pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: just started uploading to Alamy - questions:  (Read 6676 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 18, 2011, 23:30 »
0
Hi all. I know this is a lot to ask, but can someone please explain to me how the RM license at Alamy works regarding copyrighted materials? What I mean is that I see a ton of RM images that have copyright protected content - iphones, logos, even a DVD cover, etc. How is this stuff sold as stock photography? Is it somehow being sold as editorial only? It seems that images like this could not be used without a release except for in very specific journalistic instances. What's the deal?

TIA.
-C


RacePhoto

« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2011, 02:30 »
0
The buyer is responsible for the proper use of an image.

Release information

    Alamy gives no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the existence of any Releases associated with the Image(s).

    Alamy gives no representations or warranties whatsoever with respect to the use of names, trade marks, logos, uniforms, registered or copyrighted designs or artistic works depicted in any Image.

    You must satisfy yourself that all Releases as may be required for Reproduction of the Image(s) have been secured. You are solely responsible for obtaining all such Releases and the License is conditional in each case on your obtaining them. If you are unsure as to whether any Releases are needed for your Image usage, then it is your responsibility to consult with relevant parties. You shall not rely upon any representation or warranty given by Alamy employees or representatives save as set out in this Agreement.

    Failure or refusal by you to secure the relevant Releases for Reproduction of the Image(s) is considered a breach of this Agreement and a breach of Intellectual Property rights, for which you shall be solely liable and for which you shall indemnify and hold harmless Alamy, its Contributors, and their respective parents, subsidiaries, successors, assigns, and all employees and agents. This indemnification is in addition to, not in lieu of, the indemnification set forth in Section 7 herein and shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement



Once again micro says they want to control everything, polices us and makes some truly stupid nit picking decisions about releases and rights. Where Alamy says, the buyer is responsible for the proper use.

« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2011, 16:23 »
0
You have to answer if the photo has people and if you have a release, and if it has property and you have a release. So if you say it does have property and you don't have a release, the buyer should know he can not use it for commercial purposes without getting himself a permission.

I have already sold an image in a direct sale in which I told the buyer he should get a permission, and I even stated that in my invoice.

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2011, 17:37 »
0
The buyer is responsible for the proper use of an image.

... snip ...

Once again micro says they want to control everything, polices us and makes some truly stupid nit picking decisions about releases and rights. Where Alamy says, the buyer is responsible for the proper use.

A few years back, I took some images of various international currencies (combined in the same image, not individually) which included portions of British Pound Notes.  I contacted the Bank of England, sending them copies of the images, and asking their position on the sale of the images as stock.  They replied they had no issue with my selling the images as I was not the one publishing them commercially.  They further stated it was the responsibility of the end user to contact the Bank for final approval of the image's use as they only granted that sort of approval after seeing the context in which the image(s) were presented.

RT


« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2011, 18:36 »
0
What I mean is that I see a ton of RM images that have copyright protected content - iphones, logos, even a DVD cover, etc. How is this stuff sold as stock photography?
Because it isn't illegal to do so. RM and RF are just terms to describe how an image is licensed, it's nothing to do with the content of the image.

Is it somehow being sold as editorial only?
Maybe but that's only because the site it's being sold on requires it to be so because of their policy. Not the case on Alamy unless you set an editorial restriction yourself.

It seems that images like this could not be used without a release except for in very specific journalistic instances.
Yes and No, as others have pointed out it all depends on the end usage.

I don't want to confuse you (it will and many others to) but there is no law to say that a copyright or trademarked product can not be used in a commercial sense, it happens every single day in thousands of adverts around the world - confused? To understand how you need to understand copyright and trademark law, which is very hard if your knowledge base is from the stock industry. No stock agency in the world would be able to control or indeed specify the exact terms to what, where and when certain products in an image could and couldn't be used, therefore they make general terms to protect themselves plus to a certain extent the contributor and in the case of Alamy they ask a general question as to whether anything in the image requires a property release to use the image commercially, it would be more accurate if they asked 'Is there anything in the image that might infringe on another parties IP rights' and as Racephoto pointed out above they then issue a more accurate disclaimer to buyers.

And before you or anybody else asks for examples, next time you watch TV carefully examine the adverts especially the ones shot in a city or home, look out for background objects and see how many you can spot that would likely be trademarked, copyright or design protected, the people who made the ad won't have got a property release for those objects because they don't need one.

« Reply #5 on: July 19, 2011, 19:36 »
0
I think Alamy has it right.  Letting the publisher take the decision seems sensible to me.

As I understand release requirements comes down to a matter of context and relies on whether an image is profiting on somebody else's property.  If a logo is totally incidental to the context, then no appropriation of property has occurred.  For instance consider an image used in an advert for a travel location showing a tourist enjoying a stroll in a holiday destination, but the image used also has a drink can incidentally shown in the background. I can't see how this could be classed as appropriating the intellectual property of the drink producter.

Many MS agencies take an overly risk averse position.  This leads to inefficiencies in production.  However the world is what it is - it's their business, their rules.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
3345 Views
Last post March 08, 2007, 14:48
by hatman12
2 Replies
3168 Views
Last post September 23, 2013, 10:08
by Redneck
30 Replies
17854 Views
Last post November 26, 2016, 17:08
by sweetgirll
18 Replies
11825 Views
Last post July 28, 2015, 08:00
by kaboom
4 Replies
1707 Views
Last post June 14, 2020, 08:23
by Mantis

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle