Property release question

[Sally Robertson]

Yesterday I took some photos outside my home of the detail in the bricks and an exterior pipe on my home, all which are old and have sustained significant weathering (exciting images, I know). They are in QC now.

 

What I am wondering is there a point to preparing and indicating a property release for such images that are close-ups of detail but the property is not recognisable as such? I can obviously easily provide a release as I own the property but wondered if it is even necessary.

 

I have also wondered about such images when they are not my property. For example, I photographed the detail of a corrugated metal wall of a building with a kind of faux rustic look in a country town. I marked it as property and that it had no release as that is factually true. But, again, as it does not identify the building is it essential to mark it as property? The reason this comes up for me is I remember being with a microstock agency where such images of walls, backgrounds etc are accepted as commercial images because they are not recognisable as specific property.

 

So just wondering if I am being too literal with property details that are not recognisable? It would be different if, for example, the property detail is some kind of identifiable patented design or if the building as a whole is identifiable. I’m a very literal person but I sometimes wonder if I am too literal?

 

Edit: Rereading Alamy’s info it says “recognisable property” requires a release to be available commercially, so I think I am being too literal!

Edited September 2 by Sally Robertson

[spacecadet]

If you just leave it unsaid, as I do, the default annotation is 'no releases'. But then I've never had a commercial licence.

[Steve F]

If it's not recognisable and there's e.g. no logos on the bricks, I would put no property.

[Sally Robertson]

Thanks space cadet and Steve!

 

Yes, I don’t think my bricks are special or unique in any way 😂

 

I also don’t think they are likely to be licensed commercially either.

[Steve F]

2 minutes ago, Sally Robertson said:

I also don’t think they are likely to be licensed commercially either.

 

You'd be surprised what licenses for marketing packages...

[Sally Robertson]

1 minute ago, Steve F said:

 

You'd be surprised what licenses for marketing packages...

Yes, I did wonder about a commercial purpose requiring a background with a rustic look. From previous experience I found backgrounds sold quite readily on microstock, but don’t seem to as much here. But they could.

[Martin L]

It would be interesting to know if anybody has licensed these types of images recently as there are thousands available for free.

[Betty LaRue]

I have a few BG since forever. I can’t remember one ever being zoomed or sold.

Edited September 2 by Betty LaRue

[Sally Robertson]

2 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

I have a few BG since forever. I can’t remember one ever being zoomed or sold.

 

I have one horizontal and one vertical brick wall image that are close-ups of the weathering on the bricks. The one of pipes is also close-up detail of weathering, corrosion, limescale etc. So I was thinking along the lines of an example of weathering damage for editorial purposes when I uploaded them. They were really test shots that I was trying out yesterday with a new lens and then I thought I may as well upload them. They may sit there and do nothing but unexpected sales do occur sometimes too.

[Betty LaRue]

59 minutes ago, Sally Robertson said:

 

I have one horizontal and one vertical brick wall image that are close-ups of the weathering on the bricks. The one of pipes is also close-up detail of weathering, corrosion, limescale etc. So I was thinking along the lines of an example of weathering damage for editorial purposes when I uploaded them. They were really test shots that I was trying out yesterday with a new lens and then I thought I may as well upload them. They may sit there and do nothing but unexpected sales do occur sometimes too.

Yes they do. I put up some early images for deletion I didn’t like looking back at them, & before the time was up before they were to disappear, one of them licensed for a decent amount. It was an image of a well-known drive to view autumn color in Oklahoma, and it was after sunset. Very underexposed. I lifted it, then spot fixed all of the noise. True colors can’t really be redeemed when the image is that underexposed but I did my best.  All in all it was a poor image that later on I was ashamed to have in my portfolio.

Somebody liked it. I notified Alamy to take it out of the deletion queue.

I had a bad habit in my earlier stock journey of falling in love with a few images and refusing to trash them when I should have. To me it was like throwing the baby out with the bath water. They were often one-shots that I didn’t have several of the scene to choose from. Most of those caused a fail.

It was this one, & I took two of the scene a bit different. It licensed for $85. There was bright autum color in the background mountains that I couldn’t recover. Backlit & all that.

Edited September 2 by Betty LaRue

[Sally Robertson]

9 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

Yes they do. I put up some early images for deletion I didn’t like looking back at them, & before the time was up before they were to disappear, one of them licensed for a decent amount. It was an image of a well-known drive to view autumn color in Oklahoma, and it was after sunset. Very underexposed. I lifted it, then spot fixed all of the noise. True colors can’t really be redeemed when the image is that underexposed but I did my best.  All in all it was a poor image that later on I was ashamed to have in my portfolio.

Somebody liked it. I notified Alamy to take it out of the deletion queue.

I had a bad habit in my earlier stock journey of falling in love with a few images and refusing to trash them when I should have. To me it was like throwing the baby out with the bath water. They were often one-shots that I didn’t have several of the scene to choose from. Most of those caused a fail.

It was this one, & I took two of the scene a bit different. It licensed for $85. There was bright autum color in the background mountains that I couldn’t recover. Backlit & all that.

 

I like this autumn shot Betty and I can actually see how it could be used in something like a magazine. It's the sort of image where some text could be overlaid on a darker part of the image while still retaining the gist of the scene. If everything was bright and the colours vibrant, in this particular case it may actually be a distraction from text. So it kind of gives a subdued, atmospheric effect where the viewer gets a sense of the scene but also can process the easy to read text. But even on its own, it conveys something of the scene in a nice way from the backlit position in which you saw it which has a kind of gentle feeling. I can see why someone like a magazine editor would choose this image.

[Betty LaRue]

10 hours ago, Sally Robertson said:

 

I like this autumn shot Betty and I can actually see how it could be used in something like a magazine. It's the sort of image where some text could be overlaid on a darker part of the image while still retaining the gist of the scene. If everything was bright and the colours vibrant, in this particular case it may actually be a distraction from text. So it kind of gives a subdued, atmospheric effect where the viewer gets a sense of the scene but also can process the easy to read text. But even on its own, it conveys something of the scene in a nice way from the backlit position in which you saw it which has a kind of gentle feeling. I can see why someone like a magazine editor would choose this image.

Thanks, Sally. I like the way you think. I would love a do over, though!