Niepce Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 Would I need a release for this image? Also what tags would you advise for this? https://flic.kr/p/Sd7WNN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 Yes. You need a release even if there is nothing but a hand, a finger or any part of anyone. Including silhouettes like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niepce Posted April 2, 2017 Author Share Posted April 2, 2017 Yes. You need a release even if there is nothing but a hand, a finger or any part of anyone. Including silhouettes like this. So I guess I can only use this for Editorial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDoug Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 Ultimately it's the client who decides whether a release is needed for their purposes. Your responsibility is to indicate that there are people and or property in the photo and whether or not you have releases for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niepce Posted April 2, 2017 Author Share Posted April 2, 2017 Ultimately it's the client who decides whether a release is needed for their purposes. Your responsibility is to indicate that there are people and or property in the photo and whether or not you have releases for them. So I don't have to choose "Editorial Only" when listing this photo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeCee Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 Ultimately it's the client who decides whether a release is needed for their purposes. Your responsibility is to indicate that there are people and or property in the photo and whether or not you have releases for them. So I don't have to choose "Editorial Only" when listing this photo? No, but you do have to state that there are people (and property) in there that you don't have releases for. Or you can just tick the "editorial only" box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niepce Posted April 2, 2017 Author Share Posted April 2, 2017 Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDoug Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 "So I don't have to choose "Editorial Only" when listing this photo?" That's right. I had such restrictions on my images. Last Friday I got an email from Alamy's New York office saying that a commercial client was interested in one of them and would I be agreeable to lifting the restrictions. They further said that the client had been advised that we would not indemnify them should the lack of model releases prove to be a problem. They agreed to that, the restrictions were lifted, and they bought the license for substantially more than I've been paid for any editorial uses. So now I'm going about removing the Editorial Only restrictions on all my images. However, I've also decided that getting model releases whenever possible is probably worth the extra hassle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 Don't forget that if you change an image that might need a release from RM to RF, you definitely have to check the "editorial use only" box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 Don't forget that if you change an image that might need a release from RM to RF, you definitely have to check the "editorial use only" box. This is also my understanding. License type 1. This is where you select the ‘License type’. Alamy recommends a royaltyfree (RF) license as this is most popular with customers 2. For images that contain unreleased property or people please select ‘Sell for editorial only’ (found under the ‘Optional’ tab) Page 18 - http://www.alamy.com/myupload/help/AIM-InstructionManual.pdf Just another reason why I prefer RM with the correct boxes ticked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Ashmore Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 "So I don't have to choose "Editorial Only" when listing this photo?" That's right. I had such restrictions on my images. Last Friday I got an email from Alamy's New York office saying that a commercial client was interested in one of them and would I be agreeable to lifting the restrictions. They further said that the client had been advised that we would not indemnify them should the lack of model releases prove to be a problem. They agreed to that, the restrictions were lifted, and they bought the license for substantially more than I've been paid for any editorial uses. So now I'm going about removing the Editorial Only restrictions on all my images. However, I've also decided that getting model releases whenever possible is probably worth the extra hassle. On the flip side of the coin however, the Alamy Copyright team automatically set the 'Editorial Only' flag on any RF image of mine where I had specified that there was property and/or models without having uploaded a release. And they sent me an email saying that they'd done this.. and there was a forum thread about this last week. So personally I'd say it's best to tick the 'Editorial Only' box for RF images and let buyers make the inquiry like in DDoug's case if they really want to use the image commercially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Clemson Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 "So I don't have to choose "Editorial Only" when listing this photo?" That's right. I had such restrictions on my images. Last Friday I got an email from Alamy's New York office saying that a commercial client was interested in one of them and would I be agreeable to lifting the restrictions. They further said that the client had been advised that we would not indemnify them should the lack of model releases prove to be a problem. They agreed to that, the restrictions were lifted, and they bought the license for substantially more than I've been paid for any editorial uses. So now I'm going about removing the Editorial Only restrictions on all my images. However, I've also decided that getting model releases whenever possible is probably worth the extra hassle. The only problem I have with this approach of 'let the client decide' is that if the client is not as savvy and careful as they ought to be as regards releases for commercial use, they might well find themselves in trouble for using an unreleased image BUT sure as eggs is eggs, the photographer will get sucked into any legal action too - a whole load of trouble we really don't need which might be avoided if we make clear what our images are and are not suitable for. I'm also not keen on extracting model releases from casual models photographed 'on the street' - it is unlikely they will fully appreciate the enormity of what the release signifies and how their image might be used in future. Again it is a problem waiting to happen. Maybe I'm just over cautious and risk averse, but I much prefer it that way as I can sleep more easily at night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDoug Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 The only problem I have with this approach of 'let the client decide' is that if the client is not as savvy and careful as they ought to be as regards releases for commercial use, they might well find themselves in trouble for using an unreleased image BUT sure as eggs is eggs, the photographer will get sucked into any legal action too - a whole load of trouble we really don't need which might be avoided if we make clear what our images are and are not suitable for. I'm also not keen on extracting model releases from casual models photographed 'on the street' - it is unlikely they will fully appreciate the enormity of what the release signifies and how their image might be used in future. Again it is a problem waiting to happen. Maybe I'm just over cautious and risk averse, but I much prefer it that way as I can sleep more easily at night. I can certainly understand that the Editorial Only box is necessary when an unreleased image is designated as RF. However, until the recent Manage Images change, when there was no such box to tick, it was sufficient to indicate that there were no releases for any people or property in the photo. Were there any instances that you are aware of where photographers were "sucked into legal action"? It seems to me to be another reason to stick with RM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Ashmore Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 I think the summary is that: If you pick an RF license, you would need to tick the 'Editorial Only' box If you pick an RM license, you don't need to tick the 'Editorial Only' box The initial few responses made no mention of the license type so I think there's been an element of people talking at cross-purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Clemson Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 The only problem I have with this approach of 'let the client decide' is that if the client is not as savvy and careful as they ought to be as regards releases for commercial use, they might well find themselves in trouble for using an unreleased image BUT sure as eggs is eggs, the photographer will get sucked into any legal action too - a whole load of trouble we really don't need which might be avoided if we make clear what our images are and are not suitable for. I'm also not keen on extracting model releases from casual models photographed 'on the street' - it is unlikely they will fully appreciate the enormity of what the release signifies and how their image might be used in future. Again it is a problem waiting to happen. Maybe I'm just over cautious and risk averse, but I much prefer it that way as I can sleep more easily at night. I can certainly understand that the Editorial Only box is necessary when an unreleased image is designated as RF. However, until the recent Manage Images change, when there was no such box to tick, it was sufficient to indicate that there were no releases for any people or property in the photo. Were there any instances that you are aware of where photographers were "sucked into legal action"? It seems to me to be another reason to stick with RM. Stories of stock agencies and photographers being sued by the subject of the photo crop up from time to time. Sometimes its people who actively consented to the photo shoot and regretted the use to which the image was latter put. In other cases its people who were photographed without their permission and objected to the use of the photo at all. I've linked to a couple of examples below where the photographer has been caught up in the aftermath. http://www.digitalrev.com/article/woman-sues-after-haircut-photo-becomes-notorious-stock-image https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/25/woman-sues-ap-for-taking-and-selling-stock-photo-of-her-wearing-a-headscarf/?utm_term=.83ad95d7eaf8 I don't know whether any of the legal actions were successful or not or whether they had any legal merit to begin with, my point is that even if it is the case that the client is responsible for legal issues arising from how the photo is used, the photographer should be aware that they might become involved too. For myself, I try to make it clear to potential purchasers which of my pictures are only suitable for editorial use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 Legal matters, as shown in Joseph's post, can be complex. It's a good thing to remember that 99.9% of what you read in this forum is someone's opinion, not legal advice. I am very obviously a senior citizen, although still cute as a bug in a rug, yet Whole Foods and some other markets here in NYC ask to see my ID if I buy beer or wine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 +1 and +1 Joseph. I am not a lawyer but my layman’s opinion is that Joseph is dead on. The examples Joseph linked to, are particularly good, and also typical. To enlarge on Joseph’s posts. Not all model releases are equally reliable. The person signing the release should realize the implications of what they are signing, and most do not realize those implications. The only release a judge would probably consider iron clad would be one signed by a professional model or their agent, a location finding agency renting a property for photography, a prop house, or the legal department of a corporation that owns a property. Knowledgable people. A release signed by your uninformed neighbor would not protect you as much. In addition, if the photographer starts trying to explain the implications to the uninformed person as they are signing, then the waters could be muddied some more. It is like the blind leading the blind. If you get a model release from a stranger in the street, do you also get property releases for the stranger’s clothing? Model releases from the crowd in the background? Property releases for the buildings in the background? Model releases also are in demand for, and therefor encourage, image sales for sensitive use. Sensitive use is trouble for the photographer. RM or RF, RM restricted or RF editorial only, released or not released you can still get “sucked into legal action”, in my opinion. A model release only makes the person think twice before suing. It does not prevent them from suing on the third think. If the lawsuit gains some legal traction, the blame game will start, and the photographer will be part of the action. There is no easy procedure, that will protect the photographer 100% of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Shantz Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 I'm in the United States, so my comments are really only applicable to laws here, and not necessarily anywhere else in the world. To second Bill's remarks, in general a signed release is of little value if the person signing is not reasonably knowledgeable. I worked in the mining industry for many years, and we always got visitors to sign a release for any injuries they might incur. But we did so knowing that most of the time the release wasn't worth the paper it was printed on as the person signing simply wasn't aware of all the possible hazards. If I visited another property, my release would probably have stood up on the presumption that I was knowledgeable. But not a storekeeper from town. My biggest concern has always gone back to the advice my father, a lawyer, gave me many years ago: all you need to file a law suit is the $25 filing fee. Having a case is extra. Since in the US it is uncommon for the defendant in a suit to recover his legal costs, the mere filing of the suit imposes considerable financial costs. It is not unheard of for a lawyer working on a contingency fee to send a threating letter knowing full well that they would lose in court, but just hoping that you will agree to a small settlement rather than pay the considerable costs of defending the suit. The photographer thus gets to decide whether the potential financial return to him is worth his risk. Historically, it has been unless he does something clearly improper like stating that he has a model release when he doesn't. Or manipulating the photo to drastically change the impression that it gives. One example I remember reading about some years ago involved a stock photo of two young women walking down the street in short skirts. A newpaper used the photo to illustrate an article on how women who used drugs had to turn to prostitution to support their habit. When the young ladies saw the paper, they were not amused. The newpaper tried to get out of it by claiming that they never explicity stated that the photograph was of prostitutes, but the judge didn't buy that argument (properly, I'd say). If I remember correctly, the photographer was not named in the suit. The approch I've taken is to clearly mark the boxes for no model / property release which on RM now gets an automatic editorial only, or mark RF editorial only and then mark the no model / property release boxes. This won't guarantee that I can't get sued, but it will at least provide some protection. Since I have no direct contact with the buyers (or am even told who they are), I would think that I would have a good case that if the court felt that the buyers were not properly educated as to their responsibility, it would be Alamy's problem. The harsh reality is that if we made every decision based on the possibility of being sued, then nothing would get done. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.