It has only taken me sixteen months ...

[Cryptoprocta 389]

Regular readers will be have been bored rigid by me regularly banging on (for years now) about the issue of having to count as people all sorts of things which may or may not actually need model releases, but for sure the buyers don't want to see if they search on a particular number of people (they actually want to see these people, probably quite prominent in the image).

Being slow of brain I've just solved the conundrum. Having got my little Sony, so having it with me all the time now, I've had a revival in uploading general editorials as I go about my everyday business. So having spent the last few weeks scouring each image to count things like distorted reflections, possible body parts, shadows, out of focus people in posters and wondering whether a particular set of pixels might just be a person that I could try to clone out, I've only just today worked it out.

If there aren't any 'readily visible people', don't tick that box (which is optional). The file will show as 'no model release' (which is the default) but will not show any number of people, or even 0 people, so won't annoy buyers.

 

D'uh!   

 

Sorry if this has been pointed out before. Some time, I might get time to go back over old images and fix them.

[Niels Quist 458]

2 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Regular readers will be have been bored rigid by me regularly banging on (for years now) about the issue of having to count as people all sorts of things which may or may not actually need model releases, but for sure the buyers don't want to see if they search on a particular number of people (they actually want to see these people, probably quite prominent in the image).

Being slow of brain I've just solved the conundrum. Having got my little Sony, so having it with me all the time now, I've had a revival in uploading general editorials as I go about my everyday business. So having spent the last few weeks scouring each image to count things like distorted reflections, possible body parts, shadows, out of focus people in posters and wondering whether a particular set of pixels might just be a person that I could try to clone out, I've only just today worked it out.

If there aren't any 'readily visible people', don't tick that box (which is optional). The file will show as 'no model release' (which is the default) but will not show any number of people, or even 0 people, so won't annoy buyers.

 

D'uh!   

 

Sorry if this has been pointed out before. Some time, I might get time to go back over old images and fix them.

 

As long as you stick to Alamy's recommendations /requirements, and remember that you are not the one to decide whether a person is recognisable.

 

"If the person in your image can recognise themselves in any way, you’ll need a model release to sell for commercial use.

This includes crowd scenes, parts of the body or silhouettes."

 

I don't suppose you mean marked as "editorial only" when you say "editorials". 

A lot of responsibility has been put on the contributors' shoulders after the "new" AIM, perhaps too much. Seems to be the clumsy result of combining old terms with new ways.

 

The vast majority of my images are RM. I still prefer to tick sooner more persons than less and that I have no releases - to make the buyers decide whether the image can be used for the purpose . Only sensitive images I mark as "editorial only" as well.

 

Niels

 

PS I don't think persons on posters count as persons, but as property (that you have no releases for). But I may have chosen both sometimes to be on the safe side.

Edited July 11 by Niels Quist

[Cryptoprocta 389]

Like I said, indicating number of people is on the optional page, and 'Model release: No"  is the default and shows on the page even if there's only a blade of grass and you indicated 'No of People: 0' (as does 'Property Release: No' even if you have indicated the said blade of grass is not property).

 

I have marked many of my recent photos as 'editorial only' (RM) because they are of brands. There's no possible commercial way they could be used (unless by the companies themselves).

 

I feel sure that it must really hack off buyers when they indicate that they want to see a certain number of people, and they are hit with lots of images which have no 'perceivable' people. My way works for the MR thing (NB, as I indicated, I'm not saying 0 people, I'm just not filling in that box) and the people wanted thing.

 

I guess the downside would be that there is an extremely slight chance that a buyer might indicated that they want 'so many' people, but decide they'd buy mine without any perceivable people anyway. In any case, if I indicate, by Alamy's standards, ' vague pixels are so many people', I'm losing out to a buyer who indicated they want 0 people. (Sometimes I clone them out.)

 

The upside could be that my CTR will improve.

Edited July 11 by Cryptoprocta
typos

[M.Chapman 688]

4 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

If there aren't any 'readily visible people', don't tick that box (which is optional). The file will show as 'no model release' (which is the default) but will not show any number of people, or even 0 people, so won't annoy buyers.

 

 

Brilliant. Why didn't I think of trying that? I agree with your logic entirely.

 

Mark

[Inchiquin 612]

I don't see a "readily visible people" box. Where is it?

 

Alan

[Cryptoprocta 389]

12 minutes ago, Inchiquin said:

I don't see a "readily visible people" box. Where is it?

 

Alan

There isn't one. That's the issue I'm trying to solve.