People In Photos

[smhal]

Not sure of the answer to this so I would like to know if you can give me some clarification on people in photos as I have taken photos when out and about which I would like to share with others.

 

I have some scenes where there are people walking in the photo, some facing toward me, others away and would like to know if I am able to use these photos without getting model releases for them as they were take some time ago, was on holiday at the time.

 

Am new to sending stock photos so any assistance to this would be great so that I am able to sort out before they come to you.  I could photoshop them out if this is required to be done.

 

Many thanks for your help

[Ed Rooney]

You need to read everything Alamy has to say about preparing your images for stock:  http://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/guidelines-for-submitting-images/

 

You can sell an image with people and no model releases editorially . . . but not for any advertising purpose. And If your image shows any part of a person--a finger--you need a release to sell it for advertising.

[DDoug]

Something I don't see in the Alamy information on model and property releases, but which was clearly stated in the same information provided by another agency, is the fact that rules for Europe are more stringent than for the USA. Alamy says, "Don’t worry, if you don’t have a release, we can still sell your images as Rights Managed (RM)". The other agency states, to paraphrase, that the photo must be of a newsworthy event in a public place and unless a person is public figure he or she must not be prominent in the image.

 

I have some unreleased images on Alamy which were taken in  continental Europe for which European publications would be the likely buyers. Based on the info from the other agency, I'd need releases even if the intended use is editorial.

 

Does anyone know whether and/or to what extent this is enforced? Does the agency's proviso that the onus is on the publication to determine if it needs releases let the photographer off the hook? Is the location of the photograph or the location of the publisher more relevant in case of legal action?

[dustydingo]

Something I don't see in the Alamy information on model and property releases, but which was clearly stated in the same information provided by another agency, is the fact that rules for Europe are more stringent than for the USA. Alamy says, "Don’t worry, if you don’t have a release, we can still sell your images as Rights Managed (RM)". The other agency states, to paraphrase, that the photo must be of a newsworthy event in a public place and unless a person is public figure he or she must not be prominent in the image.

 

I have some unreleased images on Alamy which were taken in  continental Europe for which European publications would be the likely buyers. Based on the info from the other agency, I'd need releases even if the intended use is editorial.

 

Does anyone know whether and/or to what extent this is enforced? Does the agency's proviso that the onus is on the publication to determine if it needs releases let the photographer off the hook? Is the location of the photograph or the location of the publisher more relevant in case of legal action?

 

The releases/permissions etc you refer to relate to publishing an image. The publisher decides if she is going to publish, not your good self.

 

When keywording, state honestly whether or not you have releases, then move onto the next image :-)

 

dd

[spacecadet]

Something I don't see in the Alamy information on model and property releases, but which was clearly stated in the same information provided by another agency, is the fact that rules for Europe are more stringent than for the USA. Alamy says, "Don’t worry, if you don’t have a release, we can still sell your images as Rights Managed (RM)". The other agency states, to paraphrase, that the photo must be of a newsworthy event in a public place and unless a person is public figure he or she must not be prominent in the image.

 

I have some unreleased images on Alamy which were taken in continental Europe for which European publications would be the likely buyers. Based on the info from the other agency, I'd need releases even if the intended use is editorial.

 

 

I wonder if they are concerned about the French privacy law, which is quite draconian, and are generalising.

[vpics]

Many agencies require model releases unless you have a large crowd of people in the shot and you're not necessarily focusing on them. The same would apply for festivals etc. In the UK there are no privacy laws in public places and it's perfectly okay to take someone's portrait and put it up for editorial use. In other European countries such as France, Italy and Germany this might be an invasion of privacy and I would advise against using any without a release. I think a while ago there was a legal case involving German quizmaster Günther Jauch whose wedding shots hit the papers. I believe he lost the case because he was considered a public figure.  

 

Saying that, the same agencies that are picky about First World portraits will accept Third World travel people pics without releases, because these people are far away, might never see them being use and are unlikely to sue them. 

[exben]

I'm also a little confused about when released are necessary.

 

I have this image:

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-people-peering-into-the-water-at-a-fog-enveloped-brockholes-nature-89386602.html

 

I didn't upload releases because I felt the people perhaps not recognisable but I could get releases signed as I know these people. I have a message now saying that the image will either be deleted or changed to 'RM' from 'RM - Exclusive' within 3 months if I do not upload releases. Why the difference between 'RM' and 'RM - Exclusive'?

[vpics]

RM exclusive images require model releases, I think.

[exben]

I see, many thanks. I will get the releases which should resolve the problem.