Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have just received an email from member services telling me that they are intending to re classify three images from RF to RM as I don't have the necessary releases.

 

The photos show the monument to Lord Collingwood at Tynemouth. I believe that the sculpture and monument were completed circa 1850. There are no people in the photos. 

 

I've not got a problem with the RM classification, but I'm wondering if I need to do a complete rethink of my strategy regarding RF here. I'm always careful to classify recent works ( 20th century onwards), or privately owned work, as RM, but a publicly owned monument dating back to the 19th with all involved long deceased?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bryan,

 

 

 

I have just received the same email for one of my images, without people. In my case it was RF but has 1 person in the attributes with no model release.

 

 

 

I had problem with a batch that by mistake I saved it as RF, and after that I could not change it again.

 

 

 

I think is an automatic checking the RF against the attributes and model releases. At least in my case.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Similar issue with one of my original images that was RM Exclusive for some reason. It was sold a couple of years ago and now they want to delete it becasue it has no model release. I can get one as it is my son (then about 10, now nearly 30). It popped up to Alamy's notice because I tweaked the keywords.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any RF images at Alamy but I certainly would not expect to have any difficulty classifying an image such as the OP describes as RF were I to submit one. I know  there is an increased tendency in parts of the microstock world  to require releases for RF images where they were previously not needed, e.g. for individual dwelling houses even of a generic type. The cause is a growing volume of litigation (justified or not) in places like the USA. This move by Alamy seems to have the same roots.

 

Perhaps member services might help by clarifying just who should be granting the release in the case of copyright-expired art works sited in a public space.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strictly speaking it's property, probably belonging the the council, and you have no release. It's not a copyright or design right problem.

Let them change what they want to change and leave the rest.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Strictly speaking it's property, probably belonging the the council, and you have no release. It's not a copyright or design right problem.

Let them change what they want to change and leave the rest.

 

But if it were the fact that it is Council 'property' that were the determining fact requiring a release, where does it end? Strictly speaking the tree on the road outside my house belongs to the Council as they are responsible for upkeep of both the road and the tree. I sincerely hope it never comes to the point where I need a  release to submit a RF photo of either to Alamy. :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying it's sensible, just consistent with the policy of no RF without a PR.

I don't use RF anymore but over the years Alamy have picked up on a few of them with property or people. The ones they have pointed out have been changed. That's all.

One which sold as RF has been changed-by Alamy, not me- to RM but has subsequently been relicensed by the original user as RF

Edited by spacecadet
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.