Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Russell Watkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by qaz
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"but it has relicensed as RF anyway." interesting, can u explain this bit pls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. The Guardian pays each time it uses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the info folks

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

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

×
×
  • 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.