nmccamy Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 I want to know if any of the following described photographs could be considered Royalty Free, assuming there are no model or property releases. 1. A close-up of a person's hand wearing a ring. 2. A forest shot with a person in the background that can be recognized as a person, but not a specific person. 3. A shot of a cross inside a church. 4. A shot of a cross on the outside of a church. 5. A shot of a table setting in a restaurant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Thompson Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 No they are all RM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmccamy Posted November 21, 2014 Author Share Posted November 21, 2014 OK, thanks Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Personally, I would make them all RM. However, I'm not sure why #3 an #4 would have to be RM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Personally, I would make them all RM. However, I'm not sure why #3 an #4 would have to be RM. Because they are of property which belongs to the church. Pearl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Personally, I would make them all RM. However, I'm not sure why #3 an #4 would have to be RM. Because they are of property which belongs to the church. Pearl Wouldn't it depend on how the cross was framed? If the church is not identifiable as a specific church, I don't see why they couldn't be RF. What am I missing? Here is an example of an RF image of a crucifix. Should it be RM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptoprocta Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 I wouldn't take the fact that something is here as RF as a precedent. There are RF pics on Alamy of public outdoors performances with dozens of performers and probably hundreds of audience members. (marked Model Release: No) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Personally, I would make them all RM. However, I'm not sure why #3 an #4 would have to be RM. Because they are of property which belongs to the church. Pearl Wouldn't it depend on how the cross was framed? If the church is not identifiable as a specific church, I don't see why they couldn't be RF. What am I missing? Here is an example of an RF image of a crucifix. Should it be RM? I would not mark that as RF, John, it is still a church and completely identifiable to the owners. If that image was used in either a way that was derogatory to the church, or for advertising, then the owners may well feel aggrieved and have a case against the publisher and the photographer Kumar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Wouldn't it depend on how the cross was framed? If the church is not identifiable as a specific church, I don't see why they couldn't be RF. What am I missing? Here is an example of an RF image of a crucifix. Should it be RM? Your example is an image of a cross on a specific church. If it was mine, I would answer "property Release necessary" and that would make it RM. In the case of the cross on the church, by answering "No Property Release Necessary" you are accepting more of the legal responsibility if a client uses that image for commercial purposes and the owner, or a rich benefactor of the church, sues. Like a fingernail not identifying a person, for the purpose of a property release, it is irrelevant if the church is not readily identifiable. This could be like a roadside bomb lurking amongst your 4873 images. Over the years I have been down this road more than once. The publisher is ultimately responsible. However it can get very sticky and costly for everyone involved, including the photographer. Here are some RM images from me, that I would prefer to be RF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 "This could be like a roadside bomb lurking amongst your 4873 images." Bill, the "holy" church image isn't mine. I just selected it randomly for the sake of discussion. I would definitely have marked this one RM for the reasons Kumar mentioned. However, there are countless RF images like it out there that probably should be RM. Microstock agencies are full of them. Personally, since I don't have releases, normally the only images that I mark as RF are generic nature shots like like this one and the occasional abstract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Personally, I would make them all RM. However, I'm not sure why #3 an #4 would have to be RM. Because they are of property which belongs to the church. Pearl Wouldn't it depend on how the cross was framed? If the church is not identifiable as a specific church, I don't see why they couldn't be RF. What am I missing? Here is an example of an RF image of a crucifix. Should it be RM? I would not mark that as RF, John, it is still a church and completely identifiable to the owners. If that image was used in either a way that was derogatory to the church, or for advertising, then the owners may well feel aggrieved and have a case against the publisher and the photographer Kumar I agree, Kumar. I wouldn't have marked this one (it's not mine) as RF either. However, I'm wondering if there are other opinions given that so many contributors do consider images like these RF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Personally, I would make them all RM. However, I'm not sure why #3 an #4 would have to be RM. Because they are of property which belongs to the church. Pearl Wouldn't it depend on how the cross was framed? If the church is not identifiable as a specific church, I don't see why they couldn't be RF. What am I missing? Here is an example of an RF image of a crucifix. Should it be RM? I would not mark that as RF, John, it is still a church and completely identifiable to the owners. If that image was used in either a way that was derogatory to the church, or for advertising, then the owners may well feel aggrieved and have a case against the publisher and the photographer Kumar You cannot control a derogatory use by the license, so it makes no difference if the license is RF or RM. As for feeling aggrieved, that's also not applicable to the license. If the question is, does this image of a cross on the outside of the building in the USA need a release....well when tested in court the answer seems to be no, it doesn't need one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Personally, I would make them all RM. However, I'm not sure why #3 an #4 would have to be RM. Because they are of property which belongs to the church. Pearl Wouldn't it depend on how the cross was framed? If the church is not identifiable as a specific church, I don't see why they couldn't be RF. What am I missing? Here is an example of an RF image of a crucifix. Should it be RM? I would not mark that as RF, John, it is still a church and completely identifiable to the owners. If that image was used in either a way that was derogatory to the church, or for advertising, then the owners may well feel aggrieved and have a case against the publisher and the photographer Kumar You cannot control a derogatory use by the license, so it makes no difference if the license is RF or RM. As for feeling aggrieved, that's also not applicable to the license. If the question is, does this image of a cross on the outside of the building in the USA need a release....well when tested in court the answer seems to be no, it doesn't need one. That's a good point, and one that occurred to me. There's nothing stopping either an RF or RM image being used derogatorily. The only difference would be the context -- i.e. a commercial one vs. an editorial one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Personally, I would make them all RM. However, I'm not sure why #3 an #4 would have to be RM. Because they are of property which belongs to the church. Pearl Wouldn't it depend on how the cross was framed? If the church is not identifiable as a specific church, I don't see why they couldn't be RF. What am I missing? Here is an example of an RF image of a crucifix. Should it be RM? I would not mark that as RF, John, it is still a church and completely identifiable to the owners. If that image was used in either a way that was derogatory to the church, or for advertising, then the owners may well feel aggrieved and have a case against the publisher and the photographer Kumar You cannot control a derogatory use by the license, so it makes no difference if the license is RF or RM. As for feeling aggrieved, that's also not applicable to the license. If the question is, does this image of a cross on the outside of the building in the USA need a release....well when tested in court the answer seems to be no, it doesn't need one. That's a good point, and one that occurred to me. There's nothing stopping either an RF or RM image being used derogatorily. The only difference would be the context -- i.e. a commercial one vs. an editorial one. Editorial captioning gets more people into trouble than any of the supposed scenarios we can generally come up with. Even a release doesn't allow for the use to be dematory or above the laws of the land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 +1 and +1 Geoff. However if the main subject of the image is someones property, I would not like to take the risk of being on record as declaring that the image "Does not require a property release for commercial use" when I do not have a property release. I would prefer to answer that the "image requires a property release for commercial use" and "I do not have a property release" and then be able to self designate the image as RF in Manage Images. In most instances of casual shoots featuring property in or on the street, it is next to impossible to find someone with the authority and the willingness to sign a property release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Brook Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 +1 and +1 Geoff. However if the main subject of the image is someones property, I would not like to take the risk of being on record as declaring that the image "Does not require a property release for commercial use" when I do not have a property release. I would prefer to answer that the "image requires a property release for commercial use" and "I do not have a property release" and then be able to self designate the image as RF in Manage Images. In most instances of casual shoots featuring property in or on the street, it is next to impossible to find someone with the authority and the willingness to sign a property release. Alamy should not be asking the question in the first place. It's beyond the photographer's pay grade, and as has been demonstrated in previous discussions, most of us don't have a clue, even if we think it is relatively straightforward and we do. If they want to know whether a particular image needs a property release, they should consult a lawyer. Under "Always check if you need a release" they provide all the info that the client needs in addition to making it clear whether an image is released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 +1 and +1 Geoff. However if the main subject of the image is someones property, I would not like to take the risk of being on record as declaring that the image "Does not require a property release for commercial use" when I do not have a property release. I would prefer to answer that the "image requires a property release for commercial use" and "I do not have a property release" and then be able to self designate the image as RF in Manage Images. In most instances of casual shoots featuring property in or on the street, it is next to impossible to find someone with the authority and the willingness to sign a property release. Alamy should not be asking the question in the first place. It's beyond the photographer's pay grade, and as has been demonstrated in previous discussions, most of us don't have a clue, even if we think it is relatively straightforward and we do. If they want to know whether a particular image needs a property release, they should consult a lawyer. Under "Always check if you need a release" they provide all the info that the client needs in addition to making it clear whether an image is released. I'm certainly in the "not having a clue" category much of the time. Alamy is the only agency I've dealt with that asks specifically if an image requires a release, which does seem to put the onus on the photographer. Most agencies just ask whether or not releases are available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Brook Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 +1 and +1 Geoff. However if the main subject of the image is someones property, I would not like to take the risk of being on record as declaring that the image "Does not require a property release for commercial use" when I do not have a property release. I would prefer to answer that the "image requires a property release for commercial use" and "I do not have a property release" and then be able to self designate the image as RF in Manage Images. In most instances of casual shoots featuring property in or on the street, it is next to impossible to find someone with the authority and the willingness to sign a property release. Alamy should not be asking the question in the first place. It's beyond the photographer's pay grade, and as has been demonstrated in previous discussions, most of us don't have a clue, even if we think it is relatively straightforward and we do. If they want to know whether a particular image needs a property release, they should consult a lawyer. Under "Always check if you need a release" they provide all the info that the client needs in addition to making it clear whether an image is released. I'm certainly in the "not having a clue" category much of the time. Alamy is the only agency I've dealt with that asks specifically if an image requires a release, which does seem to put the onus on the photographer. Most agencies just ask whether or not releases are available. The question is unethical. We agree that Alamy take 50% of our fees, on the understanding that they provide services on our behalf, not ask unanswerable questions that seem to be intended to relieve them of such obligations. Think hard about it: what does it mean? Is it asking whether of the thousands of possible 'commercial' uses for that image (allowing that 'commercial' itself is a debating point), at least one enduser would, on taking legal advice, be instructed to obtain a release, or releases, or proof that such releases exist, and that, in fact, that enduser would be at serious risk of being sued without releases? That would be a mighty weird question to ask, and one that nobody should even consider trying to answer. Fair enough that Alamy has simple rules: that if any part of a person is in view images can’t be sold under an RF license without an MR. But even so, it gets a lot less simple once ‘property’ is an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 +1 and +1 Geoff. However if the main subject of the image is someones property, I would not like to take the risk of being on record as declaring that the image "Does not require a property release for commercial use" when I do not have a property release. I would prefer to answer that the "image requires a property release for commercial use" and "I do not have a property release" and then be able to self designate the image as RF in Manage Images. In most instances of casual shoots featuring property in or on the street, it is next to impossible to find someone with the authority and the willingness to sign a property release. Alamy should not be asking the question in the first place. It's beyond the photographer's pay grade, and as has been demonstrated in previous discussions, most of us don't have a clue, even if we think it is relatively straightforward and we do. If they want to know whether a particular image needs a property release, they should consult a lawyer. Under "Always check if you need a release" they provide all the info that the client needs in addition to making it clear whether an image is released. I'm certainly in the "not having a clue" category much of the time. Alamy is the only agency I've dealt with that asks specifically if an image requires a release, which does seem to put the onus on the photographer. Most agencies just ask whether or not releases are available. The question is unethical. We agree that Alamy take 50% of our fees, on the understanding that they provide services on our behalf, not ask unanswerable questions that seem to be intended to relieve them of such obligations. Think hard about it: what does it mean? Is it asking whether of the thousands of possible 'commercial' uses for that image (allowing that 'commercial' itself is a debating point), at least one enduser would, on taking legal advice, be instructed to obtain a release, or releases, or proof that such releases exist, and that, in fact, that enduser would be at serious risk of being sued without releases? That would be a mighty weird question to ask, and one that nobody should even consider trying to answer. Fair enough that Alamy has simple rules: that if any part of a person is in view images can’t be sold under an RF license without an MR. But even so, it gets a lot less simple once ‘property’ is an issue. Not totally sure it's unethical, but I agree that it is really an impossible -- and hence confusing -- question to answer in all but the most obvious cases. No doubt we can blame the lawyers for this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoM1ke Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 +1 and +1 Geoff. However if the main subject of the image is someones property, I would not like to take the risk of being on record as declaring that the image "Does not require a property release for commercial use" when I do not have a property release. I would prefer to answer that the "image requires a property release for commercial use" and "I do not have a property release" and then be able to self designate the image as RF in Manage Images. In most instances of casual shoots featuring property in or on the street, it is next to impossible to find someone with the authority and the willingness to sign a property release. Alamy should not be asking the question in the first place. It's beyond the photographer's pay grade, and as has been demonstrated in previous discussions, most of us don't have a clue, even if we think it is relatively straightforward and we do. If they want to know whether a particular image needs a property release, they should consult a lawyer. Under "Always check if you need a release" they provide all the info that the client needs in addition to making it clear whether an image is released. I'm certainly in the "not having a clue" category much of the time. Alamy is the only agency I've dealt with that asks specifically if an image requires a release, which does seem to put the onus on the photographer. Most agencies just ask whether or not releases are available. The question is unethical. We agree that Alamy take 50% of our fees, on the understanding that they provide services on our behalf, not ask unanswerable questions that seem to be intended to relieve them of such obligations. Think hard about it: what does it mean? Is it asking whether of the thousands of possible 'commercial' uses for that image (allowing that 'commercial' itself is a debating point), at least one enduser would, on taking legal advice, be instructed to obtain a release, or releases, or proof that such releases exist, and that, in fact, that enduser would be at serious risk of being sued without releases? That would be a mighty weird question to ask, and one that nobody should even consider trying to answer. Fair enough that Alamy has simple rules: that if any part of a person is in view images can’t be sold under an RF license without an MR. But even so, it gets a lot less simple once ‘property’ is an issue. Not totally sure it's unethical, but I agree that it is really an impossible -- and hence confusing -- question to answer in all but the most obvious cases. No doubt we can blame the lawyers for this one. In my experience, I think that the answer may be simpler than that (and is not a matter of ethics). If the user of an image is a professional and should reasonably do the checking themselves (i.e. do they need this or that release), and/or should have expertise or claim to have expertise in that area, it's tricky for them then to say "Alamy told me it was OK", thus absolving them of responsibility; giving the photographer a major headache. I've not read Alamy's Ts&Cs for buyers but I would expect them to contain a disclaimer and possibly a declaration of being a professional user, among other things... which itself may have only limited value. I am in no way a lawyer - so please read with health warning! And do remember the old adage: if you're in court you've already lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 So, to err on the side of caution, is it a wise idea to mark all unreleased RM images that contain anything that could conceivably be owned by someone or some organization, etc. as needing a property release for commercial use? P.S. One absurd question begets another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 It's funny to me that although Alamy ask us if the image requires a release, when the image appears to buyers it simply says whether or not it has one, not whether or not it requires one. So the information on the image is the same (no release) regardless of whether you say it does require one but you don't have it or it doesn't require one. So my silly question is, why ask the question (requires a release?) in the first place? dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSnapper Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 "is it a wise idea to mark all unreleased RM images that contain anything that could conceivably be owned by someone or some organization, etc. as needing a property release for commercial use?" That is my approach property being both physical (objects/things) and intellectual (designs/logos). A person may own an object (say, a car) but not the IP in that object. km Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 So, to err on the side of caution, is it a wise idea to mark all unreleased RM images that contain anything that could conceivably be owned by someone or some organization, etc. as needing a property release for commercial use? P.S. One absurd question begets another. Yes. Apart from a few from the early days with unchanged RF status (the ones that Alamy hasn't trawled yet), the only new images I've marked RF in the last four years has been an unattributable slice of victoria sponge which I could conceivably baked myself but didn't (and that assumes that the Crown has no rights in the name); the Union Flag; bomb damage at the V&A; the VR monogram on a postbox; a Victorian hotel and a copy of Rodin's Burghers of Calais. Postscript: I'm only on solid ground with the cake. Probably. Pure landscapes are probably OK but these days I don't bother. It's property yes, PR no, batch attributes. Consequently, under 4% RF sales this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Brook Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 It's funny to me that although Alamy ask us if the image requires a release, when the image appears to buyers it simply says whether or not it has one, not whether or not it requires one. So the information on the image is the same (no release) regardless of whether you say it does require one but you don't have it or it doesn't require one. So my silly question is, why ask the question (requires a release?) in the first place? dd Could it be to do with clause 5.1 in the contributor agreement ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.