Arvy777 Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 Hello camera ppl, Recently I shot landscape photo and not sure what settings to use on 'Image Manager'? After a search on Alamy for London (&other street photography) I found many Images marked as 'No Properties' on their images, and this made me confused. English is my 5th language and when it comes to using/understanding technical words I can get easily lost Recently I photographed coastal landscape with a church and lighthouse within my image (no ppl). How do I know if I need property release for such buildings and what adjustments best to use in 'Image Manager' - 'Optional tab'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avpics Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 Basically anything that could be recognised - be it a mobile phone or a building - would need a property release for commercial use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andremichel Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, Avpics said: Basically anything that could be recognised - be it a mobile phone or a building - would need a property release for commercial use. Are there no exceptions? What about city skylines or public buildings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avpics Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 I think the guideline is if no building is the main feature, but hell knows how that would be defined. If you have a single building in the image I'd be inclined to think that would need a release. I always err on the side of safety, especially as I take more editorial images than anything else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Woods Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 Alamy are cautious about releases, so yes you will need a release unless you have written permission from the owners of the church and lighthouse. Its best for you anyway to say that it needs a release and that you haven't got one. That way, if a client uses the photo and there are repercussions, you at least were honest; its up to the client to ensure that the photo is suitable for their use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvy777 Posted February 13, 2018 Author Share Posted February 13, 2018 1 hour ago, Colin Woods said: Thank you very much for everyones comment! Love Learning* LL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Hatton Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 I have just sold an image of the road sign welcoming people to my local town, by mistake I have it marked as royalty free but obviously it is the property of somebody, any thoughts if this will land me in trouble? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stokie Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 On 13/02/2018 at 19:59, Nick Hatton said: I have just sold an image of the road sign welcoming people to my local town, by mistake I have it marked as royalty free but obviously it is the property of somebody, any thoughts if this will land me in trouble? You can change it from RF to RM in image manager if you prefer. I would also answer 'Is there any property in the image?' as yes, and 'Do you have a signed release for the property?' as no. John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sally Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 On 13/02/2018 at 19:59, Nick Hatton said: I have just sold an image of the road sign welcoming people to my local town, by mistake I have it marked as royalty free but obviously it is the property of somebody, any thoughts if this will land me in trouble? A road sign. Who owns a road sign? The local council? I doubt they will be chasing you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 13 minutes ago, Sally said: A road sign. Who owns a road sign? The local council? I doubt they will be chasing you. It's a matter of accuracy. That and abiding by the terms of the contributor contract. It's conceivable that a council might object to a derogatory portrayal of their district. A photographer who wrongly stated that he had a release might be in at least warm water. Imagine if Royston Vasey had been a real place- I wonder if Royston (in Hertfordshire, South Yorkshire, Glasgow, etc.) had any qualms about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sally Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 32 minutes ago, spacecadet said: It's a matter of accuracy. That and abiding by the terms of the contributor contract. It's conceivable that a council might object to a derogatory portrayal of their district. A photographer who wrongly stated that he had a release might be in at least warm water. Imagine if Royston Vasey had been a real place- I wonder if Royston (in Hertfordshire, South Yorkshire, Glasgow, etc.) had any qualms about it. Yes, I agree, I was simply responding to the question which was about the likelihood of getting into problems having already sold the image under a RF license. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 5 minutes ago, Sally said: Yes, I agree, I was simply responding to the question which was about the likelihood of getting into problems having already sold the image under a RF license. Ah, fair enough. Not a hugely problematic image but at least Nick has been reminded of it. I still have the odd RF one which I haven't changed because before AIM you couldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Hatton Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 Thanks for your thoughts on above topic, photo was showing my town in a good way so I don' t really see a problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.