MariaJ Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Just wondering how someone can have an image with people in it and no releases, yet have a Royalty Free license. I thought it automatically gets set to RM if you indicate you don't have a release. Yet I've just run across some that are RF with people and no releases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 You are right. Shouldn't be possible. My guess is that they are either very old images before a system change or the photographer has ticked zero people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callie Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 or images from agencies. I do know one agency in particular that accepts images containing people as RF, so long as the people are not the main subject of the image. They submit to Alamy and do have these images as RF. Of course they must be setting number of people to 0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariaJ Posted May 9, 2015 Author Share Posted May 9, 2015 The photos are from 2012 & 2013, so relatively recent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Must be either a naughty contributor trying to scam the system or images accepted just they are from another agency that doesn't play by the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Brook Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 There is no 'rule' that an RF image must have releases - it is just a condition of acceptance here. One of the US majors has a collection that includes a lot of unreleased documentary photography - all RF. For very high quoted prices too. The term 'royalty free' is something of a misnomer. It is just a blanket term for licenses that have a lot of latitude. Alamy actually sells a lot of unreleased images with licenses that don't fall far short of RF. Many editorial buyers now prefer RF licenses because decisions about how images are used can't always be made at the time of sale. Agencies will be under pressure to fall in step - released or unreleased Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 There is no 'rule' that an RF image must have releases - it is just a condition of acceptance here. One of the US majors has a collection that includes a lot of unreleased documentary photography - all RF. For very high quoted prices too. The term 'royalty free' is something of a misnomer. It is just a blanket term for licenses that have a lot of latitude. Alamy actually sells a lot of unreleased images with licenses that don't fall far short of RF. Many editorial buyers now prefer RF licenses because decisions about how images are used can't always be made at the time of sale. Agencies will be under pressure to fall in step - released or unreleased What about the legal implications of a totally RF world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 There is no 'rule' that an RF image must have releases - it is just a condition of acceptance here. One of the US majors has a collection that includes a lot of unreleased documentary photography - all RF. For very high quoted prices too. The term 'royalty free' is something of a misnomer. It is just a blanket term for licenses that have a lot of latitude. Alamy actually sells a lot of unreleased images with licenses that don't fall far short of RF. Many editorial buyers now prefer RF licenses because decisions about how images are used can't always be made at the time of sale. Agencies will be under pressure to fall in step - released or unreleased What about the legal implications of a totally RF world? What legal implications are you thinking of? RF can be sold editorial as well as "as we think of it" RF. The only ones paying for this are the photographers. Also more difficult to trace and pursue infringers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 There is no 'rule' that an RF image must have releases - it is just a condition of acceptance here. One of the US majors has a collection that includes a lot of unreleased documentary photography - all RF. For very high quoted prices too. The term 'royalty free' is something of a misnomer. It is just a blanket term for licenses that have a lot of latitude. Alamy actually sells a lot of unreleased images with licenses that don't fall far short of RF. Many editorial buyers now prefer RF licenses because decisions about how images are used can't always be made at the time of sale. Agencies will be under pressure to fall in step - released or unreleased What about the legal implications of a totally RF world? The legal implications are no different to RM. Check out the caveats http://www.alamy.com/customer/help/releases.asp The onus, as always, is on the end user to satisfy their own legal requirements. RF is just a way of selling a file of a certain size, it has nothing to do with how you can use it. You can write a RF EULA that restricts in any given way or in no ways. Alamy's one is quite generous but as mentioned above, you can have RF images that may only be used for editorial or indeed, as per micro, for fairly limited uses which can then be extended with another license. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 So selling RF images with unreleased people and property is 100% kosher? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 So selling RF images with unreleased people and property is 100% kosher? Depends where you are selling them and to whom. As already mentioned, it happens on many sites. That's quite different to delierately misleading via annotating in Alamy, that's more about your agreement with Alamy and the way they work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 So selling RF images with unreleased people and property is 100% kosher? Depends where you are selling them and to whom. As already mentioned, it happens on many sites. That's quite different to delierately misleading via annotating in Alamy, that's more about your agreement with Alamy and the way they work. Yes, for sure, the "RF with people" images that Maria mentioned are definitely a violation of Alamy's policies. I stick mainly with RM, but I'm not sure that I would feel comfortable offering unreleased images with recognizable people as RF anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariaJ Posted May 11, 2015 Author Share Posted May 11, 2015 And to do so here on Alamy you would have to falsely choose "0 people" in manage images in order to be able to list it as RF (with no releases). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 And to do so here on Alamy you would have to falsely choose "0 people" in manage images in order to be able to list it as RF (with no releases). That might not be the case if images are being imported en masse from another agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.