Alamy has been introducing a lot of interesting and controversial concepts over the past week.  It started with the "Novel Use" scheme (which I akin to trying to compete with Getty's PhotoDisc collection) and today, when I logged in, I noticed changes in the "manage files" area.  Looks like we have to prioritize some keywords, add where images were taken, and the date (or just year) the image was taken.  Looks like you can also distinguish between a photograph and an illustration as well as mark images as being digitally altered.

I presume more changes to come!

I think there's the potential for these changes to be very valuable in the long run, but there's an immediate need to be much more specific about what each of these new fields means so that everyone's working from the same standard.

With digitally altered, for example, if I remove a power line from the sky or a few stray branches from a tree, does that count as altered? I don't want to exclude my images from consideration for editorial use (which I assume will be the case if I mark it as digitally altered).

Taken too strictly, digitally altered could mean that I cleaned up the sensor spots, but I'm sure they don't really want to go that far...

It would also be helpful if they'd read more IPTC fields from Photoshop so this information (except for the split into 3 groups for keywords) could be saved with the image - less to do online.

I think there's the potential for these changes to be very valuable in the long run, but there's an immediate need to be much more specific about what each of these new fields means so that everyone's working from the same standard.

With digitally altered, for example, if I remove a power line from the sky or a few stray branches from a tree, does that count as altered? I don't want to exclude my images from consideration for editorial use (which I assume will be the case if I mark it as digitally altered).

Taken too strictly, digitally altered could mean that I cleaned up the sensor spots, but I'm sure they don't really want to go that far...

It would also be helpful if they'd read more IPTC fields from Photoshop so this information (except for the split into 3 groups for keywords) could be saved with the image - less to do online.

My opinion would be anything done in the RAW converter or in photoshop Lightroom is OK (ie, no pixel editing - except spots) stuff like taking out power lines is not ok.

http://www.alamy.com/contributors/stock-photography-cut-outs.asp

direct link

Question (I know we're not Alamy here, so can't give a definitive answer but I'm looking for opinions) ...

Is a panorama, stitched together from several images, 'digitally altered'?

...look at the example at alamy makes it pretty  clear what they mean by digital altered.

I think Alamy does not make it clear at all if you read the text. I agree that the images make it appear that only composites would be covered. But the end of the first paragraph reads:

 "This includes adding, moving, or removing items and major changes to saturation, contrast and levels."

If a change to saturation and contrast - whatever a "major" one would be - counts as digital alteration, then all the greener grass and bluer skies fixes would count as altered.

IMHO (which doesn't count as it's Alamy's standard to set), if it isn't "altered" when you put a polarizing filter on the camera lens, then it isn't altered when you do the same sort of thing but in Photoshop.

Quote from: grp_photo on September 25, 2007, 05:45

...look at the example at alamy makes it pretty  clear what they mean by digital altered.

I think Alamy does not make it clear at all ...

The trouble is that Alamy does not make a lot of things clear.

The other big question I have is about model releases. One question on their new form is: How many people are in this picture?

If you indicate that there is a person (or more) in the picture, you have no model release and the image is RF then you get an awful warning in red:

This image cannot be Royalty Free because it does not have the necessary model and/or property releases. If the image has not sold, it will be changed to Licenced within 3 months, and will remain on sale. If it has sold, it will be deleted within 3 months. To sell it as Licenced you will have to resubmit.

I have quite a few RF pictures on Alamy with a completely unidentifiable person in ... the sort of pictures that any of the micros (who are extremely cautious) would happily accept without a model release. But, I can't indicate they contain a person on Alamy and still keep the image as RF.

But, at the same time, on their help pages, they write:

You should seek to get a signed model release any time that your photos contain recognizable images of people ...

So, I'm taking that question as reading

How many recognizable people are in this picture?

I've written to their Members Services asking for clarification, but haven't got a response yet.

let us know what you find out bateleur (alamy release thing)

-glad to know i am not the only one not finished the istock disambiguation

With digitally altered, for example, if I remove a power line from the sky or a few stray branches from a tree, does that count as altered?

Does it really make a difference for them?  Would they know it had been altered?  It's a kind of stupid rule...

Regards,
Adelaide

But this is an example in which you are actually changing your subject.  I don't see a problem if you clone out a bird in the sky or a head in the corner of the image, like in jsnover's examples. 

Regards,
Adelaide

Bateleur - I sent Alamy the very same question on Sunday evening (after the new features went up and I tried to start working on it).  I still haven't received a response from member services.  I'm thinking a telephone call if I don't hear from them by Friday.

Please keep us posted and if I hear anything I'll post it as well.

I guess the good news is that in the meantime you can work on your RM images.  Can't work on RP because of the same issue 

Thanks.

Here is the response....

   Images containing people, regardless of whether or not they are recognizable, should not be used in any promotional material without a release. Having an image listed as RF suggests to the customer that it is available for any use so there is a danger that a client could use the image for promotional use.

   To be sure of no legal issues, unreleased images should not be used for any promotional material so should therefore be listed as licensed only.

   The same is also applicable to images containing properties.



Kind Regards,

Luke
Member Services
Alamy

I agree.  I could be wrong but honestly, I don't know of any news agency that accepts images from private citizens where they don't require RF usage.  This includes CNN, FOX News, BBC, etc.  If you give them images to use, you grant them a RF license.  If you subsequently try to sell them, then they have to be RM?  Doesn't make sense.

The most recent case that comes to mind is a student that published images (for free) through various agencies, then was offered money for exclusive use.  The NPPA publicized the accomplishment

http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2007/08/bridge01.html

I hate to rock the boat (I'm sure many who have been in this business for any length of time would be up in arms) but the outcome, or insinuation, appears to be that per Alamy it is ok to license images previously licensed as RF as RM Editorial - the assumption on Alamy's part is they will not be requested for exclusive use.

Very strange.