Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Niels Quist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The photos are from 2012 & 2013, so relatively recent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by Robert Brook
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So selling RF images with unreleased people and property is 100% kosher?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Edited by MariaJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • 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.