Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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

Edited by Bizair
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's clear what this keyword cop* was looking for ;-)

 

B64D4T.jpg

 

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 ;-))
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by ann
Link to post
Share on other sites

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!!

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by JohnB
Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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... :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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... :P

 

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 post
Share on other sites

 

 

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... :P

 

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 post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Edited by Ed Rooney
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

 

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 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.