Bill Ragosta Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 OK, just want to be sure that I get this right and I know it's been asked before. My understanding for most photography is that you don't need model releases unless the person(s) is clearly recognizable in the photo. I read the Alamy guidelines for buyers and it basically says the same thing but I'm sure that I've read in previous threads that ANY person or part of a person, even just an unrecognizable foot or leg or a person far away on a beach, does in fact need a model release. I'm presently keywording a lot of photos that were just accepted and a fair number of them have people without releases in them. I tend to photograph nature and wildlife so this is all new to me. Alamy says that only recognizable people need a model release but when you fill in the attributes, you're required to click the number of persons in the photo, answer whether you have a release and if the answer is no, then the photo is licensed as RF. What do you do, click "zero persons" if they're unrecognizable or just a body part or must you click yes and accept that it's a RF image? My apologies for asking a question that I know I've read here before but it seems like I've seen answers from all over the spectrum about this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lastrega Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 It is not automatically an RF image - it can be RF if you either have model release or if you have no people (and you have a release for any property that needs one). Even if you have releases, you can choose to make it RM. The point is more that if you do not have releases, then it is automatically RM. You should state number of persons in the image, even if it is just parts of a person, like a leg or arm. I put number of people in even if they are far away / unrecognisable. Hope this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Ragosta Posted February 17, 2015 Author Share Posted February 17, 2015 I thought that it was the opposite. If there are people but no model releases then it is by default an RF image, right, only for editorial use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Ragosta Posted February 17, 2015 Author Share Posted February 17, 2015 I just read "releases explained" for the 4th or 5th time and still don't get it. It clearly states that a release is not necessary to use the photo commercially if the person is unrecognizable (in which case I'd presume you tick the "0 persons" block). It goes on to explain that releases are different in each country and it's the contributor's job to know whether a release is necessary or not. So again, if I have a photo of a woman's hand on a bar holding a Pina Colada, do I need a release to sell the photo on Alamy or in the United States (since it would be the rare woman that could identify her hand out of 6 billion on this planet)? Not to get off topic too much property releases are always necessary in the U.S. (or on Alamy) if a manufacturer's name is present (like a Suzuki motorcycle, a woman wearing an Aeropostale shirt or a bottle of Jim Beam), right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Clemson Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 With images on Alamy, if you have any part of any person in an image, even if they are completely unrecognisable they are counted and put in the 'number of people' field The image is then automatically RM editorial. If there are no people and no recognisable property OR if you have a release for people or property your image can be RF or RM as you choose. Don't ask me whether RF or RM is better 'cos I only ever do RM editorial here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Ragosta Posted February 17, 2015 Author Share Posted February 17, 2015 OK, thanks Joseph, that's clear enough. I'm not sure I understand why an unrecognizable hand or foot needs a release but hey, the rules are the rules and I intend to follow them. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Clemson Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Following up on your release question, it may be even more complex than that. It needn't be the presence of a brand name, any recognisable design or property (such as a building) can require a release for RF work. This, in part at least, is why I find it much easier to shoot with RM in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lastrega Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I thought that it was the opposite. If there are people but no model releases then it is by default an RF image, right, only for editorial use? The easy way to check is to say number of people = 1, model release = no. Check the RM / RF drop down and you will see that you cannot choose RF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Ragosta Posted February 17, 2015 Author Share Posted February 17, 2015 Yes, I was aware of that. I still think it's somewhat silly in many circumstances, but I don't ever want to run afoul of the law or even of the Alamy guidelines. Thanks for the help folks, seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoM1ke Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 I think that by going RM and giving a true count of the released models etc. you are handing the decision as to whether a foot can really be recognised to the buyer... There are unpteen anecdotes on the web of people recognising a piece of their hand, foot, back of head etc. and going after someone for compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Ragosta Posted February 18, 2015 Author Share Posted February 18, 2015 I'm sure you're right and I guess I don't blame Alamy and would rather be safe than sorry. It just seems sad that we live in such a litigious world where a guy/gal would get all bent out of shape because some photographer may have made a few hundred clams off of a picture that happened to feature said guy's right foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.