Linda Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 I just noticed when I clicked on one of my celebrity photos that it shows it can be used as follows: Image # DWAN4D Small Business MarketingLarge Business Marketing All of my celebrity and random people images are restricted with 'no advertising use',display,mailing,etc. Years ago I was 2 seconds from being sued by a major band when my photo was used in an 'Advertorial' in Rolling Stone Magazine. Just noticed actress Katherine Heigl is suing for implied endorsement of her likeness as well. So wouldn't marketing be considered a form of advertising,implied endorsement? Marketing is generally to pitch a product or service and if you don't have a model relase you can not sell in this mode. https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140410165503-4988668-celebrities-suing-brands-for-a-tweet-katherine-heigl-vs-pharmacy-chain-duane-reade?trk=object-title Pretty concerned about this new use. I was in a discussion with a film studio publicist tonight and they suggested photogs be careful because many celebrities are getting fed up with uses that are far from editorial and feeling expolited. Alamy or other agencies were not named of course. L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Douglas Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 I'm no expert in this, but isn't it the responsibility of the publisher of the photo, not the photographer, to determine how they can use the photo? After all, as soon as our photos are available to other people we have lost control of how those photos are used. I can see that restricting photos to no advertising use may appear to give some additional protection to the photographer, but in reality does it actually add anything? If the photo is clearly marked as 'Model Release - No', then it's up to the publisher to decide whether their particular use is covered, or, indeed, if they want to take the chance anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda Posted April 11, 2014 Author Share Posted April 11, 2014 But isn't having the 'Marketing use' available right there on the photo leading a client on that it can be used for marketing? Usually when lawsuits start to fly,everyone becomes part of the lawsuit. L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Douglas Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 I now understand what you are saying Linda, and I agree with you. The section at the top under Releases, and the link off to another page, says what I'd expect it to say, and puts the onus on the user of the image to ensure that they have the necessary clearances. But that statement "A company with more than 10 people can use the image in marketing materials..." seems to say that Alamy are granting permission for marketing use, when they have no control of what that use might be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alamy Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 I just noticed when I clicked on one of my celebrity photos that it shows it can be used as follows: Image # DWAN4D Small Business Marketing Large Business Marketing All of my celebrity and random people images are restricted with 'no advertising use',display,mailing,etc. Years ago I was 2 seconds from being sued by a major band when my photo was used in an 'Advertorial' in Rolling Stone Magazine. Just noticed actress Katherine Heigl is suing for implied endorsement of her likeness as well. So wouldn't marketing be considered a form of advertising,implied endorsement? Marketing is generally to pitch a product or service and if you don't have a model relase you can not sell in this mode. https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140410165503-4988668-celebrities-suing-brands-for-a-tweet-katherine-heigl-vs-pharmacy-chain-duane-reade?trk=object-title Pretty concerned about this new use. I was in a discussion with a film studio publicist tonight and they suggested photogs be careful because many celebrities are getting fed up with uses that are far from editorial and feeling expolited. Alamy or other agencies were not named of course. L Hi Linda, When you click on one of the marketing usage tabs the restrictions are clearly displayed and the user is prevented from buying that licence. Alamy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Endicott Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Linda, I've found that in questionable circumstances, Alamy has been very clear and transparent to the buyer about the potential issue and Alamy has taken precautions to protect both themselves and us. At least that's my impression. I had this license show up last month from an editorial newsworthy event (no model releases) that occured two years ago: Country: WorldwideUsage: Non-Editorial Electronic and web usesMedia: Electronic presentation, single designIndustry sector: General business servicesStart: 26 March 2014End: 26 March 2017Images to be used on a wall at an event on March 28th, 2014 and in a video as background for one year on electronic, digital, mobile, and emerging markets. Client has been advised that the images may not be model released, and is responsible for any possible third party clearances which may be deemed necessary for this usage. I appreciate the transparancy from Alamy and the documentation in case an issue should arise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 I'm glad Alamy jumped in on this point. I used to do a lot of what was/is referred to as Travel Marketing, a stepsister to Advertising. As far as legal permission to use an image for promotion is concerned, marketing and advertising are the same thing. The difference is with marketing I was working directly for the airline or tour company, while with advertising I worked for an ad agency who handled the client's account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.