Jump to content

Restricted images e-mail


Recommended Posts

Today, I received an e-mail from Alamy telling me that I might be missing out on sales on 134 of my images that have restrictions on them (editorial use only). No doubt others got this e-mail as well. How are you responding to it, especially those who have converted a lot of images from unreleased RM to RF editorial only?

 

Here is what Alamy has to say:

 

"Our customers find images with restrictions confusing and tend not to buy them. To increase your chances of making sales, check your restrictions are still needed and if they're not, remove them."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Also got this email and have ignored it as I have the restrictions on as I want. I certainly would not like to lift the PU restriction.

 

Allan

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, GS-Images said:

I was a bit confused by this, so I wrote to CR to ask if there's something I'm misunderstanding. This was their response.....

 

---------

By selling your images as RM this indicates they can only be used editorially so you don’t need to add editorial only restrictions to RM images if you don’t want to. You only need to add these restrictions if you are selling unreleased images as RF.

---------

 

So the mistake I've made is that I was going through all my RM images that didn't have releases but needed them for non-editorial, and ticking the "sell for editorial only" box. I thought that was what we're supposed to do now. It seems we don't need to though, and the fact some of us have, may mean confusion that prevents sales. So tonight I'll be reviewing over 600 images again!

 

Geoff.

 

I'm going to remove the editorial only restrictions on most of my RM images that currently have them. However, as we know, RM images do sometimes license for commercial use, so I'm leaving editorial restrictions on a few of my RM images that I definitely do not want used commercially. Unfortunately, it's not a watertight system, especially when it comes to how distributors sometimes handle things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Are you able to expand on this a bit? I think it would be useful.

 

I shoot a lot of theatre shows, exhibitions etc and the organisers tell us that the images can only be used editorially. So I need to cover my back and add these restrictions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't get the email even though I have restrictions against Personal Use as a default, and a good number set as Editorial Only.

I began using this after one of my unrelesed images was licensed for an ad on Facebook. Up until that I relied on clients to understand when a release was necessary but I guess, as Alamy says, some clients are confused by this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, vpics said:

 

I shoot a lot of theatre shows, exhibitions etc and the organisers tell us that the images can only be used editorially. So I need to cover my back and add these restrictions. 

 

Thanks. I have a few images like that as well. I'm keeping the restrictions on those. Ironically, they are some of my bestsellers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, arterra said:

I didn't get that e-mail because I have hardly any restrictions but I notice the following with each image, even animal and landscape shots:

 

If you want to use this image commercially  and we've indicated* that Alamy doesn't have a release, you might need additional permission from the model, artist, owner, estate, trademark or brand. More information.

 

On the one hand, Alamy says "Our customers find images with restrictions confusing and tend not to buy them." but on the other hand they place the above which is ALSO confusing for clients - especially for images where that message is not relevant at all :wacko:

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

 

I don't think that experienced photo-buyers would be confused by this. Ones new to image-licensing might be, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GS-Images said:

I was a bit confused by this, so I wrote to CR to ask if there's something I'm misunderstanding. This was their response.....

 

---------

By selling your images as RM this indicates they can only be used editorially so you don’t need to add editorial only restrictions to RM images if you don’t want to. You only need to add these restrictions if you are selling unreleased images as RF.

---------

 

So the mistake I've made is that I was going through all my RM images that didn't have releases but needed them for non-editorial, and ticking the "sell for editorial only" box. I thought that was what we're supposed to do now. It seems we don't need to though, and the fact some of us have, may mean confusion that prevents sales. So tonight I'll be reviewing over 600 images again!

 

Geoff.

So Alamy doesn't sell released-RM images? I didn't know that.

 

Do all buyers know that RM "indicates that they can only be used editorially"? All of my files are RM, including nature/wildlife, and these and others could be used commercially.

 

As no-one had replied to my thread:

I decided to go through my (all RM) files ticking Editorial on those which particularly showed people, and had wondered about doing the same for whether a prominent brand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

So Alamy doesn't sell released-RM images? I didn't know that.

 

Do all buyers know that RM "indicates that they can only be used editorially"? All of my files are RM, including nature/wildlife, and these and others could be used commercially.

 

As no-one had replied to my thread:

I decided to go through my (all RM) files ticking Editorial on those which particularly showed people, and had wondered about doing the same for whether a prominent brand.

 

"By selling your images as RM this indicates they can only be used editorially..."

 

Yes, the above statement doesn't make sense as RM images with releases can usually be used commercially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I opted out of Personal Use yesterday so I received the email today. Not prepared to sell images for peanuts!  

As a long time Alamy contributor I realise this will take us out of the distribution network completely. Assuming that is still the case?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

"By selling your images as RM this indicates they can only be used editorially..."

 

Yes, the above statement doesn't make sense as RM images with releases can usually be used commercially.

 

Indeed. I got the email too and am looking forward to some further clarification before doing anything.

 

"Our customers find images with restrictions confusing and tend not to buy them. To increase your chances of making sales, check your restrictions are still needed and if they're not, remove them."

 

"By selling your images as RM this indicates they can only be used editorially so you don’t need to add editorial only restrictions to RM images if you don’t want to. You only need to add these restrictions if you are selling unreleased images as RF."

 

Customers are confused? I'm confused... Is Alamy confused as well?

 

Mark 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that can be correct about RM indicating editorial only.

I've a couple of times been asked to specifically put editorial restrictions on RM images as the owner of a copyright or trademark has required it.

 

Only today, after getting the 'remove restrictions' email, I got a second email saying that the Moulin Rouge had contacted them saying that all images of the Moulin Rouge had to specifically have restrictions as editorial only. (That wasn't my issue, I'd put 'Moulin-Rouge style' in my caption on as set of files, and had to remove it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad I found this thread, turns out I am not the only one confused by the email.  I sent an email to them asking for clarification.  Most of my images are editorial.  A while back I got this in an email

 

"To make sure customers are aware that the images have unreleased people/property we have restricted the following images in your collection to editorial only (editorial RF)."

It used to be that when you selected NO for property or model release it was set to RM automatically, then that changed so some of editorial pics were listed as RM.  After that I made sure I clicked RM and started clicking "Sell for Editorial" all the time, since they are editorial photos.  I look at that message above though and it says "we have restricted the following images in your collection to editorial only (editorial RF)."  So what is editorial RF?  So there is an editorial RF and an editorial RM?  Should I not be clicking Sell for Editorial on my unreleased pics?  I am hoping this gets explained soon!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect the email is about RM restrictions only. It is not about RF images with the “editorial only” boxed checked, as I have thousands under that classification that were not detected.

 

All of my on sale images are RF, that cannot be RM restricted, yet the email finds 8 RF images with restrictions.

 

After a search for restricted images, with search parameters as recommended in the email, the search turned up 4 on sale “RF editorial only” images listed as having restrictions. The 4 images the search turned up were not restricted in any way!!!

 

The search also turned up a 4 deleted images that may have had restrictions. I don’t know, because you cannot check restrictions or make changes to images that have been deleted !!!! Who cares about deleted images anyway???

This makes a total of 8 images 

 

It also turned up an additional 2 RF images, with no restrictions, not on sale, that I suspect are awaiting deletion.

 

Go figure. And so it goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, fotoDogue said:

I didn't get the email even though I have restrictions against Personal Use as a default, and a good number set as Editorial Only.

I began using this after one of my unrelesed images was licensed for an ad on Facebook. Up until that I relied on clients to understand when a release was necessary but I guess, as Alamy says, some clients are confused by this.

This is exactly why I always check "Editorial Use Only" for those images that have identifiable property or people in them.  I've read about too many photogs in the U.S. that have been sued over non-released images being published in commercial projects.  That is also why I am going back to restrict personal use as well.  People lie all the time about use.  Once they get the image for "personal use" they can do anything they want with it.  

 

At least this way, I'm covered.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weren't there editorial restrictions imposed on RM images though for Network Rail and IOC subjects a while back?  I too received the email and having read this thread it does seem confusing to me.....I'll keep my restrictions in place.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all

 

Just to clarify, this email was sent as a blanket email to everyone with restrictions, to remind you to check if they're all still needed (no exclusives expired etc).

 

We're aware there have been occasions we have added restrictions due to third party policies. It's up to you to ensure they remain if they're needed and we'd suggest it's not wise to remove restrictions that have been added for legal reasons as you would be liable if there was any further third party issues. 

 

Thanks

Alamy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alamy said:

Hi all

 

Just to clarify, this email was sent as a blanket email to everyone with restrictions, to remind you to check if they're all still needed (no exclusives expired etc).

 

We're aware there have been occasions we have added restrictions due to third party policies. It's up to you to ensure they remain if they're needed and we'd suggest it's not wise to remove restrictions that have been added for legal reasons as you would be liable if there was any further third party issues. 

 

Thanks

Alamy

 

Some debate crops up from time to time in this forum on whether images with unreleased people/property should also be marked as editorial only. Quite a few contributors operate a 'let the buyer beware' policy and don't mark their unreleased images as editorial only, on the grounds that it is the buyer's responsibility, not the photographers, to determine the need for releases or not. 

 

Does Alamy have any comment on whether this is the correct approach to take? Does marking such images as editorial only have a noticeable deleterious effect on images view/zooms/sales compared with leaving them with no restrictions? I take a cautious approach myself and mark all unreleased images as editorial only but I would be dismayed if this was having a negative effect on sales for no good reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.