Property releases revisited

[TokyoM1ke]

Hi

 

I am getting myself tied up in knots about property releases... again. What can I do with this picture (taken in Tokyo)?

 

 

RF, RM, requires release/doesn't?

 

Thanks (especially for your patience),

 

Mike

[spacecadet]

RM, requires release -yes, do you have one -no, presumably.

[TokyoM1ke]

Got a release? Of course not!

 

Outcome was what I thought but was going round in mental circles.  Brilliant - thank you Mark.

[hdh]

This leaves me puzzled -

I thought I'd need a release for RF, without release only to be sold as RM and for editorial purpose.

(That is unless the client manages to obtain a release). 

 

Am I mistaken - or - Is the answer specific to Japan/Tokyo? 

[NYCat]

This leaves me puzzled -

I thought I'd need a release for RF, without release only to be sold as RM and for editorial purpose.

(That is unless the client manages to obtain a release). 

 

Am I mistaken - or - Is the answer specific to Japan/Tokyo? 

 

You are correct. The image must be sold as RM and the box checked that a release needed and the box checked that there is no release. I think that is what Spacecadet said in a different way.

 

Paulette

[TokyoM1ke]

 

This leaves me puzzled -

I thought I'd need a release for RF, without release only to be sold as RM and for editorial purpose.

(That is unless the client manages to obtain a release). 

 

Am I mistaken - or - Is the answer specific to Japan/Tokyo? 

 

You are correct. The image must be sold as RM and the box checked that a release needed and the box checked that there is no release. I think that is what Spacecadet said in a different way.

 

Paulette

 

I understood it that way too Paulette. 

 

Not Japan specific HDH, just basic "brain fade" on my part.  Tokyo is pretty much the same as anywhere else... I think, other than temples and shrines which can never be RF.

 

Thank you again,

 

Mike

[John Mitchell]

I too remain permanently confused about property releases. Alamy tells its potential customers, "If the buildings or people are not recognisable you don’t need a release."

 

In what cases would a building be " not recognisable" and therefore not need a release? There are zillions of RF, unreleased images of buildings -- that I'm sure somebody somewhere recognises -- on Alamy.

[TokyoM1ke]

I too remain permanently confused about property releases. Alamy tells its potential customers, "If the buildings or people are not recognisable you don’t need a release."

 

In what cases would a building be " not recognisable" and therefore not need a release? There are zillions of RF, unreleased images of buildings -- that I'm sure somebody somewhere recognises -- on Alamy.

Isn't it a CYA issue for Alamy? "The building owners are suing and we told you that it couldn't be RF, it's your problem Mr Photographer!"  Everything is fine... until the wheels come off.

[hdh]

 

 

This leaves me puzzled -

I thought I'd need a release for RF, without release only to be sold as RM and for editorial purpose.

(That is unless the client manages to obtain a release). 

 

Am I mistaken - or - Is the answer specific to Japan/Tokyo? 

 

You are correct. The image must be sold as RM and the box checked that a release needed and the box checked that there is no release. I think that is what Spacecadet said in a different way.

 

Paulette

 

I understood it that way too Paulette. 

 

Not Japan specific HDH, just basic "brain fade" on my part.  Tokyo is pretty much the same as anywhere else... I think, other than temples and shrines which can never be RF.

 

Thank you again,

 

Mike

 

 

Thats being me non-native English, I understood the wrong way round. 

Thanks for clarification to both of you, Paulette and Mike! 

[NYCat]

You are very welcome. It's good to know I was able to explain it. I am a native English speaker and I sometimes find I don't quite grasp a meaning.

 

Paulette

[spacecadet]

If you had a release it follows that you could list it as RF, yes.

If someone could point to the building and say 'that's mine' and prove it, you need a release. Not many buildings are that unrecognisable, I'd say.

[Martin P Wilson]

If you had a release it follows that you could list it as RF, yes.

If someone could point to the building and say 'that's mine' and prove it, you need a release. Not many buildings are that unrecognisable, I'd say.

 

Surely that would also need you to be the architect?

 

Just because I own a particular makeof car I cannot give a property release on it as I do not hold the intellectual property in the design.

[TokyoM1ke]

 

If you had a release it follows that you could list it as RF, yes.

If someone could point to the building and say 'that's mine' and prove it, you need a release. Not many buildings are that unrecognisable, I'd say.

Surely that would also need you to be the architect?

 

Just because I own a particular makeof car I cannot give a property release on it as I do not hold the intellectual property in the design.

 

Surely if they sign a property release ... without having the right to do so but tell you that they do and you have no reason to doubt them, then it becomes their problem? The whole thing is fraught with risk, however you dress it up.  Daisy chain of lawsuits... Perhaps a good reason to carry insurance! Does anyone carry insurance against that kind of error? Might not be expensive.

[spacecadet]

 

 

If you had a release it follows that you could list it as RF, yes.

If someone could point to the building and say 'that's mine' and prove it, you need a release. Not many buildings are that unrecognisable, I'd say.

Surely that would also need you to be the architect?

 

Just because I own a particular makeof car I cannot give a property release on it as I do not hold the intellectual property in the design.

Then you may need a release on the design as well, although I'd be surprised of architects' contracts didn't vest design right, or at least a licence to it, in the owner. The question was about the property qua property.

My house is 108 years old- it's safe to assume that the designer has been dead for 70 years. But a photograph of it still needs a release from me as the owner to list it as RF here.

(Actually there was no design right till 1956).

[John Mitchell]

I would have made Mike's photo RM for its artistic merit alone. It's too unique to be sold as RF.

 

Not sure what "property qua property" means. My Latin is a bit rusty.

[John Mitchell]

double post deleted

[Bill Brooks]

It is the responsibility of the photographer to determine if the person signing the release has the authority to do so.

 

I carry errors and omissions insurance as part of a general business insurance policy for my limited photo company. It is CA$800 annually for up to CA$1,000,000. This covers things like releases, killing models by electrocution when studio strobes fall into a hot tub etc. It also includes some insurance on equipment.

 

There is a small amount of risk in selling a stock photo, or doing assignments, and technically most of that risk is on the photographer. If you have personal assets, I think you should consider both insurance and incorporating.

 

To comment on John’s feelings on RM over RF it does not seem to matter much nowadays. All Stock libraries are dealing on terms for RM to the point that the RM licenses resemble RF or microstock anyway. 

 

From Jim Pickerell’s website.

 

“2 Credits

Buy Full Article

Turning RM Into Microstock

By Jim Pickerell | 948 Words | Posted 12/18/2015 | Comments (2)

Ever since Getty Images invented Premium Access (PA) licensing image creators have been upset that their images were being licensed to some users for ridiculously low prices. Often images licensed in this manner are ones that have been extremely costly to produce. For at least one contributor Rights Managed PA sales now represent 66% of total sales at an average price of $12.00 and over half the sales are for $4.35 or less.