Interesting - Copyright Video

[John Walker]

Not sure if this has already been put up and also not sure if the info is correct.  However, it's food for thought.

 

John

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M16CGK1T9MM

[Allan Bell]

Sorry John I'm not interested in setting up a website just now.

 

Allan

 

 

[Bill Brooks]

20 hours ago, John Walker said:

Not sure if this has already been put up and also not sure if the info is correct.  However, it's food for thought.

 

John

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M16CGK1T9MM

 

Good simple easy to understand primer about copyright on property.  Thanks for posting John

I think the information is technically correct. However if stock photographers followed the information to the letter, then vast impossible to release subject areas, would be restricted to editorial only RM or RF.

 

I apply a “featured in the image” filter when determining if a property or people release is necessary.

 

Here is a good example. The design of every one of these vehicles is copyrighted, but not any single one is featured. Some drivers are recognizable at 100%, but none are featured. License plates readable but not featured etc.

ALERT !!!! I AM NOT A LAWYER

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Bill Brooks said:

 

Good simple easy to understand primer about copyright on property.  Thanks for posting John

I think the information is technically correct. However if stock photographers followed the information to the letter, then vast impossible to release subject areas, would be restricted to editorial only RM or RF.

 

I apply a “featured in the image” filter when determining if a property or people release is necessary.

 

Here is a good example. The design of every one of these vehicles is copyrighted, but not any single one is featured. Some drivers are recognizable at 100%, but none are featured. License plates readable but not featured etc.

ALERT !!!! I AM NOT A LAWYER

 

But doesn't this image still contain property? Wouldn't you have to click "yes" to contains property in AIM?

[Bill Brooks]

The choose RF or RM in AIM is on the Mandatory page. You have to answer that question. The click property or persons in AIM is on the optional page. You do not have to fill in or answer the questions on the optional page, but I always do.

 

If you do click property yes and then no release, on the optional page, you can still leave the image either unrestricted RM or RF. RF or RM, it is up to you if you want to restrict the image “for editorial use only”. The AIM allows you to leave any image unrestricted no matter how you answered the release questions.

I apply a “featured in the image” mental filter when determining if a property or people release is necessary. If a release is necessary, in my opinion, and I do not have releases, I make it “for editorial use only”. All my images are now RF, but if I had RM I would do the same.

 

It would be unwise in the extreme to feature a person or property and make the image RF unreleased without restricting the image to “for editorial use only”

In my highway example I have not zoomed in and featured a particular property or person so, in my opinion, it can be RF or RM without a restriction.

 

For further clarity I am not stating official Alamy policy here.

 

Here is a unreleased RF image, restricted “for editorial use only” BECAUSE OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE FEATURED ENOUGH

You will see it has a note “choose an editorial royalty-free license” in the price calculator for this image.

[Kukkudrill]

49 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Who would the lawyers go after do you think? The user I suppose - would that be your view? In other words that choosing an RF Editorial licence places on the buyer a perpetual image management responsibility? 

 

I would say yes to both questions. Though I'm not a lawyer either.

[Bill Brooks]

The original buyer does have a responsibility to use any image RF or RM within the terms of the license. Alamy will manage rights records for the client through Alamy iQ so either RF or RM with restrictions, do not create an extra burden for the client.

 

iQ is brilliant and it works. Another example of Alamy’s intelligent long term thinking, and the ability to adjust the Alamy system to the needs of today’s marketplace. I get frequent iQ sales through Alamy.

 

http://www.alamy.com/customer/help/alamy-iQ.asp

 

The buyer says they want RF images, and Alamy is responding with an RF license for images featuring unreleased property or people that can be managed through iQ if the client wants to.

There is also a broad category of RF images that do not need restrictions, as they do not contain property or people.

[John Mitchell]

36 minutes ago, Bill Brooks said:

The original buyer does have a responsibility to use any image RF or RM within the terms of the license. Alamy will manage rights records for the client through Alamy iQ so either RF or RM with restrictions, do not create an extra burden for the client.

 

iQ is brilliant and it works. Another example of Alamy’s intelligent long term thinking, and the ability to adjust the Alamy system to the needs of today’s marketplace. I get frequent iQ sales through Alamy.

 

http://www.alamy.com/customer/help/alamy-iQ.asp

 

The buyer says they want RF images, and Alamy is responding with an RF license for images featuring unreleased property or people that can be managed through iQ if the client wants to.

There is also a broad category of RF images that do not need restrictions, as they do not contain property or people.

 

So why not set images like your farmers' market shot to RM and let Alamy work its iQ magic on them -- i.e. design an appropriate "hybrid" license for the buyer. Seems the safest and simplest thing to do, especially with the concept of "property" bieng such a vague one and open to all kinds of legal interpretations.

[Kukkudrill]

7 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

I'm just thinking that making a category of images which is RF but unreleased makes image management for more complicated rather than simpler for clients.. 

 

True enough, but the stock photography market seems to have gone in this direction. 

[Bryan]

14 hours ago, funkyworm said:

 

 

Looking at those prices I reckon I should start thinking about exporting the produce of my allotment. ;-)

 

Especially the courgettes, sorry, zucchinis.

 

 

 

Indeed, can't give them away at the height of the season!

[Bill Brooks]

On 11/12/2017 at 12:49, John Mitchell said:

 

So why not set images like your farmers' market shot to RM and let Alamy work its iQ magic on them -- i.e. design an appropriate "hybrid" license for the buyer. Seems the safest and simplest thing to do, especially with the concept of "property" bieng such a vague one and open to all kinds of legal interpretations.

 

There is only a small risk for the photographer, but that risk is the same for both RM and RF. RM is not safer than RF. A client can purchase an unreleased RM, and never talk to anyone at Alamy.

So, RM or RF, the photographer has to make the “restricted to editorial only” or "no restriction" decision.

[Kukkudrill]

13 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

Is front cover use editorial or commercial, can advertising agencies use the image in more editorial literature about the company? There is a grey overlapping area which is interpreted differently by different agencies - so RF Editorial images from different agencies will have different terms and conditions attached to them.

 

But surely such questions also arose with traditional RM? Quite apart from the complications to traditional RM licensing in which a publisher had to specify its print run, market etc. What happens if a book publisher exceeds the terms of its RM photo licences because the book for which it bought the photos proves more successful than anticipated? 

 

I'm not sure whether this is a good or a bad thing, but my feeling is that editorial RF will replace RM altogether within the next ten years. 

[Kukkudrill]

13 hours ago, geogphotos said:

I really don't think that anybody could say that RM and RF-Editorial are the same with exactly the same chances of misuse.

 

Compare RF-Editorial

 

 

RM

 

 

 

 

Personally, I wouldn't say RM and RF editorial are equally prone to misuse. I would say RM is more prone to misuse. As I see it (maybe I'm missing something?), the question of what constitutes editorial use can come up with both types of licence. And, in addition, look at all the variables RM involves - usage, media, print run, placement, image size, duration ... all those are potentially open to error or misuse. 

[Kukkudrill]

8 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

In a vary narrow sense you might be correct. Given that the RM licences come with quite specific restrictions I concede that there might be a mistake over print run or one of the other variables. But I doubt that an RM image limited to Commercial Electronic will be used on the front page of a magazine, or if it was that it could be explained as a small mistake. 

 

Whereas with RF-Ed the terms are so loose that there is huge scope for major misinterpretations.

 

Is a front page of an editorial magazine a commercial use or not, is an advertising agency using an image for internal communication editorial or not?

 

Mistakes in RM restrictions: It’s not just that mistakes can happen, it’s that the RM licensing options can be confusing. If you’re publishing an English-language book for sale worldwide, should you pick “worldwide” or “world English language” as your territory option? They’re not the same and they make a difference to the licence fee. 

 

Then there’s duration. The sole option for magazines is five years. What does this mean? Can you use the same image in different issues of the magazine during the five-year period? And what does duration mean where books are concerned? Does it cover additional titles, or just reprints of the same title? If so, does a revised edition count as a reprint or a different title? I don’t think these are minor issues. Experienced buyers will no doubt understand the options, but newcomers are likely to feel lost.

 

And if we consider deliberate abuse, then anything is possible. I have an image of a passport (just the passport, cutout on white) which was sold recently for personal use. Personal use? Really? Somebody wants to hang an image of a passport on their wall? The more variables you have, the greater the scope for abuse.

 

In this respect the big advantage of “proper” RF over RM is that pricing is by image size and you get the size you pay for, so there is less room for manipulation. When I say proper RF I’m including RF editorial, but I’m excluding the purchase options that are common to both RF and RM on Alamy.

 

With regard to these purchase options, however, it would be interesting to know whether you get the full size image if you pay €9.99 for personal use (image prices show up in euros on my PC). If so it short-circuits the whole RF pricing structure.

 

Misinterpretation of terms with RF-ed: I’m not sure the issues you raise are so troublesome. The front page of an editorial magazine is still editorial. Internal communications fall under “presentation or newsletters” in the Alamy purchase options regardless of what business the purchaser is in. If there is scope for serious confusion with RF-ed, these are not the best examples.

 

Having said all this, most of my images on Alamy are RM. I shoot mostly editorial and my impression is that the average editorial buyer prefers RM because it works out cheaper. I hope I haven’t got this wrong 

[John Mitchell]

35 minutes ago, Kukkudrill said:

 

Having said all this, most of my images on Alamy are RM. I shoot mostly editorial and my impression is that the average editorial buyer prefers RM because it works out cheaper. I hope I haven’t got this wrong 

 

I don't think you've got that wrong. However, looking at some of recent sales, the $69.99 five-year book and magazine option seems to be becoming increasingly popular, and it's available for both RM and RF images.

[Kukkudrill]

On 15/11/2017 at 19:01, geogphotos said:

 

As far as I know very few RM images are sold automatically through the price calculator without any discussion with Alamy.

 

I also assume that with most RF licences there is less interaction with Alamy.

 

This suggests that even experienced buyers are having a hard time with RM. And it must put a huge burden on Alamy. I got the impression from another thread that Alamy is pushing RF. No wonder, if it's true.