chrislofotos Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 I have numerous images of people in various activities, Kayaking, riding, cycling and hiking etc., if the shots do not show their faces can these be classed as Royalty free without releases? The other sites I subscribe to have differing opinions on this, I just wonder what Alamy's stance is on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Todd Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 Short and sweet answer is you need model releases to sell RF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 Basically, Alamy takes a hardline, absolute position on releases. As long as any part, even a small part, of a person is seen in an image, you need a release to consider the image RF at Alamy. (Gee, Alex said that with so many less words.) So in answering the question about releases in Attributes say no, you don't have a release, and RM will automatically be selected for you. In other words, Alamy will make the image available for editorial use only. Your image of the compass in the hand and the one of the three people from the back need to be changed to RM. Sorry. Good luck and welcome aboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 Basically, Alamy takes a hardline, absolute position on releases. As long as any part, even a small part, of a person is seen in an image, you need a release to consider the image RF at Alamy. (Gee, Alex said that with so many less words.) So in answering the question about releases in Attributes say no, you don't have a release, and RM will automatically be selected for you. In other words, Alamy will make the image available for editorial use only. Your image of the compass in the hand and the one of the three people from the back need to be changed to RM. Sorry. Good luck and welcome aboard. So, I think, do your three images taken in an English back garden if you do not have property releases for them. If its your garden, sign a property release and you can keep them as RF. If its the garden of someone you know get them to sign one, Otherwise they should be RM also. Buildings or property which play a small part in an image like buildings in a skyline view of a village or town taken from a distance don't need a PR, but property which is quite obviously playing a major part in the image do. Kumar Sriskandan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrislofotos Posted May 29, 2013 Author Share Posted May 29, 2013 I thank you all for the comprehensive reply, it's much clearer now! At least the hand holding the compass is my wife's, so shouldn't be too hard to get a release! Kind regards Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Thompson Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 Then all you will need is a property release for the compass!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert M Estall Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 This desire to go down the Royalty Free route again. I made a modest selection and offered them as RF a couple of years ago. There have been a few sales, but not a lot. It seems a somewhat spent business model here. Perhaps different in the (hated) micro-stock arena Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semmick Photo Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 Remember, even if the person is as big as a pixel in the background you need a model release. Or clone the pixel out. But then you need to mark the image as digitally altered which could hurt editorial sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariaJ Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 This is a very interesting discussion, and I've had some similar questions come up. In particular, I have a photo of a lake in the distance and there is a speck in the lake which is a teeny tiny boat, either a kayak or canoe, it's too small to tell. If I zoom in quite close I can see that (obviously) there's a person in the boat, but cannot tell any features other than they appear to be wearing something white light coloured. From your discussion above, I will need to indicate there is one person in the image and that there is no model release and it can only be RM. Is that correct? Also, would a closeup of a flower need a property release if no other features of the property were visible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 This is a very interesting discussion, and I've had some similar questions come up. In particular, I have a photo of a lake in the distance and there is a speck in the lake which is a teeny tiny boat, either a kayak or canoe, it's too small to tell. If I zoom in quite close I can see that (obviously) there's a person in the boat, but cannot tell any features other than they appear to be wearing something white light coloured. From your discussion above, I will need to indicate there is one person in the image and that there is no model release and it can only be RM. Is that correct? Also, would a closeup of a flower need a property release if no other features of the property were visible? If a person is visible - however small in the picture area - you need to tick 'one person', and say 'no MR'. Or you could clone the boat out of the pic altogether. No release needed for close-up of flower (though if you want a second opinion, there are a few shrinking violets lurking on the forum)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariaJ Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Thanks for the info John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.