geogphotos

Images with Property

Recommended Posts

I've just received this? My understanding was that adding information about property is Optional.

 

The two pics are of Asda shop signs - I would have thought that this was self-evidently 'property' without it needing to be stated.

 

Anybody else?

 

Hi ian ,

 

We are always striving to ensure we have the most accurate search results available, to make for an easier customer experience, which hopefully results in more return customers, and more sales for you.

 

To achieve this, we continually monitor the images on sale to make sure they are correctly annotated. The below images from your collection were flagged, as they contain property but were not annotated to reflect this.

 

Alamy Ref / Contributor Ref

 

H99ETF / 16IDM5281

JAP6HP / 16IDM5280

 

We have changed the annotation on the images to say that there is property within the image. If any of the listed images are marked as RF you will also need a property release to sell these images commercially, in these cases we’ve also added editorial restrictions to prevent any issues. If you believe we’ve got this wrong, you can amend this and upload releases if you have them within Alamy Image Manager. There’s loads more info on property releases here.

 

If you have any questions, just let us know.

 

Thanks

 

Alamy Copyright Team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always mark property-yes, releases-no, usually in a batch, and always have. There aren't many images without property if you think about it.

The difference with the new AIM is that they can go on sale anyway. Perhaps that's a limitation.

Interesting to see Alamy state openly that you can remove restrictions in AIM yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Craig Yates said:

Yes i had the same email for this image,

Toothpaste loaded onto a toothbrush - Stock Image

 

Craig.

wow, that's abit of a stretch...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MandyD said:

wow, that's abit of a stretch...

 

Not really. That's my toothbrush...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, John Morrison said:

 

Not really. That's my toothbrush...

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MandyD said:

wow, that's abit of a stretch...

Is the Colgate stripe a trademark?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know why those fields are optional, they never used to be.  It's all too easy, when dealing with a batch of photos, to miss them out.

 

Is there a good reason for this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bryan said:

Don't know why those fields are optional, they never used to be.  It's all too easy, when dealing with a batch of photos, to miss them out.

 

Is there a good reason for this?

 

I assumed it was part of Alamy's drive to get more RF editorial images. In the past if you stated that an image had property and was not released it had to be RM. 

 

But since they are now optional I don't understand the email that I was sent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

I assumed it was part of Alamy's drive to get more RF editorial images. In the past if you stated that an image had property and was not released it had to be RM. 

 

But since they are now optional I don't understand the email that I was sent.

+1 - seems daft that the tab for property etc is labelled "optional" and now Alamy are sending these out - is it because those images are RF?? 

 

Kumar (the Doc one)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Doc said:

+1 - seems daft that the tab for property etc is labelled "optional" and now Alamy are sending these out - is it because those images are RF?? 

 

Kumar (the Doc one)

 

My ones are RM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sally said:

Is the Colgate stripe a trademark?

I guess it must be.

Set as RM as well!

 

Craig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm.... have not had this mail yet, but got lazy recently on the optional tab in AIM. 

Maybe I should review and set property and model releases not available as well as number of persons?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I understood it as a way to deal easily both with RF editorial and RM images in the new AIM. Optional ticking for property and persons only for RF editorial. Common sense tells that the RM images still should be ticked correctly - but it certainly should have been explained properly - and it wasn't.

 

I also sell most as RM - well sell and sell lately ....

 

Niels

Edited by Niels Quist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Niels Quist said:

I understood it as a way to deal easily both with RF editorial and RM images in the new AIM. Optional ticking for property and persons only for RF editorial. Common sense tells that the RM images still should be ticked correctly - but it certainly should have been explained properly - and it wasn't.

 

I also sell most as RM - well sell and sell lately ....

 

Niels

 

 

I remember endless forum discussions about 'what is property' and 'does it need a release for commercial use'.

 

It was good to think that had all ended and the decision passed to the client. None of my images, apart from a few of my house,  are indicated as being released.

 

I don't object at all to Alamy making changes to these images, but it leaves me unsure what I am supposed to be doing for thousands of others.

 

I have been enjoying just sending images in by ftp and just letting them goon sale without any, or only minimal time, in AIM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got the email too for a photo of the Argos shop sign. My bad as I listed it in optional as "No property needing release" under "Optional". It was marked as RM.

 

I agree there is a lot under the Optional tab as really needing to be filled.

 

Allan

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, spacecadet said:

I always mark property-yes, releases-no, usually in a batch, and always have.

Oh no I don't.

I've hundreds post-AIM where I haven't bothered.

No email, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive got a query about this letter sent from Alamy and their comments regarding property in images. I also contribute to microstock sites and over there, there are certain scenarios where you can have visible property in commercial images without a release. For example if you've photographed a house from a public place that features generic looking architecture and it does not reveal street numbers or any other such details. So is Alamy different in this regard? And what about closeups of sections of generic looking architecture where the property isn't really recognisable? Do we still have to mark 'yes' to the property question and select 'editorial' as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Patrick Cooper said:

Ive got a query about this letter sent from Alamy and their comments regarding property in images. I also contribute to microstock sites and over there, there are certain scenarios where you can have visible property in commercial images without a release. For example if you've photographed a house from a public place that features generic looking architecture and it does not reveal street numbers or any other such details. So is Alamy different in this regard? And what about closeups of sections of generic looking architecture where the property isn't really recognisable? Do we still have to mark 'yes' to the property question and select 'editorial' as well?

 

For property:

Yes if the owner would be able to recognize his/her property.

The same for persons:

If he/she; his/her mom would be able to recognize him/her self/son/daughter.

 

Almost everything on earth is property.

Everybody on earth needs a release.

Yesterday I was attending a conference at a London university and all 150 people attending had to sign a release because someone was making a short video post for the organizers website.

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, wiskerke said:

 

For property:

Yes if the owner would be able to recognize his/her property.

The same for persons:

If he/she; his/her mom would be able to recognize him/her self/son/daughter.

 

wim

 

I think Alamy's interpretation is much broader than that. If any part of a person (who may or may not be recognisable) appears then you must count them in the "Number of people in the image" and then you are prompted to supply model releases. If you haven't got releases then you must sell as RM only. Hovering over the question-mark next to the "Number of People in the image" in AIM shows the rule.

 

However, it's all a bit daft because these questions are on the optional info page in the new AIM...:wacko:

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thankyou Wiskerke for your reply. I also have a related query about property. Suppose an image does feature recognisable property but it is not the main subject. For example, it could be a landscape image with a building or two in the distance (but still clearly recognisable.) Would it still be advisable to select 'yes' to the property' question? Normally, I would submit such an image as commercial to the microstock sites. Though if it's recommended to declare that there is property visible on Alamy (even though the buildings are very far away) , it looks like I'd have to submit them as editorial. 

Edited by Patrick Cooper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patrick Cooper said:

Thankyou Wiskerke for your reply. I also have a related query about property. Suppose an image does feature recognisable property but it is not the main subject. For example, it could be a landscape image with a building or two in the distance (but still clearly recognisable.) Would it still be advisable to select 'yes' to the property' question? Normally, I would submit such an image as commercial to the microstock sites. Though if it's recommended to declare that there is property visible on Alamy, it looks like I'd have to submit them as editorial. 

yes, like a cityscape?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Strictly speaking yes.

But I don't restrict my unreleased images. MS sometimes do it themselves when it's having its arm twisted by some stroppy IP holder, but I don't.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MandyD said:

yes, like a cityscape?

 

Yes that's another example - a cityscape / skyline image that is semi-distant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, spacecadet said:

Strictly speaking yes.

But I don't restrict my unreleased images. MS sometimes do it themselves when it's having its arm twisted by some stroppy IP holder, but I don't.

 

That's the same approach I take.

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now