Author Topic: Alamy Licensing (Read 24833 times)

Rick D · « **on:** July 28, 2016, 10:12 »

Hey Everyone, I have a question about licensing on Alamy, I am seeing a lot of RM licenses for commercial imagery that has logos / trademarks etc, with options to license these images for calendars , merchandise etc. If you do a search on any popular brand (Ferrari Lamborghini etc.) then you'll see what i mean.

Can someone shed some light please as I thought that trademarks / logos / brands etc. were protected by copyright law and could only be sold as editorial. Is it because Alamy assumes no risk for content and contributors are taking a risk by selling these images commercially, or do the terms of an RM license differ from the terms of an RF license where logos and trademarks are concerned

Thanks

ShadySue · « **Reply #1 on:** July 28, 2016, 10:26 »

On Alamy, at the moment, editorial files can only be sold as RM.
They have said that they are going to introduce RF editorial 'soon'.

Provided the supplier of the image has indicated that they don't have releases, the files should only be used as editorial. In very sensitive cases, there are restrictions which can be set, but they're a bit unintuitive to set up. At last, they're accepting the problems with the restrictions they have at the moment, and are about to set simpler restrictions:
http://www.alamy.com/blog/simplifying-restrictions-millions-options-four
I'm finding it hard to imagine a scenario when someone would forbid using an image as editorial, but maybe someone can suggest some?
Previously, they promised an 'editorial only' button, but it seems that's not in their current thinking.

Rick D · « **Reply #2 on:** July 28, 2016, 17:57 »

Thanks for the reply Shadysue, I'm still confused though... It seems there are a lot of files on there that should be editorial by my understanding as they contain logos, but when you look at the licensing options you can select options for business packages / calendars etc... So is this just down to contributors not understanding licensing terms, or down to Alamy washing their hands of the legal side of the matter as they are passing off copyright infringement potential to the contributor should it arise

I'm just trying to understand as I am about to upload around 200 of my portfolio there and I want to make sure I'm giving it the best sales potential

ShadySue · « **Reply #3 on:** July 28, 2016, 18:18 »

They tend to leave it up to the buyer and have produced this page for buyers:
http://www.alamy.com/help/what-is-model-release-property-release.aspx. If there are no releases, the buyer should not use them commercially.

Don't go by what other people do. I've seen photos of large events, involving large numbers of performers marked 'model released', e.g. check "Edinburgh Tattoo" RF.
I don't believe for a moment that they have releases for these photos.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #4 on:** July 28, 2016, 18:34 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 28, 2016, 18:18

They tend to leave it up to the buyer and have produced this page for buyers:
http://www.alamy.com/help/what-is-model-release-property-release.aspx. If there are no releases, the buyer should not use them commercially.

Don't go by what other people do. I've seen photos of large events, involving large numbers of performers marked 'model released', e.g. check "Edinburgh Tattoo" RF.
I don't believe for a moment that they have releases for these photos.

sue, unless they are doing it like ss,
if you select editorial, in your approved listing, it also says released..
it does not say editorial. it just means it is not meant for commercial use.
on your page of clients, it does specify in caps ONLY FOR EDITORIAL USAGE.

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** July 28, 2016, 18:39 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on July 28, 2016, 18:34

Quote from: ShadySue on July 28, 2016, 18:18
They tend to leave it up to the buyer and have produced this page for buyers:
http://www.alamy.com/help/what-is-model-release-property-release.aspx. If there are no releases, the buyer should not use them commercially.

Don't go by what other people do. I've seen photos of large events, involving large numbers of performers marked 'model released', e.g. check "Edinburgh Tattoo" RF.
I don't believe for a moment that they have releases for these photos.

sue, unless they are doing it like ss,
if you select editorial, in your approved listing, it also says released..
it does not say editorial. it just means it is not meant for commercial use.
on your page of clients, it does specify in caps ONLY FOR EDITORIAL USAGE.

Where do you 'select editorial'?
What 'approved listing'?
What 'page of clients'?
Can you post links, please, I've never heard of any of these. They have been saying for around a year at least that they are going to have an 'editorial only button', but it has never appeared, and it looks from that blog post I linked to that they are not going to have an actual 'editorial only' button, but we will be able to set restrictions on 'commercial and promotional', 'editorial', 'consumer goods' or 'personal use'.
So, sadly, three clicks instead of one for an editorial image.

Rick D · « **Reply #6 on:** July 29, 2016, 03:50 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 28, 2016, 18:18

They tend to leave it up to the buyer and have produced this page for buyers:
http://www.alamy.com/help/what-is-model-release-property-release.aspx. If there are no releases, the buyer should not use them commercially.

Don't go by what other people do. I've seen photos of large events, involving large numbers of performers marked 'model released', e.g. check "Edinburgh Tattoo" RF.
I don't believe for a moment that they have releases for these photos.

Definitely won't be going by what other people do, I just haven't really dealt with RM licenses before, and while I think I have a pretty good grasp of the differences between RF, RM, Editorial and commercial, the sheer number of images with trademarks and logos on Alamy that have what appear to be commercial license options made me second guess myself

ShadySue · « **Reply #7 on:** July 29, 2016, 07:29 »

Quote from: Rick D on July 29, 2016, 03:50

Quote from: ShadySue on July 28, 2016, 18:18
They tend to leave it up to the buyer and have produced this page for buyers:
http://www.alamy.com/help/what-is-model-release-property-release.aspx. If there are no releases, the buyer should not use them commercially.

Don't go by what other people do. I've seen photos of large events, involving large numbers of performers marked 'model released', e.g. check "Edinburgh Tattoo" RF.
I don't believe for a moment that they have releases for these photos.

Definitely won't be going by what other people do, I just haven't really dealt with RM licenses before, and while I think I have a pretty good grasp of the differences between RF, RM, Editorial and commercial, the sheer number of images with trademarks and logos on Alamy that have what appear to be commercial license options made me second guess myself

There are certain advertising uses for editorial files which may be regarded as almost certainly safe. For example, one of my iS files of a sign on a street was once used by a concession of that company, which I guess is pretty safe. Also I'm sure there are a lot of pretty safe uses of travel photos. E.g. a photo of the Grand Canal might have a lot of business signs and logos, but if used in a poster/brochure/website for tourism in Venice, they're hardly likely to complain. Then it would depend how any visible people felt about being featured, but they could be cloned out by the end user.

Someone posted on their forum a few weeks back that a file he had posted with no releases got a good value sale with a commercial use, but the buyer had carefully cleaned all contentious material off the image.

Rick D · « **Reply #8 on:** July 29, 2016, 09:00 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 29, 2016, 07:29

Quote from: Rick D on July 29, 2016, 03:50
Quote from: ShadySue on July 28, 2016, 18:18
They tend to leave it up to the buyer and have produced this page for buyers:
http://www.alamy.com/help/what-is-model-release-property-release.aspx. If there are no releases, the buyer should not use them commercially.

Don't go by what other people do. I've seen photos of large events, involving large numbers of performers marked 'model released', e.g. check "Edinburgh Tattoo" RF.
I don't believe for a moment that they have releases for these photos.

Definitely won't be going by what other people do, I just haven't really dealt with RM licenses before, and while I think I have a pretty good grasp of the differences between RF, RM, Editorial and commercial, the sheer number of images with trademarks and logos on Alamy that have what appear to be commercial license options made me second guess myself

There are certain advertising uses for editorial files which may be regarded as almost certainly safe. For example, one of my iS files of a sign on a street was once used by a concession of that company, which I guess is pretty safe. Also I'm sure there are a lot of pretty safe uses of travel photos. E.g. a photo of the Grand Canal might have a lot of business signs and logos, but if used in a poster/brochure/website for tourism in Venice, they're hardly likely to complain. Then it would depend how any visible people felt about being featured, but they could be cloned out by the end user.

Someone posted on their forum a few weeks back that a file he had posted with no releases got a good value sale with a commercial use, but the buyer had carefully cleaned all contentious material off the image.

But something must be wrong here, either he submitted the image with a commercial license knowing that it included logos etc. and took the risk that no one would chase him up, or he submitted as editorial and the buyer licensed it in that way, then cleaned up the logos and used it for commercial purposes

With your example above, did you submit as editorial or commercial... same with the travel images you mentioned... should they be submitted as editorial or commercial, I'm thinking editorial for license and then its down to the end user if they want to take the risk of breaking the terms of that license... The downside of that is the price difference between use for editorial and commercial for consumer goods is quite large IIRC

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** July 29, 2016, 09:18 »

Quote from: Rick D on July 29, 2016, 09:00

Quote from: ShadySue on July 29, 2016, 07:29
Quote from: Rick D on July 29, 2016, 03:50
Quote from: ShadySue on July 28, 2016, 18:18
They tend to leave it up to the buyer and have produced this page for buyers:
http://www.alamy.com/help/what-is-model-release-property-release.aspx. If there are no releases, the buyer should not use them commercially.

Don't go by what other people do. I've seen photos of large events, involving large numbers of performers marked 'model released', e.g. check "Edinburgh Tattoo" RF.
I don't believe for a moment that they have releases for these photos.

Definitely won't be going by what other people do, I just haven't really dealt with RM licenses before, and while I think I have a pretty good grasp of the differences between RF, RM, Editorial and commercial, the sheer number of images with trademarks and logos on Alamy that have what appear to be commercial license options made me second guess myself

There are certain advertising uses for editorial files which may be regarded as almost certainly safe. For example, one of my iS files of a sign on a street was once used by a concession of that company, which I guess is pretty safe. Also I'm sure there are a lot of pretty safe uses of travel photos. E.g. a photo of the Grand Canal might have a lot of business signs and logos, but if used in a poster/brochure/website for tourism in Venice, they're hardly likely to complain. Then it would depend how any visible people felt about being featured, but they could be cloned out by the end user.

Someone posted on their forum a few weeks back that a file he had posted with no releases got a good value sale with a commercial use, but the buyer had carefully cleaned all contentious material off the image.

But something must be wrong here, either he submitted the image with a commercial license knowing that it included logos etc. and took the risk that no one would chase him up, or he submitted as editorial and the buyer licensed it in that way, then cleaned up the logos and used it for commercial purposes

Watch my lips: at the moment, you can't 'submit as editorial' on Alamy. He submitted it indicating no releases, the buyer bought it knowing that, therefore cloned out all the potentially contentious material.

Quote

With your example above, did you submit as editorial or commercial... same with the travel images you mentioned... should they be submitted as editorial or commercial, I'm thinking editorial for license and then its down to the end user if they want to take the risk of breaking the terms of that license

My example was on iStock, and it was submitted as editorial.

Quote

... The downside of that is the price difference between use for editorial and commercial for consumer goods is quite large IIRC

Exactly the same on iS, and getting much closer in real sales (i.e. what people pay, not 'what it says on the page') on Alamy. It's much more about what discount the buyer has negotiated. My biggest value sale on Alamy (over five years ago now) was for a file used editorially, but presumably the buyer had no discount.

Rick D · « **Reply #10 on:** July 29, 2016, 10:19 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 29, 2016, 09:18

Watch my lips: at the moment, you can't 'submit as editorial' on Alamy. He submitted it indicating no releases, the buyer bought it knowing that, therefore cloned out all the potentially contentious material.

If that is the case how is this file only available with editorial licensing options.... not trying to catch you out, just trying to explain the source of my confusion. Admittedly its the only one I can find, and I clicked on it purely by chance yesterday while trying to resolve said confusion. But how has it been made available with those licensing options?

ShadySue · « **Reply #11 on:** July 29, 2016, 10:29 »

Quote from: Rick D on July 29, 2016, 10:19

Quote from: ShadySue on July 29, 2016, 09:18
Watch my lips: at the moment, you can't 'submit as editorial' on Alamy. He submitted it indicating no releases, the buyer bought it knowing that, therefore cloned out all the potentially contentious material.

If that is the case how is this file only available with editorial licensing options.... not trying to catch you out, just trying to explain the source of my confusion. Admittedly its the only one I can find, and I clicked on it purely by chance yesterday while trying to resolve said confusion. But how has it been made available with those licensing options?

It could be that Ferrari have demanded that all the restrictions are set.

I had a note from Alamy telling me that some Olympic-themed files (I had shot athletes at a public 'welcome back' event) had to have the restrictions set.

Previously, when I started at Alamy, I used to set the restrictions on all my editorial images (though it was unbelievably easy to set them so that they weren't buyable at all!), but they emailled me and asked me not to do that, because it was up to the buyer to decide how to use the image, and I could be losing sales.

Rick D · « **Reply #12 on:** July 29, 2016, 10:43 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 29, 2016, 10:29

Quote from: Rick D on July 29, 2016, 10:19
Quote from: ShadySue on July 29, 2016, 09:18
Watch my lips: at the moment, you can't 'submit as editorial' on Alamy. He submitted it indicating no releases, the buyer bought it knowing that, therefore cloned out all the potentially contentious material.

If that is the case how is this file only available with editorial licensing options.... not trying to catch you out, just trying to explain the source of my confusion. Admittedly its the only one I can find, and I clicked on it purely by chance yesterday while trying to resolve said confusion. But how has it been made available with those licensing options?

It could be that Ferrari have demanded that all the restrictions are set.

I had a note from Alamy telling me that some Olympic-themed files (I had shot athletes at a public 'welcome back' event) had to have the restrictions set.

Previously, when I started at Alamy, I used to set the restrictions on all my editorial images (though it was unbelievably easy to set them so that they weren't buyable at all!), but they emailled me and asked me not to do that, because it was up to the buyer to decide how to use the image, and I could be losing sales.

Could be, although it seems strange that Ferrari would pick that image in particular among the thousands of images of Ferrari vehicles / logos etc., I have clicked on quite a few others and none have the same licensing options

Strange :/

ShadySue · « **Reply #13 on:** July 29, 2016, 11:42 »

Quote from: Rick D on July 29, 2016, 10:43

Quote from: ShadySue on July 29, 2016, 10:29
Quote from: Rick D on July 29, 2016, 10:19
Quote from: ShadySue on July 29, 2016, 09:18
Watch my lips: at the moment, you can't 'submit as editorial' on Alamy. He submitted it indicating no releases, the buyer bought it knowing that, therefore cloned out all the potentially contentious material.

If that is the case how is this file only available with editorial licensing options.... not trying to catch you out, just trying to explain the source of my confusion. Admittedly its the only one I can find, and I clicked on it purely by chance yesterday while trying to resolve said confusion. But how has it been made available with those licensing options?

It could be that Ferrari have demanded that all the restrictions are set.

I had a note from Alamy telling me that some Olympic-themed files (I had shot athletes at a public 'welcome back' event) had to have the restrictions set.

Previously, when I started at Alamy, I used to set the restrictions on all my editorial images (though it was unbelievably easy to set them so that they weren't buyable at all!), but they emailled me and asked me not to do that, because it was up to the buyer to decide how to use the image, and I could be losing sales.

Could be, although it seems strange that Ferrari would pick that image in particular among the thousands of images of Ferrari vehicles / logos etc., I have clicked on quite a few others and none have the same licensing options

Strange :/

I clicked on the port of the Ferrari contributor. A lot of stills from old movies - I clilcked on some and they all have the restrictions set. So it must be their choice. Anyone can set all restrictions if they so choose.

Why not wait until the new system is up and running. It will be so much simpler then.

Once an iStock buyer contacted me to ask if I could get releases for a particular photo. As if: it was a street scene with many shops and businesses, a wall with flyers stuck on, and a lot of pedestrians and people sitting at pavement cafes. I have no idea how he thought I was going to get that many releases, and he wasn't offering any money to try! He said he'd bought it without realising it was editorial only. He also showed me the advert he wanted to use it in, and I couldn't see any relevance at all.

As the file wasn't refunded, I suspect he might have used it anyway.

Rick D · « **Reply #14 on:** July 29, 2016, 15:39 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 29, 2016, 11:42

Quote from: Rick D on July 29, 2016, 10:43
Quote from: ShadySue on July 29, 2016, 10:29
Quote from: Rick D on July 29, 2016, 10:19
Quote from: ShadySue on July 29, 2016, 09:18
Watch my lips: at the moment, you can't 'submit as editorial' on Alamy. He submitted it indicating no releases, the buyer bought it knowing that, therefore cloned out all the potentially contentious material.

If that is the case how is this file only available with editorial licensing options.... not trying to catch you out, just trying to explain the source of my confusion. Admittedly its the only one I can find, and I clicked on it purely by chance yesterday while trying to resolve said confusion. But how has it been made available with those licensing options?

It could be that Ferrari have demanded that all the restrictions are set.

I had a note from Alamy telling me that some Olympic-themed files (I had shot athletes at a public 'welcome back' event) had to have the restrictions set.

Previously, when I started at Alamy, I used to set the restrictions on all my editorial images (though it was unbelievably easy to set them so that they weren't buyable at all!), but they emailled me and asked me not to do that, because it was up to the buyer to decide how to use the image, and I could be losing sales.

Could be, although it seems strange that Ferrari would pick that image in particular among the thousands of images of Ferrari vehicles / logos etc., I have clicked on quite a few others and none have the same licensing options

Strange :/

I clicked on the port of the Ferrari contributor. A lot of stills from old movies - I clilcked on some and they all have the restrictions set. So it must be their choice. Anyone can set all restrictions if they so choose.

Why not wait until the new system is up and running. It will be so much simpler then.

Once an iStock buyer contacted me to ask if I could get releases for a particular photo. As if: it was a street scene with many shops and businesses, a wall with flyers stuck on, and a lot of pedestrians and people sitting at pavement cafes. I have no idea how he thought I was going to get that many releases, and he wasn't offering any money to try! He said he'd bought it without realising it was editorial only. He also showed me the advert he wanted to use it in, and I couldn't see any relevance at all. As the file wasn't refunded, I suspect he might have used it anyway.

That's quite amusing about the buyer contacting you, I guess it went completely over their head that the image was taken on a public street.

I don't really want to wait until the new Alamy system is released, would rather upload sooner and have my files online, just want to make sure I'm covering my back and not doing anything wrong when choosing / omitting license options

HappyBunny · « **Reply #15 on:** August 02, 2016, 05:04 »

I have an image of the Obelisk in Istanbul. In the background you can see paintings of artists. Is it correct that I can't give that image to microstock because of the paintings? Can I give it to Alamy as RM ?

Rick D · « **Reply #16 on:** August 02, 2016, 06:52 »

Quote from: HappyBunny on August 02, 2016, 05:04

I have an image of the Obelisk in Istanbul. In the background you can see paintings of artists. Is it correct that I can't give that image to microstock because of the paintings? Can I give it to Alamy as RM ?

As far as I understand from completing my submissions this morning you can give it to them so long as you are honest when completing the dropdowns in the Alamy image manager:

does this image have property that requires a release - Yes
Do you have the release - No

Once you do this the licensing will become RM automatically ie. the dropdown box is no longer selectable

HappyBunny · « **Reply #17 on:** August 02, 2016, 09:33 »

What about hotel bathrooms? It's not a bathroom from a hotel chain like Hilton.....Can I take images of hotel bedrooms and bathrooms and upload it to microstock or only Alamy? I have seen images of hotel rooms and bathrooms without a property release on microstock and I have seen images with property release. SS rejected an image of public benches in a public square because they wanted a property release.

Rick D · « **Reply #18 on:** August 02, 2016, 16:21 »

Quote from: HappyBunny on August 02, 2016, 09:33

What about hotel bathrooms? It's not a bathroom from a hotel chain like Hilton.....Can I take images of hotel bedrooms and bathrooms and upload it to microstock or only Alamy? I have seen images of hotel rooms and bathrooms without a property release on microstock and I have seen images with property release. SS rejected an image of public benches in a public square because they wanted a property release.

Honestly I'm not sure, I'm far from an expert... The general consensus seems to be that it depends on who reviews your image as to whether it gets accepted or not. going by what you said above about the benches being rejected then there would be no non-released commercial images out there, because everything belongs to someone at some point down the line.
I have only just started uploading to multiple agencies and have already had some questionable rejections, some of the images that were rejected for sharpness I resubmitted and passed (some of course were rejected again), and some I just can't be bothered to argue about

HappyBunny · « **Reply #19 on:** August 03, 2016, 01:04 »

Image is sharp and noise removed. Maybe it is my fault for not writing Public Benches. They are the many, many benches in Sultanahmet Square in Istanbul. I wrote Benches in Sultanahmet Square, Istanbul as title. Now I don't know about the bathroom photos.

Rick D · « **Reply #20 on:** August 03, 2016, 02:55 »

Quote from: HappyBunny on August 03, 2016, 01:04

Image is sharp and noise removed. Maybe it is my fault for not writing Public Benches. They are the many, many benches in Sultanahmet Square in Istanbul. I wrote Benches in Sultanahmet Square, Istanbul as title. Now I don't know about the bathroom photos.

I wasn't commenting on your image when mentioning sharp / noise etc... just giving the seemingly random examples that SS reject for. Just take the shots and submit, the worst that can happen is they get rejected

HappyBunny · « **Reply #21 on:** August 03, 2016, 08:03 »

Yes, I know. I only mentioned that the image itself is perfectly okay. I wrote to customer service but they never replied. There are photos of the same benchess on their website without property release. I checked before submitting the photo.

wordplanet · « **Reply #22 on:** August 03, 2016, 10:23 »

I had an image with no model or property releases purchased last year for a marketing campaign. I'm assuming the company is either assuming the risk or was planning to modify the image before using it. I went to a meeting at Alamy's Brooklyn office some years ago and one of their buyers said that they budget for contingencies if they use a photo that way - putting aside money to pay property owners or models if someone objects.

Rick D · « **Reply #23 on:** August 03, 2016, 10:34 »

Quote from: HappyBunny on August 03, 2016, 08:03

There are photos of the same benchess on their website without property release. I checked before submitting the photo.

this is why is not really worth bothering to chase, reviewers do what they want and the subject is already covered. your time is probably better used taking more images

HappyBunny · « **Reply #24 on:** August 03, 2016, 10:41 »

I don't call 2 or 3 images well covered. :-) I checked several microstock agencies. No point going on holiday anywhere. Everything these days seems to be covered. It's very difficult to work out what I can shoot without a property release.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Alamy Licensing (Read 24833 times)

Rick D

ShadySue

Rick D

ShadySue

etudiante_rapide

ShadySue

Rick D

ShadySue

Rick D

ShadySue

Rick D

ShadySue

Rick D

ShadySue

Rick D

HappyBunny

Rick D

HappyBunny

Rick D

HappyBunny

Rick D

HappyBunny

wordplanet

Rick D

HappyBunny

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors