Restrictions and editorial images.

[kensplace]

Hi, Im new to the world of stock, so still finding my feet so to speak.

 

I dont tend (read never so far) to get model releases or property releases so my pics have to be rights managed in the main, for editorial use.

 

When I list them, I note you can add restrictions, and it lists what you need to do restriction wise for editorial use - however, looking around alamy it seems MANY people who odnt have releases do not add restrictions?

 

Am I wasting my time adding restrictions? Should I bother? Will it get me into trouble if I dont?

 

I fear that adding the restrictions is going to put buyers off, perhaps that may be why other sellers dont add them?

 

Not even sure if I am going down the right track with the images I am submitting, as no sales or zooms yet.. any comments in that area anyone?

 

cheers all...

 

[dustydingo]

okay, here's my two bob's worth. . . not a defnitive answer, not legal advice, just what I do :-)

 

I accurately describe the release-status of every image, then leave it up to the buyer to decide on usage. I never add restrictions.

 

The best example I can give is earning a four-figure sum for an unreleased photo of a child dancing in Indonesia. I stated it needed a model release but that I did not have one. The buyer then decided to use it in an advertisement regardless of the absence of a model release. The buyer took a risk . . . I didn't. Had I put restrictions on that image, the buyer might not have even seen it, let alone used it.

 

Or a front-page for a major travel-guide publisher of a boat that definitely belongs to someone . . . I  marked it as requiring property release but that I didn't have one, the publisher decided to use it commercially regardless. Again, the buyer took a risk . . . I didn't.

 

You will of course get different opinions on this--for example there was much clamoring in the forum in the past for an "editorial only" button. In my opinion, this is just one more way to lessen the chances of an image selling fo rmore than a few dollars . . . but with the caveat that you are scrupulously honest in declaring the absence of releases.

 

dd

[John Mitchell]

I always declare the absence of releases when appropriate, but I only add restrictions if I'm really paranoid about a particular image getting me into trouble if it's used non-editorially.

 

As far as restrictions scaring away potential buyers, I suppose it could happen. However, the outdated price calculator may have done that already.  

[Lisa]

A fun photo like this one of yours, might have been picked up as a 'photo of the day' if it had been cropped and uploaded via the News feed. It's a great photo! 

 

[Imagery by Charly]

To be sure I'm following this all correctly... Are you saying there really is no need to mark an image as Editorial if you state it needs a release, but don't have one (which I am diligent on doing)? And if a buyer decides to use thus image as commercial there is no recourse placed on the contributor, it's all on the buyer?

 

And to take this one step further: If an image is up on another site as Editorial doesn't it have to be marked as Editorial on Alamy?

[John Mitchell]

To be sure I'm following this all correctly... Are you saying there really is no need to mark an image as Editorial if you state it needs a release, but don't have one (which I am diligent on doing)? And if a buyer decides to use thus image as commercial there is no recourse placed on the contributor, it's all on the buyer?

 

And to take this one step further: If an image is up on another site as Editorial doesn't it have to be marked as Editorial on Alamy?

 

After you state that an image needs a release or releases, then whether or not you add all the restrictions recommended by Alamy is entirely up to you. If you don't like adding restrictions, then you can just let buyers decide.

 

If an image is editorial -- i.e. not suitable for commercial use -- then it would be editorial wherever you put it up for sale.

 

P.S. If I don't want to add restrictions, I sometimes just write "EDITORIAL USE ONLY" in the description field.

[dustydingo]

To be sure I'm following this all correctly... Are you saying there really is no need to mark an image as Editorial if you state it needs a release, but don't have one (which I am diligent on doing)? And if a buyer decides to use thus image as commercial there is no recourse placed on the contributor, it's all on the buyer?

 

Yes. That's my view. And I've yet to hear of or see any evidence that would make me change that view . . .

 

And to take this one step further: If an image is up on another site as Editorial doesn't it have to be marked as Editorial on Alamy?

 

I can't think of any good reason why that should apply (but am willing to consider any, if someone else can). If one agency wants to offer an image as Editorial Only, and a buyer buys same image from another agency for non-editorial use, I can't see why that buyer should be restricted by what the first agency thinks, if you see what I mean :-)

 

dd

[Imagery by Charly]

Thanks guys! Being so new I don't want to stuff anything up that will get me into trouble. After reading through some of the posts here on Alamy, I'm now a bit concerned about some of the images other sites have marked for Editorial. Some of those images are manipulated and don't want to get into trouble over that. Suspect I should contact them tomorrow to see what they say about them if used for newspapers, since they're not marked digitally manipulated.