Sheila Smart Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 How many people do you think should be notated in this image (without getting out magnifying glasses)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bizair Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Greater that 4. At a quick look I counted 6 clearly visible, I'm sure there are many more with magnificing glass. I would agree, however, that none of those people are likely to be able to identify themselves. Nevertheless, that's Alamy rules. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 It's clear what this keyword cop* was looking for ;-) Looking closely there are of course the inevitable bridge climbers as well. I wish there was a category no identifiable people so no release needed. Because that is why the question is there: are there people in this image that we need a release for. And that is why images with no people now turn up in searches where Model released is checked. Ok I gave in and ticked the more than 4 box and no releases. So no more views when the Model released box is checked. wim * -at 5.55 the comment is interesting in this respect ;-)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 Yes, for Alamy, "More than 4" - though I certainly wouldn't be able to identify anyone, even if I myself were that jaywalker, Sheila. +1 to wiskerke's suggestion of having a category: no identifiable people so no release needed. - Ann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheila Smart Posted May 17, 2013 Author Share Posted May 17, 2013 It's often said that you should put Yes but No release if their mother would recognise their children. Well, I would bet that no mother would be able to recognise the folk in this image even with a microscope and that is why I put No persons and just got rapped across the knuckles by Alamy! I appreciate that there may be legal ramifications for non-released images but this example makes the rule really silly. Sheila PS Expecting red card!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 I count 8, possibly 10 . . . so more than four. The second guy on the left is Joe Sullivan. He works the late shift at the bar just out of sight on the righthand side of the street. I'd know him anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barefootliam Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 I have illustrations with generic people in them and put zero, but the problem with that (as I noted today in another forum thread) is that people won't be able to find the images so easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bizair Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 I think most agree that Alamy's rule, for many images, is silly. Personally, I think it is an over cautious approach, but it's Alamy's sandpit. It may be that such a hard and fast rule overcomes any subjective assessments which I suppose could create problems. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnB Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 At a quick glance I only see one person in the first one but I guess, with pictures like these, it is more important that a buyer is made aware that there are people without release rather than being precise about the number. I also got one of these "wrong number of people" messages from Alamy for three of my images. I was quite surprised because the people were dots like these and the images were being offered RM with unreleased property declared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 I also found the Alamyan way of counting people weird and irritating in the beginning, but have come to some sort of appreciation of the precautions in this. You, as a photographer, are no longer responsible for any recognition as long as you annotate the images correctly. However, if a buyer uses the amount of people actively in searches it makes no sense that the search returns images containing what seems like no people at all. I don't know if an extra tick box like "Not likely to be identified" (or similar better wording) would be of any help and be possible - and would allow keeping the mentioned precaution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Azure-images Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KWheal Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 To be honest, to the buyer it has no effect (which should be our main concern). It is up to them. When they zoom an image it just says whether there is model or property releases available and not how many people. They can decide. It only affect searches and licencing options (e.g. people / no releases make RM only) and if they do a search for no people then they would expect to find no people, not unidentifiable people. Just my thoughts Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnB Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 As well as the release issues, what's being overlooked is that clients want to filter results by number or absence of people. Imagine how silly the search results look when you decide to count or not bother to count people based on how you feel they should be viewed. Alamy is not being 'silly', they are just trying to improve the client experience regarding search results. I'm not sure about this logic. If a client wants (say) two people they presumably want to see two people as a significant part of the picture. They are actually going to assume something is wrong with the search (or our annotation) if they have to get a magnifying glass out to find them. Perhaps Alamy should have a single tick box to indicate that people are present and a second optional box for number of people if relevant to the image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 Aren't we over-thinking this? Number of people (actual people, or parts of people, however small in the picture area... not statues or shadows): tick appropriate box and move on to the next... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incamerastock Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 In answer to the OP: "more than 4". On the Alamy rules front I'd guess the two people in the foreground would be fairly identifiable (to themselves or family or friends) at 100% view. On the client experience front the negative side of annotating this as "zero" is that if somebody actually wanted a street free of people for whatever reason then they are being misled. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheila Smart Posted May 17, 2013 Author Share Posted May 17, 2013 It's often said that you should put Yes but No release if their mother would recognise their children. Well, I would bet that no mother would be able to recognise the folk in this image even with a microscope and that is why I put No persons and just got rapped across the knuckles by Alamy! I appreciate that there may be legal ramifications for non-released images but this example makes the rule really silly. Sheila PS Expecting red card!! Yep, got the red card which just shows how much time some folk have got on their hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Tadman Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 I recently submitted some photos of a beekeeper. The individual in question was not known to me at the time but willingly permitted me to take photographs of him. I later rang him and sent him some copies of the images and he emailed me to say that I had his permission to use the photos at my discretion. The issue is that I still have to mark them as "no release" despite the fact that I have written authorisation from him. It just wasn't practical due to geographical separation nor courteous to chase him to sign releases. I suppose I'm not alone. Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 I recently submitted some photos of a beekeeper. The individual in question was not known to me at the time but willingly permitted me to take photographs of him. I later rang him and sent him some copies of the images and he emailed me to say that I had his permission to use the photos at my discretion. The issue is that I still have to mark them as "no release" despite the fact that I have written authorisation from him. It just wasn't practical due to geographical separation nor courteous to chase him to sign releases. I suppose I'm not alone. Richard Send him a letter with a model release in... More to the point, how many bees were there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Tadman Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 I recently submitted some photos of a beekeeper. The individual in question was not known to me at the time but willingly permitted me to take photographs of him. I later rang him and sent him some copies of the images and he emailed me to say that I had his permission to use the photos at my discretion. The issue is that I still have to mark them as "no release" despite the fact that I have written authorisation from him. It just wasn't practical due to geographical separation nor courteous to chase him to sign releases. I suppose I'm not alone. Richard Send him a letter with a model release in... More to the point, how many bees were there... John; I would do if it was just a single image. However there are 46 and while I don't intend using them all I think he might not be too happy to receive 46 release forms. Or, is it possible to have multiple images on just one form? Serious question. As for the bees, safe to say there were more than 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 I recently submitted some photos of a beekeeper. The individual in question was not known to me at the time but willingly permitted me to take photographs of him. I later rang him and sent him some copies of the images and he emailed me to say that I had his permission to use the photos at my discretion. The issue is that I still have to mark them as "no release" despite the fact that I have written authorisation from him. It just wasn't practical due to geographical separation nor courteous to chase him to sign releases. I suppose I'm not alone. Richard Send him a letter with a model release in... More to the point, how many bees were there... John; I would do if it was just a single image. However there are 46 and while I don't intend using them all I think he might not be too happy to receive 46 release forms. Or, is it possible to have multiple images on just one form? Serious question. As for the bees, safe to say there were more than 4 Multiples images from a single session: OK on one form... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 It's often said that you should put Yes but No release if their mother would recognise their children. Well, I would bet that no mother would be able to recognise the folk in this image even with a microscope and that is why I put No persons and just got rapped across the knuckles by Alamy! I appreciate that there may be legal ramifications for non-released images but this example makes the rule really silly. Sheila PS Expecting red card!! Yep, got the red card which just shows how much time some folk have got on their hands. Does Alamy have some seemingly silly rules in place? Hmm. One of my favorite is: "Does this image need a property release?" What am I, a lawyer? But, Sheila, you're a pro with PS skills. How long would it take you to remove those few tiny people from the frame. It would take me 20 seconds. Problem gone. So what is it you want from Alamy here? I'm reminded of a film about Jesuits in South America. An underling questions the head Jesuit about something he's doing, and the boss says: "This is not a Democracy. This is an Order." Alamy is not a Democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 Great suggestion Ed. Still the small specks do give a good sense of scale. The all important question nowadays is: can this one make it into the Creative section? Because I'm pretty sure that will boost sales a lot. And having to declare there are people in this shot - but no releases may well make that impossible. So here's the catch: better picture or better sales. I guess that's probably democracy at work there too ;-) wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 Great suggestion Ed. Still the small specks do give a good sense of scale. The all important question nowadays is: can this one make it into the Creative section? Because I'm pretty sure that will boost sales a lot. And having to declare there are people in this shot - but no releases may well make that impossible. So here's the catch: better picture or better sales. I guess that's probably democracy at work there too ;-) wim Yeah, nobody on a street in Sydney? It would look like a scene in On the Beach Part 2. What time did you take that, Shelia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheila Smart Posted May 19, 2013 Author Share Posted May 19, 2013 Great suggestion Ed. Still the small specks do give a good sense of scale. The all important question nowadays is: can this one make it into the Creative section? Because I'm pretty sure that will boost sales a lot. And having to declare there are people in this shot - but no releases may well make that impossible. So here's the catch: better picture or better sales. I guess that's probably democracy at work there too ;-) wim Yeah, nobody on a street in Sydney? It would look like a scene in On the Beach Part 2. What time did you take that, Shelia? It was taken at 11:35 am in the middle of summer (February) of "the Rocks" end of George Street - probably most of the people were escaping the midday heat by being in the pub on the left. Your comment regarding the movie On the Beach reminds me of the famous alleged quote by Ava Gardner who said that Melbourne was the perfect place to shoot the end of the world - my apologies to Victorians . Sheila Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.