MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Alamy.com => Topic started by: helloitsme on December 30, 2020, 13:48
-
What happens if you don't designate a photo for editorial despite having no model release for visible faces of people on the streets and a buyer use it for a commercial and advertising? Is the contributor liable if a person in the photo decide to sue? Or since there is no model release, is it buyer's own responsibility for using the photo for commercial use? I think Shutterstock and other agencies takes that liability when they approve photos for commercial use.
-
Is the contributor liable if a person in the photo decide to sue?
Yes.
-
Is the contributor liable if a person in the photo decide to sue?
Yes.
If that's the case, it's a major difference between Alamy and Shutterstock/AdobeStock. It can potentially cost contributors a lot of money in lawsuit.
-
It can potentially cost contributors a lot of money in lawsuit.
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.
-
It can potentially cost contributors a lot of money in lawsuit.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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?
-
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?
-
It can potentially cost contributors a lot of money in lawsuit.
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.
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.
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.
-
It can potentially cost contributors a lot of money in lawsuit.
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.
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.
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.
So, for this photo for example.
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-people-walking-in-street-shimla-simla-himachal-pradesh-india-101671139.html (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.
-
I see many photos like this with ordinary people without model released but are offered for "Marketing" meaning for advertisement/commercial.
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-people-walking-in-street-shimla-simla-himachal-pradesh-india-101671139.html (https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-people-walking-in-street-shimla-simla-himachal-pradesh-india-101671139.html)
This is a problem, I think. Who is at fault if a buyer uses it for commercial and get sued by a person in the photo? Is it the photographer/contributor, buyer who used it despite it says no model release, or Alamy that sold the photo? It's kind of confusing and is different from Shutterstock/Adobe Stock. Shutterstock would never allow this photo to be offered to be used for "Marketing" purpose.
-
Actually, Alamy leaves that responsibility/liability to buyers it seems. So, a contributor/photographer won't be liable even if he/she didn't check "Editorial only" box when uploading because buyers supposed to know if it's model released or not.
This page about releases is written for buyers, not contributors. Interesting.
https://www.alamy.com/help/what-is-model-release-property-release.aspx (https://www.alamy.com/help/what-is-model-release-property-release.aspx)
"Why do I need a release?
If you fail to secure releases before using the image, you might get into difficulty with an owner/agent or estate and you or your company will be liable for any claims. This is part of the agreement you make when you buy images from Alamy (you can find out more about the legal stuff in our T&Cs).
It’s your responsibility to make sure you have all the right releases to use the image for your project. We think you should always get legal advice when intellectual property is included in your work.
Friendly disclaimer - we’re not lawyers, laws vary from country to country and legal requirements may change over time. We’ve done our best to clarify a complex issue as simply and as accurately as we can.
"
-
I see many photos like this with ordinary people without model released but are offered for "Marketing" meaning for advertisement/commercial.
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-people-walking-in-street-shimla-simla-himachal-pradesh-india-101671139.html (https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-people-walking-in-street-shimla-simla-himachal-pradesh-india-101671139.html)
This is a problem, I think. Who is at fault if a buyer uses it for commercial and get sued by a person in the photo? Is it the photographer/contributor, buyer who used it despite it says no model release, or Alamy that sold the photo? It's kind of confusing and is different from Shutterstock/Adobe Stock. Shutterstock would never allow this photo to be offered to be used for "Marketing" purpose.
A few times I've had sales which have been noted as "marketing - non advertising". I've asked on the forum a couple of times what that means, or for examples, but no-one has been able to say.
But yes, the buyer is liable.
It seems to be more required that you definitely tick the editorial-only box if you're selling RF. I only sell RM there.
If you're worried that you might have forgotten or made a mistake, just do regular searches in image manager to see what files you've indicated have releases. After seeing a file (someone else's) for sale which claimed to have model releases for performers and audience at a large military tattoo, I checked mine and found I'd made a mistake once, though luckily it was a file which had just blurry pixels, never with any enhancement identifiable.(wouldn't have needed a release on iS, for example).
Finally, although it used to be that you didn't have to upload releases, just indicate that you had them and could produce them if needed, nowadays you have to upload ("assign") them if you claim to have them, so that would prevent such a mistake.
-
... If a buyer use it for commercial, contributor isn't liable at all, I think....
The issue isn't whether in the end a court would find you liable or not. That determination would be made at the end of a lawsuit. As someone licensing images for low royalties, you do not want to end up tangled in a lawsuit with all the attendant expenses.
Even if an agency would in the end be found to be the only one at fault, you can't stop someone from including you in the lawsuit.
We don't make enough money from licensing images to pay for lawyers. Make sure you check the correct boxes when uploading.
-
Too true Jo Ann. There is an old saying: the Lawyers are the ones that ultimately end up with all the money!
-
... If a buyer use it for commercial, contributor isn't liable at all, I think....
The issue isn't whether in the end a court would find you liable or not. That determination would be made at the end of a lawsuit. As someone licensing images for low royalties, you do not want to end up tangled in a lawsuit with all the attendant expenses.
Even if an agency would in the end be found to be the only one at fault, you can't stop someone from including you in the lawsuit.
We don't make enough money from licensing images to pay for lawyers. Make sure you check the correct boxes when uploading.
So is it appropriate to say it's more risky to upload and sell on Alamy than Shutterstock/AdobeStock because Shutterstock/AdobeStock don't leave the responsibility to determine commercial/editorial to the contributors like Alamy does? I thought stock agencies should take those responsibility because they take money from the sales of those photos.
-
It can potentially cost contributors a lot of money in lawsuit.
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.
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.
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.
That's good advice.
OP, do some research. RM is not RF. Alamy is not Shutterstock.
Contributors can only tick the right boxes, we can't control what the buyer ultimately does and therefore, can't be responsible for their actions.
-
I decided to go all RF on Alamy based on my research on how much money either way would make.
-
... If a buyer use it for commercial, contributor isn't liable at all, I think....
The issue isn't whether in the end a court would find you liable or not. That determination would be made at the end of a lawsuit. As someone licensing images for low royalties, you do not want to end up tangled in a lawsuit with all the attendant expenses.
Even if an agency would in the end be found to be the only one at fault, you can't stop someone from including you in the lawsuit.
We don't make enough money from licensing images to pay for lawyers. Make sure you check the correct boxes when uploading.
So is it appropriate to say it's more risky to upload and sell on Alamy than Shutterstock/AdobeStock because Shutterstock/AdobeStock don't leave the responsibility to determine commercial/editorial to the contributors like Alamy does? I thought stock agencies should take those responsibility because they take money from the sales of those photos.
Best to play it conservative and tick the editorial box just in case (if you have identifiable people and/or property). If a buyer wants to license commercially, Alamy will contact you directly (as they have done many times with me) to request to lift the restriction. Then it's up to you if you would like to take on the risk...good idea to ask how much the license royalties would be to make the decision.
-
... If a buyer use it for commercial, contributor isn't liable at all, I think....
The issue isn't whether in the end a court would find you liable or not. That determination would be made at the end of a lawsuit. As someone licensing images for low royalties, you do not want to end up tangled in a lawsuit with all the attendant expenses.
Even if an agency would in the end be found to be the only one at fault, you can't stop someone from including you in the lawsuit.
We don't make enough money from licensing images to pay for lawyers. Make sure you check the correct boxes when uploading.
So is it appropriate to say it's more risky to upload and sell on Alamy than Shutterstock/AdobeStock because Shutterstock/AdobeStock don't leave the responsibility to determine commercial/editorial to the contributors like Alamy does? I thought stock agencies should take those responsibility because they take money from the sales of those photos.
Best to play it conservative and tick the editorial box just in case (if you have identifiable people and/or property). If a buyer wants to license commercially, Alamy will contact you directly (as they have done many times with me) to request to lift the restriction. Then it's up to you if you would like to take on the risk...good idea to ask how much the license royalties would be to make the decision.
OK, that's the major difference between Alamy and Shutterstock. When Shutterstock licenses an editorial clip for commercial use, they don't ask contributors, they just take that risk by charging more for the photo and pay contributors more too. The liability is on Shutterstock, not contributors. I don't want to take that kind of risks. So, if Alamy asks me if they can license an editorial photo putting liability on my shoulder, I would definitely say no.
-
》》》》So, if Alamy asks me if they can license an editorial photo putting liability on my shoulder, I would definitely say no.《《《《
Alamy don't f**k contributors like that.
If they'll ask you if you can lift the restrictions, you can state that you will not take the liability.
Remember that you just supply the images and license them to your best knowledge. You cannot control the actions of someone else. Just search online. How many "editorial" stock images are used wrongly.
Buyers license them and it is up to them what they will do with them. We cannot control that, that is not our responsibility.
It's very good to be careful with image licensing, but not neurotic!
-
》》》》So, if Alamy asks me if they can license an editorial photo putting liability on my shoulder, I would definitely say no.《《《《
Alamy don't f**k contributors like that.
If they'll ask you if you can lift the restrictions, you can state that you will not take the liability.
Remember that you just supply the images and license them to your best knowledge. You cannot control the actions of someone else. Just search online. How many "editorial" stock images are used wrongly.
Buyers license them and it is up to them what they will do with them. We cannot control that, that is not our responsibility.
It's very good to be careful with image licensing, but not neurotic!
It's not neurotic, just being careful to avoid potentially costing me a lot of money. But if they assure me that I won't be liable, of course I would license. If we won't be liable, why would they even ask? Shutterstock license editorial stock as commercial upgrade for extra fee without asking us, I think.
-
I love these discussions. Stops people from creating images and videos to compete with mine...
-
>>> If we won't be liable, why would they even ask? Shutterstock license editorial stock as commercial upgrade for extra fee without asking us, I think.
>>>>
They ask because they would like to license your image differently from what YOU have selected. It's not that they want to deceive you or trick you. (That's Shutterstock's job :P)