BoBman Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 Hi, 47 pixel tall humans as simple dark silhouettes, nothing more, in a deep sunset beach scene, nothing recognisable at all. We know a blob then a taller blob and two sticks must be a human out there ! People in picture yes, do you have property release. Um...at what pixel height do people not count ? Say no and unable to use the photo for commercial use. They add to the picture, better for it I feel, as they are also facing the sunset. Likewise two dogs, 47 pixels tall again. They are property, . Cannot say yes I have a property release, but saying 5 people is answering first question and then the follow on has no third option of 'so minute its not required' ! Denied commercial use by an assumption that if humans are visible they are recognisable by something. In far distance is again a silhouette of a building, this is a known building from location etc, so as thats identifiable, I guess thats the end of a release form, unless I contact the owners. If I were to edit it out of the picture, what then ? Its absence from where it would be expected, whats the situation there ? BoBman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 Acceptable pixel height for Alamy: 0 Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoBman Posted June 16, 2017 Author Share Posted June 16, 2017 So a shot of a hillside, and a two pixel coloured speck, could be human, thats it, no chance of release form. Seriously ? Can we have an Alamy offical response on this here please ? BoBman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 I think at one point the suggested questions were: would that person (be able to) recognize him/her self? And: would his or her mother (be able to) recognize him/her self? The same for dogs; tigers; children or Koi. I would clone out a 2px speck, but would declare a 47px person. wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoBman Posted June 17, 2017 Author Share Posted June 17, 2017 Hi, If recognition and ability to apply a name is the criteria, then this wins through. I dont think the person or mother would recognise what is a very dark brown blob atop an elongated blob atop two sticks, 47 pixels is as good as a smudge, a sensor spot. To lose all chance of commercial use on something that would defy a name being given to it, is a shame. I could in fact paint them out then paint in something the same, no one would know. It might even be this was a picture where I edited in using a paintbrush a few pixel-humans. Is that the official criteria by which to decide, ability to apply a human name or identify someones dog ? Cheers BoBman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Ashmore Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 There was a fairly recent thread over whether a person's shadow required a model release and i think the general consensus was yes. But i think as Philippe suggests, most of us follow some common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoBman Posted June 17, 2017 Author Share Posted June 17, 2017 So should I, when it says are there people, how many,...say no ? If I say yes then it asks for model release, for which I cant say yes as no form to upload, and I dont want to say no, else I am denied commercial usage. what should I select ? BoBman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnnie5 Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 Make one photo with people and one with people retouched out and submit them both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoBman Posted June 17, 2017 Author Share Posted June 17, 2017 Its the one with the pixel humans looking at the sunset that adds a certain extra to the shot though, thats the commercial one I feel. The one I would like to see used. Such pixel humans also add scale at times to a photo. If the choice thing was not so simple, and said any identifiable humans, then all would be well. Its the simplification of its wording that is the problem. so if something a few px tall is in shot....and needs to be there to make the shot. I am tempted to say humans 0, they might be cardboard cutouts, or edited into shot using a brush. They are not identifiable as such so 0 !!! BoBman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariaJ Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 IMHO, if the pixel people are noticeable enough to add something extra to the shot, then it would not be correct to choose 0 people. Maria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDoug Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 The buyer's opinion matters, also. If you state that the image has people in it, you're more or less covered. The buyer can then figure, "Naw, that's just a two-pixel spot," and go ahead and use it commercially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 People = yes Model release = No License type = RM Let the user decide. I know, I know, but I don't care anymore. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoBman Posted June 18, 2017 Author Share Posted June 18, 2017 Quote The buyer can then figure, "Naw, that's just a two-pixel spot," and go ahead and use it commercially. so if I say people 5+ to my 'pixel peeps' and model release no, and buyer says ' Naw, they are not identifiable, I shall use it commercially ', do I get more money from him than normal. He would have to pay Alamy for me to get paid, then they would wonder why when it says no model release. Would he declare to them he hasnt a problem with the 'no model release' and say he needs to pay extra. ? or does he decide this after paying a non commercial fee ? How would it go as such in the payment process ? BoBman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDoug Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 2 hours ago, BoBman said: How would it go as such in the payment process ? I don't know how it would go in every case but do know how it did go recently for me. The client chose a photograph which had people in it, some of whom are recognizable. They decided it wouldn't be a problem and paid more than typical editorial rates for multiple uses. There was a communication process through the Alamy sales rep in which I lifted the editorial-only restriction. Another image of mine (E9RDG4) licensed for marketing use despite having ant-sized people in the distance. I've got no problem with it since it was made clear that there are no releases for either people or property. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jools Elliott Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 As Philippe and others say it will be down to the buyer. Just because you don't have a model release it won't stop it from being used commercially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regen Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 Commercial buyers generally know what they are doing and know exactly what they want and are not generally put of by a lack of releases. I usually just tick the no release for both property and people. Alamy have contacted me on three occasions and asked for further details on the property in a picture which has then resulted in a commercial sale (assuming editorial are not sold for four figure sums.) That said there must be a better chance of a commercial sale if you have the necessary releases in place. Regen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 You should tell the truth. You are legally responsible for the metadata you enter. There are people in this world that write letters to commercial clients demanding money because they “recognize” themselves, or their children, in stock photos used commercially. These people have no children. They claim they were on that beach just last week when they think the photo was taken, when actually the photo was taken before they were born. The question is simple. How many people in this image? If you mislead and say 0 people because you cannot recognize them in order to gain full RF, then you could conceivably become embroiled in a costly lawsuite. Most of your first 27 images would be used for editorial anyway. So if you want RF then make them RF and check the RF editorial only box for images with people or property, even if they are only a few pixels tall. I notice you are doing the right thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giphotostock Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 On 6/18/2017 at 08:27, BoBman said: ' Naw, they are not identifiable, I shall use it commercially ' I do not worry too much about commercial sales on alamy. Not worth it. People - yes, released - no. GI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 On 6/16/2017 at 23:54, Jill Morgan said: Acceptable pixel height for Alamy: 0 Jill +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 On 6/17/2017 at 00:08, BoBman said: So a shot of a hillside, and a two pixel coloured speck, could be human, thats it, no chance of release form. Seriously ? Can we have an Alamy offical response on this here please ? BoBman If there is a human being in your photo, just say yes, honesty is the best policy, if someone wants a scene with people in the background or distance as specks of pixel, they'll buy it on that basis. It's quite a simple question, although as has been mentioned, shadows is a bit daft, in my opinion Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.