CarlMillerPhotos Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Searched around a bit and couldn't find quite this same question, but forgive me if it's been asked before... What's the general consensus on people who are not recognizable. For instance, if a person is in a Scooby-Do outfit. It has property (the Scooby-Do character) but does it have people if you can't recognize the person in the suit? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Ashmore Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 I suspect the Alamy answer might be 'yes, they still count' Have you seen this thread which is more or less the same question?: http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/5257-is-a-shadow-a-person/?hl=shadow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kumar Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Technically even a shadow of your own body or its parts requires a model release ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 On Alamy, everything human body-related counts as "people" -- e.g. noses, elbows, bunions, etc. protruding into the frame. Doesn't matter whether they are recognizable or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarlMillerPhotos Posted September 19, 2016 Author Share Posted September 19, 2016 I agree with others that Alamy are very likely to say "yes" to this. It does make me think though about where the line is drawn. If someone is inside a house and cannot be seen, then we don't need a model release for non-editorial. So if they're completely covered by a costume, why is that different? It still blocks the view of the person completely, just like a building does. Maybe it's different because we know there is a person inside a costume. What if they were sleep though, so they were laying down and not moving, and there was no way to know if a person was actually in the costume or not (assuming of course it's a costume that keeps its shape without needing someone inside). Just some thoughts. Geoff. That's kinda what I'm getting at. The pictures in question could conceivably be an empty costume. There're nothing really recognizable as a person. Except there may or may not be a person inside. MOST of the images actually have people in the crowd, so those are no-brainers, I'm just wondering about the ones with no people, other than the costumes which completely cover the people. Anyway... I have them tagged as containing people for now, just to be safe, but was curious what others were doing. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariaJ Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 I was also recently wondering about a couple photos I submitted that had no live people in them, but did have photos of people in them (from a billboard, advertisement, poster). To be on the safe side, I checked "yes" that there were people in the image, even though they were just photos of people, because they were recognizable. Was that the correct thing to do? Thanks, Maria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 A suit of armour can stand alone and you may not be able to see whether it is empty - a jacket or coat usually cannot stand alone (unless starched more than usual).I am sure posters, etc. count as property, recognisable peopole on them or not.Just be happy you don't believe in ghosts in houses and castles that need to have been dead for some 70 years ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 I was also recently wondering about a couple photos I submitted that had no live people in them, but did have photos of people in them (from a billboard, advertisement, poster). To be on the safe side, I checked "yes" that there were people in the image, even though they were just photos of people, because they were recognizable. Was that the correct thing to do? Thanks, Maria I don't mark images like that as having people (assuming that "people" means in the flesh) in them, but I do designate them as RM. Not exactly sure why, but it seems the prudent thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 "means in the flesh" but they are not in fact in the the flesh, they are in your photograph. Thinking about this could give shooters a bad headache. The people that bother me? An image of a moving taxi cab where the driver can not be seen because of a strong reflection . . . but logic says someone is driving, no? I play all these things for my safety. A cloud of breath on a mirror? I need a model release from the breather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 "means in the flesh" but they are not in fact in the the flesh, they are in your photograph. Thinking about this could give shooters a bad headache. The people that bother me? An image of a moving taxi cab where the driver can not be seen because of a strong reflection . . . but logic says someone is driving, no? I play all these things for my safety. A cloud of breath on a mirror? I need a model release from the breather. I check the small windows of the landing aircrafts I photograph very carefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.