Author Topic: Advise needed re selling Rights Managed. (Read 10403 times)

kuriouskat · « **on:** February 09, 2013, 09:07 »

With everything that has been going on recently, I know it is time that I concentrated more effort on selling RM, rather that just giving everything I have to the Micros. I have a small Alamy port of RF images and a hard drive of images that are suitable for RM - just need some processing and uploading time. I know I can't sell any of my RF stuff as RM but that is about the extent of my knowledge!

Before I invest too much time getting things wrong, I just want to clarify a couple of points.

Firstly, if I submit RM to Alamy can I also sell the same images RM elsewhere? Can I also sell the same images on places like Fine Art America? In short, is the rule simply that I don't sell the same images as RF?

Secondly, I notice on Alamy that images that would perhaps sell as editorial on the Micros are clearly photoshopped more than an editorial image should be. One example I saw was very similar to an image I have, and was clearly taken from the same position, but mine has power cables cutting across it and the processed one on Alamy had the cables removed. I am used to just tidying up images for editorial - exposure/contrast/curves, etc. Is this kind or treatment acceptable for Alamy/RM? Also, at what point do I have to declare that it has been 'digitally altered'? I'm really not sure what 'digitally altered' constitutes - would that be anything that has been adjusted in PS or is it for substantial image manipulation? The image I mentioned with the removed cables was marked as NO to the 'digitally altered' bit.

Thanks

aspp · « **Reply #1 on:** February 09, 2013, 09:14 »

Quote from: KuriousKat on February 09, 2013, 09:07

Secondly, I notice on Alamy that images that would perhaps sell as editorial on the Micros are clearly photoshopped more than an editorial image should be

Editorial is a usage. Most RM images at Alamy are not inherently restricted to editorial use only. Only if specific licensing restrictions have been set which prohibit all except editorial use.

Bear in mind that many RF images both at Alamy and elsewhere will also be used editorially.

You need to say that it has be altered digitally if you have changed the content. Added or removed stuff. It's a matter of using your judgement. Lots of great reportage over the years has been heavily processed and looks like it does because of how the film was processed and then printed. Or because of the film stock used.

ShadySue · « **Reply #2 on:** February 09, 2013, 09:28 »

Alamy has no exclusivity, so you can sell the same pics RM elsewhere, at FAA etc.

Don't take what other people do as an example of good practice. For example, do a search on Edinburgh Tattoo, model releases, and apart from the many irrelevent results, look at the ones which are marked that they have Model Releases. A few might be genuine, but I certainly don't believe that they all got releases for every one of the performers in some of the images.

So just because someone says they didn't manipulate an image, doesn't mean they didn't. Where you draw the line as to what consitutes 'manipulation' is to some extent up to you. I tend not to count e.g. taking out cigarette stubs from kerbs. If something is reasonably permanent, I'd count it as manipulated if I took it out. Also there's nothing to stop you submitting both a 'real' and a 'cleaned up' version, each designated appropriately.

I'm not sure how much trade you'd lose by cleaning up all litter etc and designate them as being altered - I don't know how many buyers require totally uncleaned-up.

Good luck!

StanRohrer · « **Reply #3 on:** February 09, 2013, 09:37 »

Alamy is an open site (not exclusive) so you can load to other sites as you wish. Typically it is a good idea to keep the same/similar images in about the same price points when selecting other sites. It's not a very good idea to put the same image on a high priced site and also on a dollar priced site for the same/similar license type.

Fine Art America likely has a very much different license than Alamy (I've not read it) so FAA should not be any problem.

RM and RF are just different licenses. Images can be sold as both. But the price points and stock sites may impose restrictions back and forth. There are ongoing discussions where people do not completely agree with my assessment so you need to read the rules at each site - at a minimum.

RM and/or RF Exclusivity clause of image use does indeed restrict what else can be done with an image. Tracking exclusive rights for buyers use becomes more and more painful as the image is supplied to more and more stock sites. Most photogs will not offer exclusivity unless we have very special images or want to sell from only one site.

For Alamy, the RM buyer picks his own restrictions of license so that reduces conflicts as well with other sites and pricing to some degree.

Alamy images can be altered - perfectly fine. Just be sure to mark the appropriate digitally altered box and all is good. Your competitor could get in trouble with Alamy if his edit is discovered and not disclosed. Alamy has been known to kick out people for misrepresentations such as incorrect data (especially model releases).

Alamy has some guidelines somewhere on "digitally altered". Minor brightness and contrast adjustments are OK if they do not change the "story" portrayed by the image. Be conservative and tick the altered box if you have any concern. The buyer can then decide if alterations are a problem with his use (e.g. hot news story would not want alterations - travel guides probably OK). Certainly any moved objects and removed items (wires) count as alterations to me.

kuriouskat · « **Reply #4 on:** February 09, 2013, 09:51 »

Aspp, Sue and Stan - thanks very much - you have confirmed what I thought but I wanted to be sure.

Regarding 'digitally altering' , I'll take another look at Alamy and see if I can find the guidelines. It is not something that has been an issue before, as the Micros don't ask the question for normal submissions and I was aware that editorial images should be only tidied up and not essentially changed.

Thanks again

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** February 09, 2013, 09:56 »

Quote from: StanRohrer on February 09, 2013, 09:37

Fine Art America likely has a very much different license than Alamy (I've not read it) so FAA should not be any problem.

If FAA have licences, they're not easy to find. But I wouldn't expect them, as they're selling prints and cards - you don't get any sort of licence with a print or card you buy in a shop.

wordplanet · « **Reply #6 on:** February 09, 2013, 11:47 »

Depending upon the editorial use - travel guides or even travel articles vs straight news - different outlets have different rules for digital alteration - what I do is tick "digitally altered" if I've cleaned up stuff and in the "description" section I mention what has been changed so the buyer can decide if it meets with their guidelines.

FAA doesn't license images - you're selling a print so you can manipulate them as much as you wish and selling there won't interfere with RM on Alamy unless, perhaps, if you're marking your photo as RM exclusive - and possibly not then either. If you want to place an RM license with Alamy exclusively I'd ask - I have all my RM images from Alamy as non-exclusive.

Good luck.

I was licensing a lot more RF images at Alamy a few years ago but now the RM images seem to be selling more often, so I'm more inclined to put most of my new images there as RM. They've been doing a sort of hybrid RM/RF image licensing deals there anyway.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #7 on:** February 09, 2013, 13:32 »

Just one point about Editorial

You can not remove or add anything. You can't remove cables, power lines, trees or a foot. You can't add clouds, sky or props. You can adjust within limits, but one that got dinged was someone turning a grey fir photo into an orange scenic. You can't clone anything in or out...

Yes Alamy has a button for "was this image altered" so that is a notification for buyers.

Further Reading for anyone who cares to understand the limitations and allowances. From Reuters the people who gave us added clouds and bombs over Baghdad and other faked photos.

http://handbook.reuters.com/index.php?title=A_Brief_Guide_to_Standards%2C_Photoshop_and_Captions

Allowed:

Cropping
Adjustment of Levels to histogram limits
Minor colour correction
Sharpening at 300%, 0.3, 0
Careful use of lasso tool
Subtle use of burn tool
Adjustment of highlights and shadows
Eye dropper to check/set gray

Not Allowed:

Additions or deletions to image
Cloning & Healing tool (except dust)
Airbrush, brush, paint
Selective area sharpening
Excessive lightening/darkening
Excessive colour tone change
Auto levels
Blurring
Eraser tool
Quick Mask
In-camera sharpening
In-camera saturation styles

ShadySue · « **Reply #8 on:** February 09, 2013, 13:52 »

If you don't want to go the 'two versions' route, but want to clean up bird droppings or odd litter etc., maybe think if the particualar image is likely to be used as news, in which case leave it natural, or secondary editoria, in which case alter it and annotate appropriately.
Maybe (or maybe not) a guidebook photo editor (for example) would clean up a photo, but maybe they'd just choose one that needed no work. Who knows?

aspp · « **Reply #9 on:** February 09, 2013, 15:17 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 09, 2013, 13:32

Just one point about Editorial

You can not remove or add anything. You can't remove cables, power lines, trees or a foot. You can't add clouds, sky or props. You can adjust within limits, but one that got dinged was someone turning a grey fir photo into an orange scenic. You can't clone anything in or etc

You are completely confusing editorial (which means nothing other than a type of usage) with best practice with respect to reportage and news reporting. Editorial does not (necessarily) mean news or reportage.

Heavily processed commercial RF stock images, product shots and even computer generated images are often used editorially. Including images with, for example, people and logos removed. Editorial is simply a type of use. It does not, of itself, imply truth.

Despite the confusion which often arises, the only way that an image at Alamy can be editorial (as in editorial only) is if you specifically restrict all other uses in the optional restrictions section. Uploading an image without releases does not mean that the image is, of itself, editorial. Whether or not the image has been significantly altered does not fundamentally determine whether it can be used editorially. It may determine whether best practice or even local laws allow it to be used in the context of news and or reportage. That is a completely different issue.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #10 on:** February 09, 2013, 22:40 »

Yes I consider Editorial News as that. You are correct. I wasn't speaking about all photos without releases. But NEWS and RM. Also the tendency for people who have an image with no release to just dump it off as "editorial" is kind of weak.

News Editorial Ethical considerations. Absolutely. And you noticed I quoted Reuters who have been caught with their pants down a few times.

Good source for more than careful ethical considerations, because people will watch them closer than other sources.

Anything intended to be used as Fair Use, editorial, journalism purposes, should be effectively as it was in reality. Fair use applies to NEWS not commercial or for advertising. Other fair use is education, and libraries are allowed to make copies of things (Research). Parody, comment or criticism are also protected.

The way people are just calling everything without a release "Editorial" is playing it a little loose. Maybe some people understand why Editorial on some sites needs a newsworthy caption?

Using a logo as Editorial is not altering the truth. Using a persons image, is only allowed under Fair Use. So once again, you can't sell anything for commercial purposes or advertising just by calling it Editorial.

What purpose will people have for uploading a heavily altered photo that can only be used for Education, News, Parody, or Research?

And people complain about food looking better than it is, models having been Photoshopped, as unethical? But trying to sell an altered version of reality for personal profit, then it's OK?

You're right, I am confused.

Quote from: aspp on February 09, 2013, 15:17

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 09, 2013, 13:32
Just one point about Editorial

You can not remove or add anything. You can't remove cables, power lines, trees or a foot. You can't add clouds, sky or props. You can adjust within limits, but one that got dinged was someone turning a grey fir photo into an orange scenic. You can't clone anything in or etc

You are completely confusing editorial (which means nothing other than a type of usage) with best practice with respect to reportage and news reporting. Editorial does not (necessarily) mean news or reportage.

Heavily processed commercial RF stock images, product shots and even computer generated images are often used editorially. Including images with, for example, people and logos removed. Editorial is simply a type of use. It does not, of itself, imply truth.

Despite the confusion which often arises, the only way that an image at Alamy can be editorial (as in editorial only) is if you specifically restrict all other uses in the optional restrictions section. Uploading an image without releases does not mean that the image is, of itself, editorial. Whether or not the image has been significantly altered does not fundamentally determine whether it can be used editorially. It may determine whether best practice or even local laws allow it to be used in the context of news and or reportage. That is a completely different issue.

ShadySue · « **Reply #11 on:** February 10, 2013, 05:13 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 09, 2013, 22:40

What purpose will people have for uploading a heavily altered photo that can only be used for Education, News, Parody, or Research?

Education, news, parody and research.
Obviously.
But hey, there's a whole world of secondary editorial usage out there. Despite what SS thinks, 'news' is only a small subset of editorial. Most magazines use editorial photos; loads of non-fiction books ...

There's a very famous American building which is one of the continent's 'most photographed'. I've been there. It has a very ugly black cable right in front of it. I guess with some extreme pancake lens you might be able to photograph it without the cable, but most people must just clone it out. Not sure what 'Joe Public' did before digital, though.

aspp · « **Reply #12 on:** February 10, 2013, 05:15 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 09, 2013, 22:40

You're right, I am confused.

You are. And you are convoluting relatively simple issues. Editorial is a type of non commercial use. Use is largely determined by users and not sellers. You can choose to apply restrictions for example editorial-only (how micros do it) or by restricting specific uses (eg Alamy). If you apply restrictions you may prevent perfectly legitimate use.

All of the stuff about photoshopping, reality etc is spurious and pointless. Here are some examples:

1. The old Stockmarket catalogues used to have had a selection of images related to 'issues'. I can remember, for example, that there was a series of images about cocaine abuse. These were art directed, model released, studio images of models pretending to use cocaine (!). These images were about illustrating themes. There was nothing to stop them being used editorially and they often were. Quite legitimately. Despite them clearly not illustrating the truth.

2. Unreleased (sold unreleased) images have frequently ended up being legitimately used in advertising or in other commercial contexts. Including many famous adverts. Often airbrushed or photoshopped. What happens is that the advertising agencies do the legal footwork. Or sometimes the image is manipulated such that it can safely be used. This is normal practice.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #13 on:** February 10, 2013, 06:06 »

There's no "editorial license" on Alamy as far as I know. I presume that the "is it altered?" question is there so that editors can determine whether or not they are using an altered image and I can think of plenty of editorial usages where it wouldn't matter two hoots (if, for example, the background had been removed from currant buns being used in a cookery feature). So it's up to the buyer to decide whether an altered image is acceptable for his usage.

ShadySue · « **Reply #14 on:** February 10, 2013, 06:11 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 10, 2013, 06:06

There's no "editorial license" on Alamy as far as I know. I presume that the "is it altered?" question is there so that editors can determine whether or not they are using an altered image and I can think of plenty of editorial usages where it wouldn't matter two hoots (if, for example, the background had been removed from currant buns being used in a cookery feature). So it's up to the buyer to decide whether an altered image is acceptable for his usage.

Indeed, and in the UK, and IIRC the EU, a small incidental item in a photo does not count as any sort of copyright/trademark infringement.

Poncke · « **Reply #15 on:** February 10, 2013, 06:28 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 10, 2013, 06:11

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 10, 2013, 06:06
There's no "editorial license" on Alamy as far as I know. I presume that the "is it altered?" question is there so that editors can determine whether or not they are using an altered image and I can think of plenty of editorial usages where it wouldn't matter two hoots (if, for example, the background had been removed from currant buns being used in a cookery feature). So it's up to the buyer to decide whether an altered image is acceptable for his usage.
Indeed, and in the UK, and IIRC the EU, a small incidental item in a photo does not count as any sort of copyright/trademark infringement.

Sue, I got a different answer in the forum. Does this photo need a release for the cans on the table and the bag on the chair D31R6Y

ShadySue · « **Reply #16 on:** February 10, 2013, 06:46 »

Quote from: Poncke on February 10, 2013, 06:28

Quote from: ShadySue on February 10, 2013, 06:11
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 10, 2013, 06:06
There's no "editorial license" on Alamy as far as I know. I presume that the "is it altered?" question is there so that editors can determine whether or not they are using an altered image and I can think of plenty of editorial usages where it wouldn't matter two hoots (if, for example, the background had been removed from currant buns being used in a cookery feature). So it's up to the buyer to decide whether an altered image is acceptable for his usage.
Indeed, and in the UK, and IIRC the EU, a small incidental item in a photo does not count as any sort of copyright/trademark infringement.
Sue, I got a different answer in the forum. Does this photo need a release for the cans on the table and the bag on the chair D31R6Y

I can't see the cans clearly, and don't know about the bag: the T-shirts are an issue unless home-designed and released.
But all of these are incidental in the image, so wouldn't be a problem in most contexts. That, however, is up to the buyer.
I always err on the side of caution, but I prefer my images to be used editorially anyway. I often put 'MR needed' when I'm sure iS would accept them.
The issue would be if a buyer cropped heavily into shoe the product and used only that part of the image. Then you have covered yourself, and the responsibility is his/hers, as set out in the Alamy conditions of use.

Remember, you have to declare even pixel blurs as 'people', even though there is no possibility they'd ever be recogniseable. These could be used commercially with no possible comeback from the blobs.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #17 on:** February 10, 2013, 07:05 »

Quote from: Poncke on February 10, 2013, 06:28

Quote from: ShadySue on February 10, 2013, 06:11
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 10, 2013, 06:06
There's no "editorial license" on Alamy as far as I know. I presume that the "is it altered?" question is there so that editors can determine whether or not they are using an altered image and I can think of plenty of editorial usages where it wouldn't matter two hoots (if, for example, the background had been removed from currant buns being used in a cookery feature). So it's up to the buyer to decide whether an altered image is acceptable for his usage.
Indeed, and in the UK, and IIRC the EU, a small incidental item in a photo does not count as any sort of copyright/trademark infringement.
Sue, I got a different answer in the forum. Does this photo need a release for the cans on the table and the bag on the chair D31R6Y

Of course it doesn't need a release, it's RM. You should have labelled it "release needed/not available" unless you have signed releases for all the people and the house (it's clearly taken on private property). If you've got all those and you want to sell it RF then you would still need to have a release for any visible labels or TMs, under Alamy's rules.

They sent me a letter demanding a release for a picture with part of my thumb in it (holding a utensil) and put it back in pending until I wrote out one and sent it in.

Poncke · « **Reply #18 on:** February 10, 2013, 07:39 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 10, 2013, 07:05

Quote from: Poncke on February 10, 2013, 06:28
Quote from: ShadySue on February 10, 2013, 06:11
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 10, 2013, 06:06
There's no "editorial license" on Alamy as far as I know. I presume that the "is it altered?" question is there so that editors can determine whether or not they are using an altered image and I can think of plenty of editorial usages where it wouldn't matter two hoots (if, for example, the background had been removed from currant buns being used in a cookery feature). So it's up to the buyer to decide whether an altered image is acceptable for his usage.
Indeed, and in the UK, and IIRC the EU, a small incidental item in a photo does not count as any sort of copyright/trademark infringement.
Sue, I got a different answer in the forum. Does this photo need a release for the cans on the table and the bag on the chair D31R6Y

Of course it doesn't need a release, it's RM. You should have labelled it "release needed/not available" unless you have signed releases for all the people and the house (it's clearly taken on private property). If you've got all those and you want to sell it RF then you would still need to have a release for any visible labels or TMs, under Alamy's rules.

They sent me a letter demanding a release for a picture with part of my thumb in it (holding a utensil) and put it back in pending until I wrote out one and sent it in.

Thanks, I have all model releases and the property release. But since I dont have the PR for the bag, the t shirt and the cola cans, I have said PR needed yes, PR available no. So its RM. Its exclusive to Alamy. But I figured if I have exclusive RM with all releases, it will be worth more. But as of now, it says PR NO.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #19 on:** February 10, 2013, 11:33 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 10, 2013, 06:06

There's no "editorial license" on Alamy as far as I know. I presume that the "is it altered?" question is there so that editors can determine whether or not they are using an altered image and I can think of plenty of editorial usages where it wouldn't matter two hoots (if, for example, the background had been removed from currant buns being used in a cookery feature). So it's up to the buyer to decide whether an altered image is acceptable for his usage.

How do they know if someone uploads Editorial to anyplace else but Alamy, which has a box for "this photo has been altered"?

On SS someone clones a woman with a dog into a desert scene, adds some pretty clouds and calls it woman walking dog in the desert. It's uploaded as Editorial. (hint: news) But it's altered. Isn't that some kind of fraud?

Alamy same photo, if the sky is added, it's altered, if the sand is added it's altered, if there's no model release, it's Editorial...

Back to the question, How Does The Buyer know how much the image was altered? Do they have to ring you up or ask the agency for every image that they want to potentially use? Or maybe unaltered is easier to sell?

I think it's a deterring factor for sales, and not a way to slip something past that has no release.

You find a photo with a dateline. You assume it's news? Ah but it's not because it's actually just editorial, and has been heavily edited. Slippery slope and dangerous ground to be playing this game.

Yes Sue I agree, wires, trees, a foot, did you see the part about "no auto levels". Talk about nit picking! But one guy who won an award for sports shooting had it revoked, because he cloned out an errant foot. The fire photo was altered from grey and blue to orange and glowing. FAIL. Yes that's news? But where does it end?

People complain about integrity and then want to get a pass when it comes to their own sales. Hey I'm not stealing your image, I'm just using it free on a little blog?

Sure I haven't a release, and I'm labeling it editorial with a news type dateline, but really, it's just "editorial"... no big deal.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #20 on:** February 10, 2013, 11:52 »

Well if you upload somewhere on an "editorial" license then you shouldn't alter it.

It doesn't matter what happens elsewhere, that's not Alamy's business . Their clients rely on their suppliers to be honest in the "is it altered" box. That's the beginning and end of it, really.

In the end, the only way for someone to know if a photo is altered is to take it themselves.

ShadySue · « **Reply #21 on:** February 10, 2013, 11:58 »

Race, do you really not know the difference between 'hot news'/news and 'secondary editorial' or are you just being obtuse/trolling?

The reason school textbook publishers wouldn't buy from micros historically was that they had no way of knowing that a picture had not been altered.

On iStock, editorials should not be altered at all, other than sensor spots and a bit of levels. End of. No tick box: if it's submitted as editorial, the contributor is saying it's unaltered.

Buyers who need unaltered images will not buy from agencies where this is not a requirement. Buyers who don't care can choose where to buy from.

I have no idea what you mean by, "I think it's a deterring factor for sales, and not a way to slip something past that has no release."
I don't know what you mean by 'it' in that sentence.

Also, as far as I know, there isn't a release on any agency which a person can sign to say, "I agree to my image being used in an editorial context but not in an advert or to promote any cause."

Surely you realise editorial is not 'a way to slip something past that has no release'? It's a different sort of image, where reality is key, not some bland generic entity with suggestions of reality omitted or cloned out.

aspp · « **Reply #22 on:** February 10, 2013, 12:03 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 10, 2013, 11:33

Alamy ... if there's no model release, it's Editorial...

No. There are no editorial photographs at Alamy. None. There are just photographs. Some might be used editorially. Editorial is a type of use. Users mostly determine use.

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 10, 2013, 11:33

People complain about integrity and then want to get a pass when it comes to their own sales.

Who ? You keep coming up with these straw man points, inventing arguments which nobody is having. Eg:

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 10, 2013, 11:33

You find a photo with a dateline. You assume it's news?

But no. You shouldn't.

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 09, 2013, 22:40

people are just calling everything without a release "Editorial"

Who is ?

Quote from: ShadySue on February 10, 2013, 11:58

Race ... are you just being obtuse/trolling?

Could be that.

aspp · « **Reply #23 on:** February 10, 2013, 12:12 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 10, 2013, 11:58

Surely you realise editorial is not 'a way to slip something past that has no release'? It's a different sort of image, where reality is key, not some bland generic entity with suggestions of reality omitted or cloned out.

That is not true either. Not inherently. Editorial is just and only a type of non commercial use. Any image can potentially be used editorially. As in my previous example about the studio images of cocaine abuse which Stockmarket were selling in the late 80s. You are confusing editorial use with an intent which would be, broadly, reportage. Or content which is produced for specific editorial use.

Now it is certainly true that specific collections have rules about what they will accept into their editorial collections. If they have editorial collections. That is a completely different issue. Alamy does not have an editorial collection.

ShadySue · « **Reply #24 on:** February 10, 2013, 14:32 »

Quote from: KuriousKat on February 09, 2013, 09:07

Secondly, I notice on Alamy that images that would perhaps sell as editorial on the Micros are clearly photoshopped more than an editorial image should be. One example I saw was very similar to an image I have, and was clearly taken from the same position, but mine has power cables cutting across it and the processed one on Alamy had the cables removed. I am used to just tidying up images for editorial - exposure/contrast/curves, etc. Is this kind or treatment acceptable for Alamy/RM?

Thanks

Can I just check that you know that RM is only a type of license?
You can sell highly manipulated, or even totally computer generated, commercial images at Alamy, and many other sites, as RM.

'Commercial' doesn't equate only to RF, though Alamy has chosen to make images without releases, (even if you don't actually need the releases as the 'people' are only pixel blurs), as RM.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #25 on:** February 10, 2013, 14:33 »

Quote from: aspp on February 10, 2013, 12:12

Quote from: ShadySue on February 10, 2013, 11:58
Surely you realise editorial is not 'a way to slip something past that has no release'? It's a different sort of image, where reality is key, not some bland generic entity with suggestions of reality omitted or cloned out.

That is not true either. Not inherently. Editorial is just and only a type of non commercial use. Any image can potentially be used editorially. As in my previous example about the studio images of cocaine abuse which Stockmarket were selling in the late 80s. You are confusing editorial use with an intent which would be, broadly, reportage. Or content which is produced for specific editorial use.

Now it is certainly true that specific collections have rules about what they will accept into their editorial collections. If they have editorial collections. That is a completely different issue. Alamy does not have an editorial collection.

Did someone say that Alamy had an Editorial collection?

Why you need releases for people and property

To maximise the potential to sell your images for “Commercial use”.
To sell your images Royalty Free.
If a person can recognise themselves in an image. Examples when you need a model release also include, crowd scenes, team sports, and scenarios when the face is not visible such as parts of the body, or silhouettes. For a picture of two people shaking hands, where only the hands are in shot, you need two model releases.

Remember, if you don’t have a release for certain content, you can sell it as Rights Managed (RM) and set restrictions to “Editorial use only“.

Editorial Only is NOT for commercial use. OK? Is that easy enough to understand?

News Editorial can't have the content altered to remove or add or distort.

Stop saying what you can do and consider what you can't do. That was kind of the original intent of explaining editing restrictions on News Editorial, which is what SS expects their images to be, because they require a Dateline. Alamy, see above.

Quote from: ShadySue on February 10, 2013, 14:32

Quote from: KuriousKat on February 09, 2013, 09:07

Secondly, I notice on Alamy that images that would perhaps sell as editorial on the Micros are clearly photoshopped more than an editorial image should be. One example I saw was very similar to an image I have, and was clearly taken from the same position, but mine has power cables cutting across it and the processed one on Alamy had the cables removed. I am used to just tidying up images for editorial - exposure/contrast/curves, etc. Is this kind or treatment acceptable for Alamy/RM?

Thanks

Can I just check that you know that RM is only a type of license?
You can sell highly manipulated, or even totally computer generated, commercial images at Alamy, and many other sites, as RM.

'Commercial' doesn't equate only to RF, though Alamy has chosen to make images without releases, (even if you don't actually need the releases as the 'people' are only pixel blurs), as RM.

True

Also the whole debate over RM vs RF Editorial and the license, can be seen as imperfect in many ways. It's only a problem for Exclusive or restricted use content that's RM. But that's a whole different question.

ShadySue · « **Reply #26 on:** February 10, 2013, 14:47 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 10, 2013, 14:33

Remember, if you don’t have a release for certain content, you can sell it as Rights Managed (RM) and set restrictions to “Editorial use only“.[/b]

Trouble is, there is no restriction called 'Editiorial use only' at Alamy, so that's just misleading.
It seems that most of us get it wrong when we set restrictions. Even though I had read about the restrictions, I got an email from Alamy saying the restrictions I had set combined to mean that the image couldn't sell at all - and that is very common.
So we are told that if there's a pixel blur representing a person, or a tiny part of a person, we must indicate that a person is present and we don't have a release. And if there is something in the photo that might need a property release, we indicate that, and that we don't have a release, then it's up to the buyer to decide if a photo is suitablefor their use.

Why do they say, "set restrictions for 'editorial use only'", when there is no such labelled description? Presumably for the same reason as they say,
"Exact match
Tells the search engine to only find results where the search terms are an exact match for the keywords.
Syntax: Double quotation marks “ ”.
Example: “Golden Gate Bridge”.
Outcome
This image is only found for searches where the phrase in double quotes is an exact match for the customer search terms, so in this example this image will not be found for a search for ‘Gate’.
Benefit
When customers search for proper names ‘John Smith’ ‘Statue of Liberty’ ‘The World Cup Final’ images keyworded in this way will be found earlier in the search results."
when word is that the double quotation syntax for indicating and exact phrase has never worked on Alamy.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #27 on:** February 10, 2013, 14:59 »

Got it. I was assuming that their guide for photographers and licenses the specific instructions were actually in use. I've always gone by the button when I submit that says "editorial use only" and never recognized that they didn't provide that for buyers.

How very strange? I left off my name the image details, but this is all it says.

B468C3 Rights Managed
Model release - NO
Property release - NO
Maximum filesize : 48.2 MB
(Set Preferences)
[Add image to lightbox]    Add to lightbox
[Add image to cart]    Add image to cart
[Calculate price]    Calculate price
[Edit image details]    Edit image
Location :    Chicagoland Speedway Joliet IL
Date taken :    2008
Digitally altered? :    NO

Which makes me ask, why are they including it in the FAQ and making me click the buttons, when the buyers can't see anything?

Quote from: ShadySue on February 10, 2013, 14:47

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 10, 2013, 14:33
Remember, if you don’t have a release for certain content, you can sell it as Rights Managed (RM) and set restrictions to “Editorial use only“.[/b]
Trouble is, there is no restriction called 'Editiorial use only' at Alamy, so that's just misleading.
It seems that most of us get it wrong when we set restrictions. Even though I had read about the restrictions, I got an email from Alamy saying the restrictions I had set combined to mean that the image couldn't sell at all - and that is very common.
So we are told that if there's a pixel blur representing a person, or a tiny part of a person, we must indicate that a person is present and we don't have a release. And if there is something in the photo that might need a property release, we indicate that, and that we don't have a release, then it's up to the buyer to decide if a photo is suitablefor their use.

Why do they say, "set restrictions for 'editorial use only'", when there is no such labelled description? Presumably for the same reason as they say,
"Exact match
Tells the search engine to only find results where the search terms are an exact match for the keywords.
Syntax: Double quotation marks “ ”.
Example: “Golden Gate Bridge”.
Outcome
This image is only found for searches where the phrase in double quotes is an exact match for the customer search terms, so in this example this image will not be found for a search for ‘Gate’.
Benefit
When customers search for proper names ‘John Smith’ ‘Statue of Liberty’ ‘The World Cup Final’ images keyworded in this way will be found earlier in the search results."
when word is that the double quotation syntax for indicating and exact phrase has never worked on Alamy.

Poncke · « **Reply #28 on:** February 10, 2013, 15:05 »

@ Sue

Yeah, exactly. I am just submitting images to Alamy now and do the annotation as they require and then the licence is set automatically. Whether that is editorial news or just editrial because its not released, I dont care. There are 30 million images that are not editorial as in the news sense of the word.

As for keywording, I wish those * quotations would work because I have images that are now keyworded in such way that they will turn up on searches they should not turn up on.

I mean if someone is looking for wedding photos they do not want to see this D31P39

aspp · « **Reply #29 on:** February 10, 2013, 15:54 »

Quote from: RacePhoto link=topic=18273.msg297863#m[quote author=RacePhoto on February 10, 2013, 14:59

I've always gone by the button when I submit that says "editorial use only"

At Alamy ? There is no such button. It does not exist.

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 10, 2013, 14:33

Remember, if you don’t have a release for certain content, you can sell it as Rights Managed (RM) and set restrictions to “Editorial use only“.

You .. can not you must. This point has been made clear many times over the years on the Alamy forum.

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 10, 2013, 14:59

why are they including it in the FAQ and making me click the buttons, when the buyers can't see anything?

The buyers do see the restrictions which you have set.

Quote from: ShadySue on February 10, 2013, 14:47

Why do they say, "set restrictions for 'editorial use only'", when there is no such labelled description?

It is clearly explained at: http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/image-restrictions.asp

Quote

Editorial use only

If you need to restrict your images to permit editorial use only, you should apply the following restrictions.

All Countries; Advertising/Promotion; All Medias; All Industries; All Sub-industries
All Countries; Consumer Goods; All Medias; All Industries; All Sub-industries
All Countries; Direct Mail/Brochures; All Medias; All Industries; All Sub-industries
All Countries; Indoor Display; All Medias; All Industries; All Sun-industries
All Countries; Electronic and web uses – other; All Medias; All Industries
All Countries; Internal business usage; All Medias; All Industries; All Sub-industries

If you think it through you can see that opting-out certain uses makes more logical sense in this context than an editorial-only option. This is self service RM remember. Logically you would need an opt out for other uses, industries, regional locations etc etc. You need to be able to provide the potential for a combination of potential restrictions.

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 10, 2013, 14:33

Editorial Only is NOT for commercial use. OK? Is that easy enough to understand?

You continue to miss the point. There are other non commercial uses which are not editorial and which may be acceptable. Internal business is an obvious example. And content sold unreleased CAN potentially be used commercially. As explained in my previous example.

And so on.

ShadySue · « **Reply #30 on:** February 10, 2013, 16:04 »

Quote from: Poncke on February 10, 2013, 15:05

As for keywording, I wish those * quotations would work because I have images that are now keyworded in such way that they will turn up on searches they should not turn up on.
I mean if someone is looking for wedding photos they do not want to see this D31P39

General thought in the forums is that it will never work because there are just too many files in Alamy for them to enforce that.
Did you miss my famous example where my photo of the Head Office of a political party showed up in a search for 'office party'?

RacePhoto · « **Reply #31 on:** February 10, 2013, 16:14 »

Head Office and you didn't get a bathroom on a ship?

Sorry but I can't blame Alamy for this one Poncke:

D31P39 Rights Managed
Blissful Wedding

When someone searches for Wedding what should they get? Surely the word Wedding in the title would be a good match? Or do you think that titles should be exempt from searches? Besides that, what does it hurt for someone to see your image, it is of a wedding related nature.

I'm changing my Pseudo on Alamy for illustrations to "Art Vector"

Quote from: ShadySue on February 10, 2013, 16:04

Quote from: Poncke on February 10, 2013, 15:05
As for keywording, I wish those * quotations would work because I have images that are now keyworded in such way that they will turn up on searches they should not turn up on.
I mean if someone is looking for wedding photos they do not want to see this D31P39
General thought in the forums is that it will never work because there are just too many files in Alamy for them to enforce that.
Did you miss my famous example where my photo of the Head Office of a political party showed up in a search for 'office party'?

Poncke · « **Reply #32 on:** February 10, 2013, 16:27 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 10, 2013, 16:14

Sorry but I can't blame Alamy for this one Poncke:

D31P39 Rights Managed
Blissful Wedding

When someone searches for Wedding what should they get? Surely the word Wedding in the title would be a good match? Or do you think that titles should be exempt from searches? Besides that, what does it hurt for someone to see your image, it is of a wedding related nature.

Race, thats not the point. That piece of art is called "Blissful Wedding", Between quotes it wouldnt be found if someone is looking for wedding, now it would. It would show up and it affects my CTR in a negative way.

But the only pre is that everyone has that problem.

Poncke · « **Reply #33 on:** February 10, 2013, 16:28 »

@ Sue, not sure if I have been around long enough to know about that one

RacePhoto · « **Reply #34 on:** February 10, 2013, 16:45 »

Only if you believe that CTR affects anything significant. Kind of like the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. You shouldn't really worry about someone searching for Wedding and getting Wedding. You should worry about someone searching for Blissful Wedding and getting mashed potatoes and gravy because the food artists has... a blend of blissful flavors, the wedding of which makes these mashed potatoes a true marriage of fine spices.

Honest, do you think CTR is that big of a deal? Maybe rather than hijack this train wreck, (of agency chaos, naming editorial, rules, rights and editing variances) we could start an opinion pole on the right forum for Alamy and ask?

Wanna do it, or should I? You see, everyone and I mean "everyone!" gets bad hits, so it's the same for all of us. The search finds what people search for, nothing more, nothing less.

Yes I'd like the brackets and quotes and plurals and phrases and all of that to work on Alamy. The excuse that too many would have to change is kind of like why someone doesn't fix potholes in the roads. There will just be more next year. Drive around the ones we have?

Before someone mentions CV, it's a good concept. Someone left the cake out in the rain, now it's soggy and half baked.

Quote from: Poncke on February 10, 2013, 16:27

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 10, 2013, 16:14

Sorry but I can't blame Alamy for this one Poncke:

D31P39 Rights Managed
Blissful Wedding

When someone searches for Wedding what should they get? Surely the word Wedding in the title would be a good match? Or do you think that titles should be exempt from searches? Besides that, what does it hurt for someone to see your image, it is of a wedding related nature.

Race, thats not the point. That piece of art is called "Blissful Wedding", Between quotes it wouldnt be found if someone is looking for wedding, now it would. It would show up and it affects my CTR in a negative way.

But the only pre is that everyone has that problem.

Milinz · « **Reply #35 on:** February 10, 2013, 20:02 »

aspp can you explain what means editorial?

iStock "Editorial images illustrate and reflect the issues, themes, and events (both big and small) of our world today.

The people and things in these images are not released. For that reason, they cannot be used to sell anything. Editorial imagery is for non-commercial, non-promotional use only.

Editorial images portray specific people, places, things and events that provide context for newspaper and magazine articles, blog posts, websites and other non-commercial presentations.

Every image from iStock can be used for editorial purposes under the standard content license. The difference with editorial images is that they can only be used in this way." can only be used this way.

Alamy Remember, if you don’t have a release for certain content, you can sell it as Rights Managed (RM) and set restrictions to “Editorial use only“. We set restriction but the downloader can't see it.

Shutterstock "Editorial images should never be digitally altered. Scaling and cropping slightly is acceptable (sometimes you must crop a newsworthy editorial image), but you should never add or remove elements to make an image sell more, such as adding smoke at a protest or removing background elements.

What you could do simply in a darkroom is generally acceptable with Photoshop. However, changing key elements of the image to your advantage is not ethical. The best editorial image is the full frame image. If you must crop it, the “message” of the image must not change at all. It is of utmost importance to maintain the editorial integrity of the image in every way."

You say alright to edit and editorial can be used for commercial, they say no you can't. If IS has image editorial can we use it commercial? How does buyer on Alamy know if images are editorial?

ShadySue · « **Reply #36 on:** February 10, 2013, 20:21 »

Quote from: Milinz on February 10, 2013, 20:02

You say alright to edit and editorial can be used for commercial, they say no you can't. If IS has image editorial can we use it commercial? How does buyer on Alamy know if images are editorial?

Both sellers and buyers must follow the rules of the forum they supply/buy from.
The rules aren't the same across agencies.

You can't use an iS editorial image commercially. That is clearly set out in the popup which appears if you click 'read more' in the pink box near the top right of an editorial file's 'home page'. Unfortunately, I can't seem to get it to stay up long enough for me to copy and paste.
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1096&isource=EN_EDITORIALARTICLE gives dos, don'ts and examples, including the sentence you yourself quoted, "Every image from iStock can be used for editorial purposes under the standard content license. The difference with editorial images is that they can only be used in this way." which is surely the answer to your question.

The buyer on Alamy can clearly see if releases are available by clicking on an image. [1] No images on Alamy are restricted to editorial use only - but it is very much on the buyer's responsibility. So, for example, an unlicensed image of Masai dancers performing at a Kenyan tourist lodge, bought from iStock, couldn't be used in an advert for the Kenya Tourist Board. However, if a similar were bought from Alamy, the buyer might sensibly decide that the lodge or dancers would be extremely unlikely to sue over such a use. A sensible buyer might consider it unwise to use the image in an advert for a rival lodge.

[1] Also, the pop up of the image when clicked on will indicate if any other restrictions are in place, which could be business-related, industry type, media or geographical. So if rights had been purchased for use in the US and Canada for five years, then geographical restrictions would be place on that file for that duration (I think the seller would have to remember to change that manually when the five years were up, I don't think there's a way of doing that automatically.)

In fact, even if no release is needed, e.g. an open landscape of publically owned land, with no pixels smudges of people, Alamy still shows No Release for both MR and PR. Such images used to be automatically be excluded if a buyer had filtered that they needed releases, but IIRC, they discovered that many buyers left these filters on permanently, so they changed the default so that if images don't need releases, they are seen. That doesn't help the buyer when the photographer has either lied or made a mistake and ticked that they have, for example, 200 pipers all signing releases in an Edinburgh Tattoo performance, but that would be the artist's responsibility, for not having ticked the appropriate box.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #37 on:** February 11, 2013, 12:04 »

Love your 200 pipers example. Can we use an electronic release on Alamy? You would need an army of assistants, collecting names and signatures and even then, how do you know you don't have 199 and not all 200, the the one you missed thinks he's that fuzzy blob down in the corner... and wants to sue?

That was a great answer all the way through.

Doesn't mean I understand, because every agency has their own version of the rules and their own interpretation of the laws. But it was the best I've seen for covering the question with specifics.

Yeah, I know I'm stuck in the news reportage mode. My own way of playing it safe. But that's what I do.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #38 on:** February 11, 2013, 13:53 »

Hi All,

Just my own experience but RM is another great way to sell the images that you already produce with property releases and model releases for commercial use. I would not necessarily chase the editorial side to much unless you are serious about editorial. If you are a paparazzi or you travel the world to capture the news that is needed today these are two of the biggest money makers in editorial especially paparazzi's. Your images that are not property or model released that are placed into editorial can still make money just not nearly as much as commercial sales. I think the best bet for all of you creatively focused image makers is to continue your craft and upload some content to several RM agencies and see what works.
The biggest concern for most agencies that sell RM is that the image has to be exclusive to their company so they can track the sales results and information so the next buyer knows where the image has been used or can control the use of the image for a duration of time with assurance that the image will not be used by other parties at the same time ( this is just one example of RM use but it is where the biggest sales come from ).
Say Sony wants to use an image from RM they can make sure by paying more that no one in the electronics industry can use that image for a purchased period of time, once Sony's contract of the image is complete it is placed back into the agencies collection.
There are a couple of agencies that have multi distributed RM so you can upload to them and they will distribute your work to all the top agencies around the world this way they can track the sales and pull any images that a buyer wants to have control over for a period of time or a region or several other issues by removing the use from all their other distributors while that image is being used by a specific buyer, the buyer needs assurance the same image will not pop up somewhere else. Once the contract of that image deal is finished the image goes back live to all the sites it is multi distributed through.
Selling the same RM image through several agencies is going to be tough because it keeps the model for RM from working and most agencies will not accept an RM image that is being sold elsewhere through another competitor. Multi distribution is one way to get your RM images out to the entire market place and still be able to offer the buyer the protection they want. Hope this helps.

Cheers,
Jonathan

Jaak Nilson · « **Reply #39 on:** February 13, 2013, 02:53 »

Hi all,

AGE Fotostock started some time ago to send their RM exclusive and non-exclusive images to Getty and Corbis. Industry leaders Getty and Corbis handle them under a non-exclusive contract. If you are an AGE Fotostock contributor then you can participate in AGE forum. It is on Yammer platform and AGE`s CEO Alfonso Gutierrez sharing sometime very interesting information.

It means that exclusivity is overpriced today and an exclusive sales are very rare. Yes, a one agency sold 2010 an one image over 50 000 USD and last year an one image over 60 000 dollars. It is a price per one image and it was probably an exclusive sale. There may be some great sales more.

Photographers must think before they sign an exclusive contract. There are lot of Pro and Cons. If you are an exclusive then you can not sell same images. Only an agency can. Of course a good agency can generate a revenue what a photographer can not generate itself with direct sales. Just try to find an info and think what suits to you. It is not easy to find out a best solutions.

All the best
Jaak Nilson

wordplanet · « **Reply #40 on:** March 21, 2013, 10:24 »

I was at a meeting at Alamy's offices a couple of years ago with their owner and various employees and other photographers - primarily news/reportage photographers. The Alamy folks mentioned that photos which we would normally think can only be used editorially (which is more than just news as Sue pointed out) are sometimes used commercially - it's up to the buyer - and some buyers may like an image enough that they figure they'll pay whoever complains to purchase a model release if it's needed (i.e. if a person in the image complains) - they are willing to take the chance. On the other hand, some buyers will ask Alamy to contact the photographer and obtain specific language in their release (even if it is already released) to be sure they have no issues. It's up to the buyer. If you are honest about whether you have a release and whether the photo has been altered, then it is up to the buyer to determine the legal ramifications of their use of the image. They control the use.

So, that's the deal, straight from the horse's mouth. Be honest. Let the buyer decide.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Advise needed re selling Rights Managed. (Read 10403 times)

aspp

RacePhoto

aspp

RacePhoto

aspp

Poncke

Poncke

RacePhoto

aspp

aspp

RacePhoto

RacePhoto

Poncke

aspp

RacePhoto

Poncke

Poncke

RacePhoto

Milinz

RacePhoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors