qaz 9 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 hi anyone know why i am not allowed to offer a shot with an unrecognisable person for commercial use through stockimo app. i though if they were unrecognisable it comercialy, but the app refuses it imediatly thanks 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Russell Watkins 684 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) Because them's the rules. Alamy hold that any part of a person, even the most blurred unrecognisable fingertip, constitutes "a person" and so the image should be regarded as non-commercial unless you have a model release. The same is true of their image library in general but that is often honoured in the breach rather than the observance. It is up to the photographer to act in good faith in that regard. Edited April 1, 2015 by Russell Watkins Link to post Share on other sites
qaz 9 Posted April 1, 2015 Author Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) oh...i must have forgotten. whats confusing is that i recall that for some reason it is important to determin wheather a person was recognisable or not, i just dont remember why that is ? any ideas? Edited April 1, 2015 by qaz 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Russell Watkins 684 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 oh...i must have forgotten. whats confusing is that i recall that for some reason it is important to determin wheather a person was recognisable or not, i just dont remember why that is ? any ideas? That can be the case at other image libraries, especially microstock libraries. Link to post Share on other sites
qaz 9 Posted April 1, 2015 Author Share Posted April 1, 2015 ah...must have been the other agencyt...thanks....thats buggered it then, in another photo i went to great lengths to get a release from the only recognizable person...but the other people i assume also now need releases ....is that so? Link to post Share on other sites
spacecadet 3,916 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) Apparently. Stockimo is edited so someone can see you're not compliant whereas I probably still have a few here with bits of people from the days when I didn't know the difference. They continue to license so I don't worry about it. Just checked. A few distant heads and hands, a couple of which I could get released, and a chap and his dog walking away, Alamy made me change that to RM because it had an unreleased work of art in it, but it has relicensed as RF anyway. Edited April 1, 2015 by spacecadet Link to post Share on other sites
qaz 9 Posted April 1, 2015 Author Share Posted April 1, 2015 "but it has relicensed as RF anyway." interesting, can u explain this bit pls Link to post Share on other sites
spacecadet 3,916 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Relicensed to the same publisher who had it originally as RF, even though it had been changed to RM by then.So Alamy will relicense on identical terms. Link to post Share on other sites
Jill Morgan 967 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Relicensed to the same publisher who had it originally as RF, even though it had been changed to RM by then.So Alamy will relicense on identical terms. I thought when something was licenced as RF, the buyer had the freedom to use it as often as they wanted for whatever they wanted. Why would they have to relicence if they had bought it RF? Jill Link to post Share on other sites
spacecadet 3,916 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 No. The Guardian pays each time it uses. Link to post Share on other sites
qaz 9 Posted April 4, 2015 Author Share Posted April 4, 2015 thanks for the info folks 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now