Property releases for old buildings?

[KerinF]

 

Hello everyone, newbie questions, so please be kind.  I have just passed initial QC for "grown-up" Alamy (have some Stockimo images) and am now going through the process of keywording, etc those first 4 little images 

I have a question - well, two really, about property releases:

 

1.  I have a set of images taken of the facades of 100+ year old buildings.  All the photos are taken from a public street, and none of them show people or other copyright items such as logos, etc.  From what I know or have researched, the architects of these buildings died well over 70 years ago so therefore copyright in the buildings would not subsist (if it ever did which is a whole other debate about whether in fact photos of a building can be the subject of copyright as opposed to the original building drawings...but I digress).   Anyway, what is Alamy's general approach to whether these need releases or not? I have read the guidelines but I have submitted the same images to some of the micro sites as commercial with mixed results:  most have not required releases, while some have.  (Even more frustratingly, some images of the same facade of the same building have been treated differently by the same agency).  So the guidelines, while helpful, don't give a feel as to how the rules are applied in practice.  What is the experience of others with regard to photos of this type?  I was proposing to put them forward as RF, but is the prudent course to classify them as RM?  

 

2.  This leads to the second question:  the contributors agreement says that the images must have a licence that is consistent with how the images are being licensed on other sites, but if there is no consistency on other sites, then what do I do?!  (Also, as a general question, I am assuming that in practice this means that if images are listed as 'editorial' on micro sites, this is the equivalent of RM here?)

 

3.  Just thought of a third question:  I read in some forums that if images are RM on Alamy, they can't be sold on other sites, but that's not how I read the contributor agreement which expressly states that the images are supplied on a non-exclusive basis. And the section regarding consistent licensing between sites seems to confirm this. Perhaps what I was reading was old information? In short, if images are made available on Alamy as RM (because need to be editorial because no releases), can I still leave them on other micro-sites? (Clearly different story if they are RM-Exclusive but won't have any in that category).

 

Sorry for the long post, but I find this one of the most baffling aspects of the whole process.  Thoughts?

[PatrioticAlien]

I) my person view i would mark it as yes needing a release, if its the main subject in the photo. Also if it is owned privately by a person, company or whatever Then yes. ifs it owned by the public then i dont think it needs one, depends on your country. again i mark    everything with needing PR's. It's better to play it safe. dont forget designs also contain IP without logos.  

 

II) when you sell a photo e.g. Photo X sold as RM licence for 2 trillion-billion book covers  "exclusively" or whatever  then you must exclude/ restrict that option of use on other sites where it is listed.   And vice versa, with other sites.  

 

III) images marked as RM-E cannot be sold on other sites.

     just sell them as RM or RF and they can be sold on as many sites as you like, its better in the long term.   

[John Mitchell]

As far as I know, you wouldn't need property releases for editorial use, but best to offer your building pics as RM. I've got all kinds of photos of historical buildings on Alamy with no releases. They are all RM.

 

You can sell your RM images on as many websites as you like as long as you haven't made them exclusive anywhere. I don't know anything about microstock, but you shouldn't have an image for lease as RM on Alamy and have it being offered as RF somewhere else. 

[KerinF]

 

Thanks for your responses.  I wonder if part of the confusion (on my part at least) is the terminology.  As more of the micros have started accepting editorial images, they are (in effect) RM, i.e. there is a restriction on their use because they can only be used for editorial purposes, so they are not really RF anymore anyway. In that regard, and taking RM-exclusive out of the picture completely, are "editorial" images on a micro-site to all intents and purposes the same as RM-editorial on Alamy?  Both can be sold multiple times, though appreciate pricing is set for one by use (Alamy) and the other by size without same boundaries around use (micro).  The only reason why they would be RM here is because of lack of releases.

What is interesting here too is Stockimo:  I submitted images to that before trying Alamy.  The FAQs emphasise non-exclusivity and the ongoing right to sell images to other sites, but the same questions regarding property / people get asked and the image gets syphoned off to "commercial" or "editorial" (which shows as RM on Alamy by default, although the app doesn't used the term "RM").  Given this deliberately simple model and software for Stockimo, and if it is the case that you can't have non-exclusive images as RM (editorial) here and RF (editorial) there, I expect that the nuances of that restriction will be lost on most new contributors (including myself)

A large proportion of my existing images do fall in the "editorial" category:  it would be disappointing if I can't list them here as RM (editorial) and RF (editorial) on micros.

All too hard....brain fade...

[KerinF]

Just to confuse myself even further:  I did a search for similar images on Alamy - some are RF, some are RM - but even the RF ones say they don't have property release.  So I assume that the RF ones must have been marked as no property?  (The subject matter in question are the facades of art nouveau buildings in Riga).  Completely random.  Aaargh.

[Guest]

Thanks for your responses. I wonder if part of the confusion (on my part at least) is the terminology. As more of the micros have started accepting editorial images, they are (in effect) RM, i.e. there is a restriction on their use because they can only be used for editorial purposes, so they are not really RF anymore anyway. In that regard, and taking RM-exclusive out of the picture completely, are "editorial" images on a micro-site to all intents and purposes the same as RM-editorial on Alamy? Both can be sold multiple times, though appreciate pricing is set for one by use (Alamy) and the other by size without same boundaries around use (micro). The only reason why they would be RM here is because of lack of releases.

What is interesting here too is Stockimo: I submitted images to that before trying Alamy. The FAQs emphasise non-exclusivity and the ongoing right to sell images to other sites, but the same questions regarding property / people get asked and the image gets syphoned off to "commercial" or "editorial" (which shows as RM on Alamy by default, although the app doesn't used the term "RM"). Given this deliberately simple model and software for Stockimo, and if it is the case that you can't have non-exclusive images as RM (editorial) here and RF (editorial) there, I expect that the nuances of that restriction will be lost on most new contributors (including myself)

A large proportion of my existing images do fall in the "editorial" category: it would be disappointing if I can't list them here as RM (editorial) and RF (editorial) on micros.

All too hard....brain fade...

You can't list them as RF (albeit RF editorial on micro) and RM here. The Alamy agreement specifically states that the licenses must be the same. The fact that the RF on micro is restricted doesn't mean much since the basic RF license on many micros is also restricted - hence the extended license.

 

 

Hello everyone, newbie questions, so please be kind.  I have just passed initial QC for "grown-up" Alamy (have some Stockimo images) and am now going through the process of keywording, etc those first 4 little images 

I have a question - well, two really, about property releases:

 

1.  I have a set of images taken of the facades of 100+ year old buildings.  All the photos are taken from a public street, and none of them show people or other copyright items such as logos, etc.  From what I know or have researched, the architects of these buildings died well over 70 years ago so therefore copyright in the buildings would not subsist (if it ever did which is a whole other debate about whether in fact photos of a building can be the subject of copyright as opposed to the original building drawings...but I digress).   Anyway, what is Alamy's general approach to whether these need releases or not? I have read the guidelines but I have submitted the same images to some of the micro sites as commercial with mixed results:  most have not required releases, while some have.  (Even more frustratingly, some images of the same facade of the same building have been treated differently by the same agency).  So the guidelines, while helpful, don't give a feel as to how the rules are applied in practice.  What is the experience of others with regard to photos of this type?  I was proposing to put them forward as RF, but is the prudent course to classify them as RM?  

 

 

It does depend on which country and how the buildings appear in the image i.e. is it just one building which is the subject or one of many. In many countries you don't need releases, in the UK for example there's no breach of copyright in a photo of a building, in the USA (in CA, at least), it's not an issue - been tried and failed in court.

 

If you have the images on micro, you'll have to work out which channel brings you the most money and then set licenses accordingly.

[PatrioticAlien]

If you don't have the property and/or model releases then select no, they will be automatically sold as editorial.

RF needs the model and prop, releases.

 

If you sell the same image as RF on site A and image A as RM on site B you could be held in breach of contract, pending the conditions of sale.

[KerinF]

 

 

 

Thanks for your responses. I wonder if part of the confusion (on my part at least) is the terminology. As more of the micros have started accepting editorial images, they are (in effect) RM, i.e. there is a restriction on their use because they can only be used for editorial purposes, so they are not really RF anymore anyway. In that regard, and taking RM-exclusive out of the picture completely, are "editorial" images on a micro-site to all intents and purposes the same as RM-editorial on Alamy? Both can be sold multiple times, though appreciate pricing is set for one by use (Alamy) and the other by size without same boundaries around use (micro). The only reason why they would be RM here is because of lack of releases.
What is interesting here too is Stockimo: I submitted images to that before trying Alamy. The FAQs emphasise non-exclusivity and the ongoing right to sell images to other sites, but the same questions regarding property / people get asked and the image gets syphoned off to "commercial" or "editorial" (which shows as RM on Alamy by default, although the app doesn't used the term "RM"). Given this deliberately simple model and software for Stockimo, and if it is the case that you can't have non-exclusive images as RM (editorial) here and RF (editorial) there, I expect that the nuances of that restriction will be lost on most new contributors (including myself)
A large proportion of my existing images do fall in the "editorial" category: it would be disappointing if I can't list them here as RM (editorial) and RF (editorial) on micros.
All too hard....brain fade...

You can't list them as RF (albeit RF editorial on micro) and RM here. The Alamy agreement specifically states that the licenses must be the same. The fact that the RF on micro is restricted doesn't mean much since the basic RF license on many micros is also restricted - hence the extended license.

 

 

Hello everyone, newbie questions, so please be kind.  I have just passed initial QC for "grown-up" Alamy (have some Stockimo images) and am now going through the process of keywording, etc those first 4 little images 

I have a question - well, two really, about property releases:

 

1.  I have a set of images taken of the facades of 100+ year old buildings.  All the photos are taken from a public street, and none of them show people or other copyright items such as logos, etc.  From what I know or have researched, the architects of these buildings died well over 70 years ago so therefore copyright in the buildings would not subsist (if it ever did which is a whole other debate about whether in fact photos of a building can be the subject of copyright as opposed to the original building drawings...but I digress).   Anyway, what is Alamy's general approach to whether these need releases or not? I have read the guidelines but I have submitted the same images to some of the micro sites as commercial with mixed results:  most have not required releases, while some have.  (Even more frustratingly, some images of the same facade of the same building have been treated differently by the same agency).  So the guidelines, while helpful, don't give a feel as to how the rules are applied in practice.  What is the experience of others with regard to photos of this type?  I was proposing to put them forward as RF, but is the prudent course to classify them as RM?  

 

 

It does depend on which country and how the buildings appear in the image i.e. is it just one building which is the subject or one of many. In many countries you don't need releases, in the UK for example there's no breach of copyright in a photo of a building, in the USA (in CA, at least), it's not an issue - been tried and failed in court.

 

If you have the images on micro, you'll have to work out which channel brings you the most money and then set licenses accordingly.

 

 

Hi Geoff, thanks.  I take the point on conflicting licences, and your comments go to the heart of the initial query, and that is whether or not any property release is needed in the first place.  And, as I mentioned in my follow-up, images of same buildings (or similar) to the ones I have images of seem to be classified either RM or RF, but neither have property releases.  Take these two examples:  .....darn, not sure how to post the images or links here: but the id of one is A4P1WO (RF) and the ID of another is BN0937 (RM).  As mentioned in my initial query, from a strict copyright view, I would say that they don't need a release -  if I can classify as RF than problem solved.  I agree with your comments on the legal position - and even if copyright once existed - it certainly doesn't anymore.  But I gather that might not be the complete answer given the response of others.  

 

[Guest]

It's not just about copyright, some buildings are trademarked or elements of them are - classic case is the light show for the Eiffel Tower. However in general, old buildings don't need releases. If you look at a RF search for building and select the commercial agencies, Cultura/Blend etc, you will see that they have no problem with RF unreleased buildings. As someone who supplies them, I know they take their IP issues very, very seriously. I would ignore examples from individuals Alamy contribs.

 

Just because it's RF, does not mean the end-user doesn't have to satisfy themselves that releases are not required for their intended use.

 

RF EULA 8.3

 

"You must satisfy yourself that all Releases as may be required for Reproduction of the Image(s) have been secured. You are solely responsible for obtaining all such Releases and the Licence is conditional in each case on your obtaining them. If you are unsure as to whether any Releases are needed for your Image usage, then it is your responsibility to consult with relevant parties. You shall not rely upon any representation or warranty given by Alamy employees or representatives save as set out in this Agreement."

 

Really the question is, where and under what license can I make the most money from these images.......not convinced that editorial micro is part of that answer - however my only micro experience is with normal commercial RF micro but the numbers I see for editorial (outside of a few specific uses) are not great.

[KerinF]

 

thanks Geoff - and everyone else.  I agree with what you say regarding the legal position - the Sydney Opera House is another prime example where rights are enforced through TM law, and also by controlling the surrounding foreshore and therefore rights of access.  What has taken me by surprise is that, elsewhere, images which I thought ought not need a release were knocked back and had to be re-classified as "editorial".  It is certainly a more conservative view than I recall a few years ago.

As for the bigger picture: i.e. editorial micro.  Hmmm...I guess that is the biggest part of the learning curve.  I know I have a lot of images which simply won't be considered "commercial" enough for micro RF but may find a happy home here.  Well, they will have more prospects than just sitting on my hard-drive anyway.

[Guest]

 What has taken me by surprise is that, elsewhere, images which I thought ought not need a release were knocked back and had to be re-classified as "editorial".  It is certainly a more conservative view than I recall a few years ago.

 

 

Many reasons for this. Crowd-sourced sites tend to be very conservative because of their contrib and editing base - many more people (contribs) are operating in a second language as one example. There's also been a number of cases which have come to the fore, Le Corbusier furniture and the 'tree' car freshener etc, making agencies much more wary. At the same time, cases like the San Fran' house commercial use case seemed to be ignored even though it showed that releases are not needed at times.

 

I've run into the fear of Apple on micro sites, anything that looks even in the same ball park as an ipad (even a 3D render) is shunned unless you fight your corner. Crowd-sourced editing at it's worst.

[vecchiad]

Hi, this is not an old building, but is it correct to use a RF licence for a modern car?

www.alamy.com/stock-photo-audi-a5-30-tdi-coupe-neon-blue-2008-17037878.html

 

I think images of isolated vehicles may be acceptable for editorial use only...

[vpics]

I always tick "no property  release" unless it's the Houses of Parliament or Big Ben.