EyeEm - Alamy: people in images

[KerinF]

 

I just noticed that about 181,000+ EyeEm marketplace images have gone live on Alamy.  Not sure how recently this happened.  For those that are EyeEm contributors (including myself), we have known this was due to happen for a little while now.  EyeEm previously had an exclusive distribution arrangement with Getty, but with Alamy coming on board as a partner, the Getty arrangement is no longer exclusive.  EyeEm is predominantly, though not only, phone images.  So while Stockimo images continue to be added Shutterstock, EyeEm images are also now competing with Stockimo images on Alamy.  Swings and roundabouts.  

 

Like many microstock and some other RF agencies, EyeEm tends to take a more liberal view of when a release is required.  For example, crowds, parts of people, unrecognisable faces - are all acceptable as commercial RF.  Likewise, incidental use of trade marks and other property are OK.

 

Now, here is the question part of this topic:  do you think it is time for Alamy to become more flexible on its approach to people and RM/RF?  Should every unreleased image which happens to have a person in the distance, or a crowd, or a body part be designated RM? (I know the answer is "yes" under current guidelines, but interested in whether others think it is time for a change.)  Most importantly, are direct Alamy contributors disadvantaged by the fact that we are limited to RM in these circumstances, when so many similar images from agencies like EyeEm are designated RF? Particularly when often hear that clients prefer RF more and more?

 

I know this is irrelevant to many people, because they won't touch RF, but I thought I would throw it out there to see what others think.  I am a bit ambivalent I have to say.  I still prefer to designate true editorial type images as RM, but I am playing around more with RF elsewhere, and I tie myself in knots deciding what to do with those "incidental" people/property images, i.e. whether to place them as unreleased RM here, or unreleased RF elsewhere.

 

Thoughts?

[John Mitchell]

Personally, I don't really understand Alamy's "body parts" policy, but I guess they are playing it ultra-safe. I suppose someone could object to his or her unreleased hand or kneecap inadvertently appearing in an advertisement. That's one for the lawyers.

 

I think that many editorial clients still prefer RM, or at least have no problem with it. That said, I share your RM/RF dilemma. For the time being, Alamy's hybrid RM/RF licensing model seems to me like a good compromise, even if it does appear a bit too flexible at times.

[MircoV]

I think sometimes that a good idea is to add RF-Editorial.

 

I think that RF-Editorial is safer to use since the photo is directly restricted to Editorial only. More and more agencies are offering Editorial RF and more clients appreciate it.

 

Client click on the photo they want and download it….done. No need to go through all the scrolling fields.

 

I expect now some of you throwing axes on me but I can understand it.

 

Mirco

[John Mitchell]

I think sometimes that a good idea is to add RF-Editorial.

 

I think that RF-Editorial is safer to use since the photo is directly restricted to Editorial only. More and more agencies are offering Editorial RF and more clients appreciate it.

 

Client click on the photo they want and download it….done. No need to go through all the scrolling fields.

 

I expect now some of you throwing axes on me but I can understand it.

 

Mirco

 

Interesting idea as long as the prices were in line with regular RF licensing on Alamy. You could argue, though, that some of Alamy's RM licenses are already close to being RF editorial.

[Marianne]

I think allowing RF editorial as an option would make a lot of sense. 

[John Mitchell]

I think allowing RF editorial as an option would make a lot of sense. 

 

I have mixed feelings. But licenses seem to be heading in this direction.

[Bill Brooks]

Some other places unofficially use the yardstick “How many people are THE SUBJECT OF this image”. Rather than Alamy “How many people are IN this image”.

 

I live in eager anticipation that, some day before I die, Alamy will live dangerously and revisit their policy on this matter.

[John Mitchell]

 

Some other places unofficially use the yardstick “How many people are THE SUBJECT OF this image”. Rather than Alamy “How many people are IN this image”.

 

I live in eager anticipation that, some day before I die, Alamy will live dangerously and revisit their policy on this matter.

 

 

Perhaps your wish will come true, Bill, but I'm not clear on how this would change things legally. A person doesn't have to be the main subject of an image in order to be a subject -- i.e. everyone in an image is technically a subject, but only one or more is/are usually the main subject. No?

[Cryptoprocta]

 

 

Some other places unofficially use the yardstick “How many people are THE SUBJECT OF this image”. Rather than Alamy “How many people are IN this image”.

 

I live in eager anticipation that, some day before I die, Alamy will live dangerously and revisit their policy on this matter.

 

 

Perhaps your wish will come true, Bill, but I'm not clear on how this would change things legally. A person doesn't have to be the main subject of an image in order to be a subject -- i.e. everyone in an image is technically a subject, but only one or more is/are usually the main subject. No?

 

I think (and have sometimes said) that if a buyer ticks that they want e.g. "3 people", they almost certainly want to see three clear people as the subject of the photo, not three tiny, totally defocussed groups of pixels or body parts. There should be a distinction between indicating the number of people who are 'main subjects' for a buyer, and indicating the number of indistint people or body parts 

I can see that where the line is drawn would always be subjective, but as the indication of people for release purposes could be as it is now, there shouldn't be a legal problem. That would surely be a better search for buyers. Both could be indicated, so that if a buyer happens to want an out of focus crowd in the background, that information is still on the file (though there's a difference between 4+ and 'crowd'.