "Model released" and "Not model released".

 

[Harry Harrison]

9 hours ago, John Bingham said:

Would people consider these private property?

Opinions wil vary but mine would be that it doesn't really matter if anyone owns them, or if they are on private land, provided you haven't trespassed in order to photograph them. As Mark Chapman has said above, it's impossible to be on top of the legal ramifications of individual countries, rights of panorama etc. so you just make it clear that your pictures contain property but you have no releases.

 

Of course now we have to decide whther such images should be marked as 'Sell for editorial only" in the new system since that is the only restriction we can apply. Still hoping for practical guidance from Alamy on that.

Edited August 1 by Harry Harrison

[M.Chapman]

33 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Opinions wil vary but mine would be that it doesn't really matter if anyone owns them, or if they are on private land, provided you haven't trespassed in order to photograph them. As Mark Chapman has said above, it's impossible to be on top of the legal ramifications of individual countries, rights of panorama etc. so you just make it clear that your pictures contain property but you have no releases.

 

Of course now we have to decide whther such images should be marked as 'Sell for editorial only" in the new system since that is the only restriction we can apply. Still hoping for practical guidance from Alamy on that.

I imagine we will be getting a new version of AIM? If so I'd expect that if we tick property or people without releases, then Editorial Only will be automatically selected for us. That will then re-raise the usual questions, for example;

 

Did I need to tick people when they are unrecognisable (and hence wouldn't require a release anyway)

Did I need to tick property in general cityscape or street scene containing multiple buildings 

 

As stated earlier I think Alamy should reduce the emphasis by branding "Editorial Only" as just "Editorial" because many of the images that will end up in "Editorial Only" will actually be suitable for commercial use.

 

Mark

Edited August 1 by M.Chapman

[Martyn]

29 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Opinions wil vary but mine would be that it doesn't really matter if anyone owns them, or if they are on private land, provided you haven't trespassed in order to photograph them. As Mark Chapman has said above, it's impossible to be on top of the legal ramifications of individual countries, rights of panorama etc. so you just make it clear that your pictures contain property but you have no releases.

 

Of course now we have to decide whther such images should be marked as 'Sell for editorial only" in the new system since that is the only restriction we can apply. Still hoping for practical guidance from Alamy on that.

 

I'm personally probably a bit too harsh on myself when it comes to property releases as I mark anything that could be classed as property as being property / no release, whether it be a distant building or an item of clothing a person is wearing ... it has probably cost me sales but in a complex world of varying laws, at least I know I've covered my back ... if a potential client decides that an image of mine doesn't actually need a PR, then that's on them, not me.

I'm still not sure why Alamy are trying to fix something that wasn't broken, at least as far as it goes for those of us that filled out the MR / PR optional tabs ... no PR / MR = editorial automatically and again, down to the potential client to decide if the image is suitable for the use they have in mind. I guess though that for those who haven't filled out the optional tabs, it will be a different story and they may have no choice but to now fill them out or select them all as editorial only and go through their images and deselect those images that do have releases ...

[Harry Harrison]

5 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

37 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

 

I imagine we will be getting a new version of AIM? If so I'd expect that if we tick property or people without releases, then Editorial Only will be automatically selected for us.

Well yes, that would put a different perspective on it though Sophie hasn't said that this will be the case, and she has maintained that these fields will still be optional. That doesn't make sense to me apart from possibly that they can't back date it and they perhaps can't ensure that images accepted from agencies 'going forward' have this entered either.