Agency Based Discussion > Alamy.com
On Alamy, unlike Shutterstock you have to decide the photo is for commercial use
mj007:
The seller and the buyer can be sued for misuse of photos. Even if buy is at no fault they can still be held liable. The good news most photographers that I know are broke. It is really hard to get money out of a broke person. Then if the buyer has money and assets that is were the lawyers will go. Then the buyer can sue the photographer but again if photographer is broke , hard to money out of a broke person.
helloitsme:
--- Quote from: mj007 on December 30, 2020, 14:22 ---The seller and the buyer can be sued for misuse of photos. Even if buy is at no fault they can still be held liable. The good news most photographers that I know are broke. It is really hard to get money out of a broke person. Then if the buyer has money and assets that is were the lawyers will go. Then the buyer can sue the photographer but again if photographer is broke , hard to money out of a broke person.
--- End quote ---
Does the Shutterstock take that responsibility instead of a photographer? Because they are the ones who decide if the photos can be used for commercial use? Is this the difference between Alamy and Shutterstock? How they take responsibility for liability?
helloitsme:
When somebody buys a photo on Alamy, a buyer can clearly see if the photo is model released. So, I think photographer who uploaded the photo and didn't choose "Editorial only" designation isn't liable if a buyer use it for advertising and get sued by somebody in the photo. Am I right?
ShadySue:
--- Quote from: helloitsme on December 30, 2020, 14:03 ---
--- Quote from: Firn on December 30, 2020, 13:54 ---
--- Quote from: helloitsme on December 30, 2020, 13:52 ---
It can potentially cost contributors a lot of money in lawsuit.
--- End quote ---
And rightfully so if they think they can sell photos with property that doesn't belong to them or people who didn't agree to this for commercial usage.
--- End quote ---
Contributor can forget to check the "Editorial only" box. That's why Shutterstock and Adobe Stock decide which photos they sell as commercial, not contributors.
--- End quote ---
But you have to answer, "Is there property in this image?" "Do you have a release?" "Are there people in this image?" "Do you have release/s"
If you don't tick these, the default is set that there are no releases, even if none is needed.
Alamy is much stricter about what consitutes property or people (SS is pretty lax). I indicate property even if it's very old and e.g. iS would accept it. Also tiny bits of people, even out of focus pixels way in the background are regarded as people on Alamy. At that point, it is the responsibility of the buyer to decide whether they would be taking a risk in using it.
Most of Alamy's buyers are editorial buyers. In my limited experience, I've never found an editorial image being misused by an Alamy buyer - I have had several instances of iStock editorial files being used commercially by buyers, which I've reported to iStock - who each time assured me that I would have no liability for these misuses. And, by the way, contributors have to upload editorial files to iStock via the editorial route, rather than the bizarrely-named 'creative' route. However, I understand that files sent as creative are still being rejected if there is a possible IP issue, so there is that extra level of protection.
Alamy expects their contributors to know what they're doing.
helloitsme:
--- Quote from: ShadySue on December 30, 2020, 14:40 ---
--- Quote from: helloitsme on December 30, 2020, 14:03 ---
--- Quote from: Firn on December 30, 2020, 13:54 ---
--- Quote from: helloitsme on December 30, 2020, 13:52 ---
It can potentially cost contributors a lot of money in lawsuit.
--- End quote ---
And rightfully so if they think they can sell photos with property that doesn't belong to them or people who didn't agree to this for commercial usage.
--- End quote ---
Contributor can forget to check the "Editorial only" box. That's why Shutterstock and Adobe Stock decide which photos they sell as commercial, not contributors.
--- End quote ---
But you have to answer, "Is there property in this image?" "Do you have a release?" "Are there people in this image?" "Do you have release/s"
If you don't tick these, the default is set that there are no releases, even if none is needed.
Alamy is much stricter about what consitutes property or people (SS is pretty lax). I indicate property even if it's very old and e.g. iS would accept it. Also tiny bits of people, even out of focus pixels way in the background are regarded as people on Alamy. At that point, it is the responsibility of the buyer to decide whether they would be taking a risk in using it.
Most of Alamy's buyers are editorial buyers. In my limited experience, I've never found an editorial image being misused by an Alamy buyer - I have had several instances of iStock editorial files being used commercially by buyers, which I've reported to iStock - who each time assured me that I would have no liability for these misuses. And, by the way, contributors have to upload editorial files to iStock via the editorial route, rather than the bizarrely-named 'creative' route. However, I understand that files sent as creative are still being rejected if there is a possible IP issue, so there is that extra level of protection.
Alamy expects their contributors to know what they're doing.
--- End quote ---
So, for this photo for example.
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-people-walking-in-street-shimla-simla-himachal-pradesh-india-101671139.html
has many people who are not model released and the description clearly indicates no model release. If a buyer use it for commercial, contributor isn't liable at all, I think.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version