Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SiperianMonkey

Model release for silhouettes?

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I'm pretty new in alamy and i have couple question.

I have 14 image on sale for now and there is couple silhouettes, like people in very far and all black.

Do alamy look anything about releases because for now they are on sale even no releases so you think are they ok.

 

In other photo agency where i sell it's ok sell any picture where you can't see the people face.

 

But where is the limit here?

 

Example i take picture from the beach where someone is running front of the sun so picture is silhouette if i want to sell this picture to commercial use do i have to run after him and ask him to fill model release paper :P or not? Even i black him dark silhouette so there's no way to make him recognizable again.

 

Another example if the people are in the boat like 300 meter way from the beach and i make them a silhouette again do i have to swim there whit my paper if i sell the picture in commercial use?

 

 

What about property release Petronas Towers can i sell or not?

 

Ok theres couple question for now what you think and how you act. :rolleyes:

 

Edit: Ou you can see my pictures in my profile so there are the examples.

Edited by SiperianMonkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alamy needs model releases for silhouettes, microscopic "unrecognisable to their mothers" images, body parts etc etc.  Possibly to satisfy their overzealous legal team!  Silly really but it's their rules and we have to abide by them if we still want to submit.

 

Cheers

Sheila

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends what you mean by 'commercial' If you mean 'non editorial' then yes, you need releases (and it's far from 'silly') For selling as an editorial image then no, you don't need releases but you will only be able to sell them as RM. Your Petronas Tower shot is fine to sell editorially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Alamy insist that even here, B0EH9A, there is a person. If I wanted to licence it as RF, the MR would be obligatory.

Hmmm... perhaps I would need PR as well. Some farmer somewhere might recognize the meat of his pigs in the sausages ;(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very strict rules in Alamy :huh:  ye it's look like i have to put them only editorial use then. 

 

So basically only picture you can sell in commercial use whit-out release is some animal in middle of the forest supposing that there is no any empty Coca cola can in the ground.    ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alamy insists on a MR for silhouettes, but IMHO, that is to protect them and you if the buyer decides to use the image in a non-editorial way.

 

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For RF images that can be used commercially, you require a model release for all people, parts of people, microscopic people, without exception. This is not just an overzealous Alamy rule it is the recognized industry standard rule for commercial usage. Every major agency requires the same releases that Alamy is asking for. In fact, you will also need a property release for every piece of property in the picture. Just becasue some agencies are bending the rules doesn't mean it's okay for them to do it. It just means they haven't been sued for millions of dollars yet. The agencies that sell RF without model releases cover their ass by placing the onus completely on the photogarpher. So if they're sued they simply pass along the photographers info to the lawyers. However, in the US there have been plenty of cases where the agency was also sued and had to pay.

 

It's a simple rule, you CAN'T LEGALLY use any person or property in an image for commercial purposes without releases. Does that mean it isn't done? No there are tons of micro stock agencies in breach of this law and Alamy has hundreds of RF images without any sort of release. Let's put it this way, just becasue you're not caught if you break the speed limit doesn't make it legal. Eventually you will get caught and have to pay. I know a few US photographers that have had to pay tens of thosuands of dollars in law suits. Maybe you should ask them if you need a release or not.

 

In fact, in the province of Quebec, Canada it is even illegal to use a people image editorially without a  release. Go figure. Look the industry has a fallback option for any image without releases. It's called RM. Why take the chance. My rule is "if you have to ask list it as RM".

Edited by MichaelD
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Azure-images

...

Edited by Azure-images
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"ASMP has never seen a statute or a legal case that requires a release for property."

 

And I haven't had a speeding ticket in the last ten years and I break the speed limit almost everytime I'm in my car. Go figure.

 

Perhaps you should have quoted the entire paragraph from ASMP.

"We know of no case that has ever settled those kinds of questions. ASMP advises that property releases be acquired whenever possible because we don’t want to see you be the test case."

 

The questions ASMP is referring to regard the statues of "Association" and "Conversion". In countries like the US and Canada where sueing is a God given right, these are issues that can arise very quickly. There have been a number of cases in Canada of photographers being sued successfully under these two statues. Now until the rise of all these small micro agencies and such, the main players always required MRs and PRs for RF images (and still do). So the chance of there being an issue has been low. However, today there are millions of RF images out there without MRs and PRs. That doesn't make it illegal, that only means that photographers haven't been caught yet. But it's just a matter of time.

 

Of course the original post was regarding model releases and ASMP is very clear about the need for a model release for commercial use. And just because they don't actually cite examples of photographers being sued, believe me, hundreds have. And still I see countless RF images without MRs. Go figure.

 

When any of us break the speed limit we know the inherent risks. It is not just illegal when we're caught, but it's illegal as soon as the sign is posted. I think we all view the fine as petty. I wonder if the fines for breaking the speed limit were in the range of some of the settlements for unlawful use if we would stop breaking the speed limit. What if the fine for speeding was $5000, would we slow down? I know I would.

 

Sooner than later, with all the unreleased RF out there today, ASMP will have its test case. The question is, who wants to be first???

Edited by MichaelD
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember this is an international forum. It's certainly not unlawful in the UK.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • 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.