Author Topic: do you set restriction? (Read 9439 times)

stokfoto · « **on:** February 17, 2009, 07:58 »

I was wondering if you set "editorial use only" restriction on your photos that hasn't model release or property release ? obviously while I am preparing an image for sale (after approval) I clearly indicate that I don't have the releases but what I wonder is if that is it a must or is it optional to set editorial use only restriction because since the restriction is not automatically applied and user has to set it manually it kind of looks optional. I have been choosing the restriction option for such files but would it limit chances of sales? and what risks would involve if I didn't set the restriction on files that would normally require model or property release.

Thank you very much for your input in advance.

sharpshot · « **Reply #1 on:** February 17, 2009, 08:55 »

Setting an editorial restriction there takes too long. If I am selling RM and I have indicated that I don't have a release, it is up to the buyer to decide if they can use the photo.

They now have this on every photo that is clicked on. Makes it quite clear that it is the buyers responsibility.

"The requirement for releases is dependent on end usage. It is your responsibility to determine whether a release is required for your intended use. Please contact us if you have any queries."

NikonScott · « **Reply #2 on:** February 17, 2009, 13:33 »

I do not think it is worth the time to do the extra work for editorial use only restriction as that will limit the potential uses. I think the warning that Alamy has is a good one and I think it is well understood by their buyers. It seems to that the micro agencies feel that Micro buyers are not to be savvy enough to understand proper usage . . .

Keep in mind it is the legal responsibility of the end user to correctly use an image, if they use it they will be the infringer, not you (this is pretty accurate for US law as I understand, but I am not an attorney).

Scott

tan510jomast · « **Reply #3 on:** February 17, 2009, 13:39 »

NikonScott and sharpshot, both good points.
Alamy has it in full view the responsibility of the buyer, and even added "..
it is your responsibility to determine whether a release is required for your intended use. Please contact us if you have any queries."
i really like that. it shows they offer the buyer the option to contact them if unsure.
covers the bases.
furthermore, someone buying from Alamy is not paying 2 bits for your images,
so i can't see them not knowing the publication rights, or respecting them.

Alamy's awesome! now can i get my first sale?

madelaide · « **Reply #4 on:** February 17, 2009, 16:31 »

I have already read that always the responsability is by the end user, and that releases are only a guarantee they are not doing something wrong.

A while ago I asked Alamy about their policies about what should be editorial only. This is what I asked:

Quote

When I put images of buildings for sale online, I take the safe side and set them as RM editorial. However, I know that most of them, especially historical buildings photographed from the street, are not limited to editorial use even without a release.

Indeed we find many of them sold without restrictions in Alamy, sometimes even as RF. The Big Ben and Buckingham Palaces are examples of this - I don't see them as editorial only, so I think I may be overzealous. While I don't think it would be a problem to sell these images for travel advertisement, I feel unsure about letting someone use them for toothbrush or icecream advertisement. I also don't know if it correct to have them available for commercial goods - postcards, posters, etc - although this seems to be very common.

This was their reply:

Quote

Technically any image that contains property will need a release for commercial use. It’s usually fine to say "yes this needs a release, no I haven’t got one" while annotating your images.

It’s up to the contributors to decide whether or not they want to set additional restrictions for editorial only.

What wasn't a real answer, as it doesn't say what, in their experience, needs a release. A buyer having the same doubt will probably not buy an image that says it needs a release but it hasn't, even when in fact it does not need a release.

Anyway, I have been setting as editorial only what I know it needs to be editorial, such as logos of any modern architecture (maybe not all of these modern building need that, but just in case I do that). For old buildings photographed from the road, I don't select that a release is needed. I select this when images were taken inside a building (castle, museum, etc). What do you think?

BTW, maybe if we keep requesting an easier way to set images as editorial only (a single selection box) they will listen to us.

Regards,
Adelaide

stokfoto · « **Reply #5 on:** February 17, 2009, 17:29 »

Thank you all for taking your time and responding.You all have been great help and I appreciate it.

RT · « **Reply #6 on:** February 18, 2009, 08:42 »

Not ticking the model/property release boxes will automatically render the image for editorial use only as you've already noted, however the main advantage of the restrictions options is not just to specify that the image can only be used for editorial usgae but it gives you the ability to restrict it's usage within that section.

For example say I take a photo of a young child sitting in the corner of a room on a chair crying, if I don't tick the model release box it tells any potential buyers that the image can only be used for editorial usage, however they could then use the photo for anything within that field, if however I then tick the restriction for sensitive issues it means the photo cannot be used for to portray child abuse or other such matters, and that is what the restrictions option are intended for.

You can of course still set those restrictions even if you do have a model release.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #7 on:** February 19, 2009, 02:14 »

Quote from: sharpshot on February 17, 2009, 08:55

Setting an editorial restriction there takes too long. If I am selling RM and I have indicated that I don't have a release, it is up to the buyer to decide if they can use the photo.

They now have this on every photo that is clicked on. Makes it quite clear that it is the buyers responsibility.

"The requirement for releases is dependent on end usage. It is your responsibility to determine whether a release is required for your intended use. Please contact us if you have any queries."

So tell me if I understand. You are marking photos as having a model release when they don't?

I never tried submitting a photo and not checking any boxes, so I just tell the truth. Needs a model release and I don't have a model release, and then it checks the Editorial button for me. I don't have to check the Property release button.

I don't find that terribly time consuming, considering how long it takes to do all the keywords, caption, description and location boxes.

They could drop the "cutout" box, or make it only a positive response, and skip the negative.

Then there's the "is this digitally altered" which seems to be a matter of personal opinion. Does the color of a Sunset get enhanced, and that's altered or not. Is removing a telephone or power wire, digitally altered? For RF it's not important, but for editorial it's a matter of journalistic accuracy. So there we are, in another trap. If it's not marked editorial, then we can alter the image just about any way we want. If it is Editorial, the photos should be factually accurate. So the boxes do have a connection to the last question.

According to some people here, we might as well mark nothing, and let the buyer guess.

Gannet77 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 19, 2009, 04:45 »

No, that's not the same thing.

It isn't a case of marking photos as having a model/property release when they don't.

When you mark as "No Release" it will automatically set "License" option, but "Restrictions" is a subset of this - to set "Restrictions" you have to click "More Options" under the image, then select any restricted uses you wish to disallow under the pull-down menu.

To specify "Editorial" use only you have to remove all other options in that pull-down, which is indeed time consuming. Whether it is required though is still a moot point.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #9 on:** February 19, 2009, 13:58 »

Quote from: Gannet77 on February 19, 2009, 04:45

No, that's not the same thing.

It isn't a case of marking photos as having a model/property release when they don't.

When you mark as "No Release" it will automatically set "License" option, but "Restrictions" is a subset of this - to set "Restrictions" you have to click "More Options" under the image, then select any restricted uses you wish to disallow under the pull-down menu.

To specify "Editorial" use only you have to remove all other options in that pull-down, which is indeed time consuming. Whether it is required though is still a moot point.

Hmm, I seem to be missing something. I click "needs release" "no model release" and the Editorial/Licensed button checks itself, and I'm done. I don't do other licensing options. I never see them.

I know there's an ongoing debate over at Alamy, that if it's marked Editorial only, people won't buy something, because they would have to go get a model release.

Using the same argument, if it's not marked and it needs to be, then the buyer would be seeing photos without releases, and would have to use it editorial only or get a release. It's the same thing?

I may be wrong, but the "Editorial Only" designation, is nothing but an advisory marking. Since we all agree that the end user much be responsible for the final use, it doesn't matter if it's RF, Editorial, or if it has nothing? Someone searching and who doesn't include Editorial only images, will get a false sense that they are looking at released images.

I can't understand people who say, "if it needs a release, I can get it later". What's the difference between that and Editorial, where... if they need a release, they can get one later?

Why do people want to upload files with no releases and put them in an area where photos would need a release to be used, but not make that clear to potential buyers?

Example:

I clicked No, No and it's marked LICENCED by Alamy, nothing else to check for the licensing options.

Gannet77 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 19, 2009, 16:47 »

It's not an "Editorial Button" - it's the "Licence Type" that checks itself, as "Licence".

But, under the image (top left) there is a link labelled "More Options". Click that, then scroll to the bottom and you will see a section called "Select Restrictions".

That's where you can set additional restrictions, under the pull down "Usage". Only one of those is "Editorial", but my understanding is that you are setting restrictions here, not selecting them - so in order to set "Editorial" only you would have to select each of the others and then click "Add Restriction".

There are seven possible restrictions, so you can see that might get a bit tedious if you had to do it for every image...

RacePhoto · « **Reply #11 on:** February 19, 2009, 16:51 »

Ah Ha, I think I'm starting to get it. So since all mine like the above example are Licensed (licenced), that doesn't mean they are Editorial?

What have I been doing all this time?

Have to go look and see what kind of mess I've made.

I don't see anything else except "set restrictions" looks like in Alamy language Licenced = Editorial.

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

Fine with me. I'm clicking the two boxes, leaving photos as Licenced and I guess I agree, I'm not going into some sub-menu for every image and setting it editorial only. But I'm not leaving anything unchecked that should be either.

madelaide · « **Reply #12 on:** February 19, 2009, 17:14 »

Racephoto, this is what Alamy explained to me:

Quote

To facilitate only editorial sales these are the restrictions to be set:

• All Countries; Direct Mail/Brochures; All Medias; All Industries; All Sub-industries
• All Countries; Multimedia; All Medias; All Industries; All Sub-industries
• All Countries; Consumer Goods; All Medias; All Industries; All Sub-industries
• All Countries; Display; All Medias; All Industries; All Sun-industries
• All Countries; Advertising/Promotion; All Medias; All Industries; All Sub-industries
• All Countries; Personal/Presentations; All Medias; All Industries; All Sub-industries

I appreciate that this is a time consuming process, however there is no way to circumvent this.

I noticed in your example that you didn't mark the need for property release, but with all those logos isn't that required the same way a model release for the pilot would be required?

Regards,
Adelaide

Gannet77 · « **Reply #13 on:** February 19, 2009, 18:07 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 19, 2009, 16:51

Ah Ha, I think I'm starting to get it. So since all mine like the above example are Licensed (licenced), that doesn't mean they are Editorial?

What have I been doing all this time?

Have to go look and see what kind of mess I've made.

I don't see anything else except "set restrictions" looks like in Alamy language Licenced = Editorial.

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

Fine with me. I'm clicking the two boxes, leaving photos as Licenced and I guess I agree, I'm not going into some sub-menu for every image and setting it editorial only. But I'm not leaving anything unchecked that should be either.

You're not making a mess, it's fine like that. It's just that "Editorial" is only one of the uses covered under "Licence", and you can restrict them further if you wish to (though quite why you would is unclear to me).

But SharpShot said: "If I am selling RM and I have indicated that I don't have a release, it is up to the buyer to decide if they can use the photo." He's not leaving anything unchecked that should be either.

RT · « **Reply #14 on:** February 19, 2009, 18:10 »

The biggest problem I'm seeing is that too many folks are relating model releases to what they've learnt through microstock sites.

An image with people can be used for commercial/advertising even if you don't have a model release, however it is dependant on whether the people concerned are the subject of the image and it is then usage dependant, this is why the process for uploading images on Alamy is the way it is and that they have the disclaimer to tell buyers the end responsibility is theirs. Same goes for property.

The best example I can think of for explaining this is think of a TV advert that is set in a crowded street or airport, supermarket or any other public place where there's loads of background people, TV advert makers have the same conditions as us do you think they get a signed release for thousands of people who just happen to be in shot, the answer is no because they don't need to if they're purely incidental.

In short if the image has a person and you don't have a release tick the 'no' box and that's it, if you then want to set any further restrictions you can then do so.

Pete (racephoto) knowing your images on Alamy as I do, you need to tick the # of people and then 'no' box to model release and the 'yes it does' but 'no I haven't' for property release, and that's it.

Edit: I've just thought of the perfect example for anyone that's in the UK, think of the recent T-mobile advert on TV where all a sudden some people in a Liverpool St station start dancing to Lulu, the dancers will have signed releases the thousand on lookers won't have and don't need to.

For anyone else here it is: http://www.youtube.com/lifesforsharing

madelaide · « **Reply #15 on:** February 19, 2009, 19:26 »

I agree that not having a release doesn't necessarily mean it is suitable for editorial use only, and Alamy restrictions have many possible uses, as shown below.

But I can not sell a portrait of my neighbour's child to be used in an advertisement, can I? I suppose you can use a photo of the Vatican to sell travel packages to Rome, but not to advertise condoms.

Regards,
Adelaide

RT · « **Reply #16 on:** February 19, 2009, 19:41 »

Quote from: madelaide on February 19, 2009, 19:26

But I can not sell a portrait of my neighbour's child to be used in an advertisement, can I?

Adelaide that's your choice, but you do have the options to set restrictions on how it's used if you so wish.

By the way before Pete tells you, it's a driver not pilot

madelaide · « **Reply #17 on:** February 19, 2009, 20:50 »

Quote from: RT on February 19, 2009, 19:41

By the way before Pete tells you, it's a driver not pilot

Right. We use the same word in portuguese for both, and I often forget.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #18 on:** February 20, 2009, 01:16 »

Quote from: madelaide on February 19, 2009, 17:14

Racephoto, this is what Alamy explained to me:

Quote
To facilitate only editorial sales these are the restrictions to be set:

• All Countries; Direct Mail/Brochures; All Medias; All Industries; All Sub-industries
• All Countries; Multimedia; All Medias; All Industries; All Sub-industries
• All Countries; Consumer Goods; All Medias; All Industries; All Sub-industries
• All Countries; Display; All Medias; All Industries; All Sun-industries
• All Countries; Advertising/Promotion; All Medias; All Industries; All Sub-industries
• All Countries; Personal/Presentations; All Medias; All Industries; All Sub-industries

I appreciate that this is a time consuming process, however there is no way to circumvent this.

I noticed in your example that you didn't mark the need for property release, but with all those logos isn't that required the same way a model release for the pilot would be required?

Regards,
Adelaide

What pilot, I don't see an airplane. (I know, that was just a joke...)

You might hear them called pilots in the UK and other places as well.

Yes, some days I skipped the property release because it was already marked Licensed. Now I'm back to making the extra worthless clicks. I'm waiting for bulk editing to make them consistent. You are correct. I was being lazy.

Now that people have pointed out what they meant by not marking further restrictions, I agree and I don't do it. Once it says"Licenced", it is enough notification that I don't have the rights for this photo to be RF. As for other restrictions, I could care less what someone uses my photos for. I don't shoot models and have one model released photo on one site. (my Mother cooking something)

Would this shot of Vitor Meira class him as a pilot?

I can't count all the reasons why this photo is Editorial Only. I won't list most of them again unless someone asks.

I wish there was just a button to click for that and I could get it over with and skip all the refining releases, additional licensing, and restrictions. Everyone will notice that there are two options in the search Licenced or Rights Free. That's why I assumed that Licenced is the same as Editorial only.

RT · « **Reply #19 on:** February 21, 2009, 06:58 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 20, 2009, 01:16

Would this shot of Vitor Meira class him as a pilot?

I think the quote under your name here is very appropraite for this shot.

And Pete for the love of God buy a book on Photoshop

This took me less than two minutes:

RacePhoto · « **Reply #20 on:** February 21, 2009, 22:57 »

You mean the fencepost? Yes, I know it's there.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: do you set restriction? (Read 9439 times)

stokfoto

sharpshot

NikonScott

tan510jomast

madelaide

stokfoto

RT

RacePhoto

Gannet77

RacePhoto

Gannet77

RacePhoto

madelaide

Gannet77

RT

madelaide

RT

madelaide

RacePhoto

RT

RacePhoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors