pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: release for body parts (e.g. hands)  (Read 3049 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 10, 2012, 11:39 »
0

A few weeks ago, I recieved an email from Alamy informing me that a handful  :) of my images with hands (typicall holding something) were improperly identified as having 0 people. The images remained on sale but were moved to the "need more information" box. I made the change as suggested and confirmed that I have the release (they're my hands).

Thinking about it now, this means that any image I take of any body part will require a release on Alamy. I think the intent was to make our images easier to find in the search but there are consequences. Has anyone else had the same experience? In all fairness, I haven't put this question to Alamy yet and I will. Just curious to see if anyone else had this happen.


ShadySue

« Reply #1 on: September 10, 2012, 12:14 »
0
I'm not sure what your question is, but yes, you need to indicate whether you have a release for any body part or any indistinguishable people, even if they're really just blurry pixels way in the background.
IMO, a presumably unforeseen consequence is that if you have the blurry pixels and indicated them as 'more than four' people, they'll show up in searches as having 'more than 4 people'. I'm sure if a buyer ticks that they want 'more than four people' (or one, two, three or four) they actually want to see discernable people.
What consequence have you noticed?

Poncke

« Reply #2 on: September 10, 2012, 12:23 »
0
When you indicate there are people (or body parts of people, even a finger or a toe) in your image and how many (1,2,3,4) that include a MR, you need to include as many MRs. If you indicate you have no MR, they cant be sold as RF, but only as RM, if I am correct.

« Reply #3 on: September 10, 2012, 12:57 »
0
The founder of Alamy, James West, explicitly instructed attendants of the Alamy contributor meeting several years back that if there is any sort of person in a picture we have to select it as such.

No matter if a blurry silhouetted person far away in the background or just the tip of a finger. All the instances require a release in order to list the image as RF at Alamy.

This is really funky for certain images but in the end they just want to cover their a$$.

That's the deal with Alamy.

« Reply #4 on: September 10, 2012, 16:36 »
0
Sue - the consequence is that many people probably won't have bothered to get a release for a finger or toe which may limit the number of photos people can upload.

Thanks click_click for the clarification. I wasn't aware of this Alamy policy. I thought it might have been an error but I guess not.

Regards,

John

Ed

« Reply #5 on: September 10, 2012, 17:23 »
0
This is a standard requirement - even at the micros (at least the top tier sites).  It's a policy that has been around at least 5 years.

I have images of my own, with my own hands, with blue gloves on them - and they do have a release attached.

« Reply #6 on: September 10, 2012, 17:27 »
0
Yeah, I got that notice a month or so ago. I uploaded what releases I have and there are a few relative's hands and fingers that I'll have to get a MR for next holiday season (or whenever I see them next).

At least for a while images of this sort would get rejected at DT if you included a MR.

sc

« Reply #7 on: September 10, 2012, 17:40 »
0
DT routinely rejects images with just the head cut off if you attach a release. And SS just did that to me recently as well.

But thanks for the heads up on Alamy - I just went back and added releases to all my hand shots.

lisafx

« Reply #8 on: September 11, 2012, 16:50 »
0
They must have only recently begun enforcing this.  Not having been at any Alamy contributors meetings I was completely unaware of this policy.  I was checking 0 people for unidentifiable body parts and got this notice a couple of weeks back. 

I have releases for hands/feet, etc. only shots, but have never attached them at Alamy. 

And FWIW, I have never had to at any of the big 4 either. 

ShadySue

« Reply #9 on: September 11, 2012, 17:02 »
0
It's been a stated Alamy policy since I started there, in March '09, so I don't know when it started.

iStock is odd. I once saw a post in critique once by someone who had a rejection for a hand only and he was told that was right, he needed an MR.
A few months after, I took a photo which had part of my husband's hand and he was all ready to sign an MR, but his pal who was supposed to be coming round that evening (and hopefully would have agreed to witness a signing) couldn't come, so I reshot without his hand actually showing, which wasn't really what I wanted.
Over a year later, I saw someone ask if a similar photo to mine (in the amount of hand showing) needed an MR and was told No.
It really just depends which inspector you get, or which admin answers a question in the forum.

That said, Alamy is definitely pickier. Certainly with regard to blurred out of focus 'pixels' in the background that iStock would accept.

Some Alamy contributors are either outright liars or unbelievably efficient MR garnerers. For example, look up "Edinburgh Tattoo" and select RF only. After you've gathered your breath at the number of photos that have nothing to do with Edinburgh and/or the Tattoo, have a close look at some of the ET photos that claim to have MRs for everyone in the photo and assess how likely it is that they have them. Clue: look for the contributor who has 17 images, some of which were taken in Moscow, not Edinburgh ...
« Last Edit: September 11, 2012, 17:12 by ShadySue »

« Reply #10 on: September 11, 2012, 18:03 »
0
James West addressed this like 3 years ago - at the time they revamped their submission system. Both him and the content management guy talked about this and were swamped with questions of confused photographers.

This was published on the Alamy web site as a youtube video. I had a very hard time finding any of the contributor meeting videos as they were private links I believe.

I don't have it on hand but I can assure you that you are not the only one who couldn't really grasp the point of submitting a release for a dot in the background that was recognizable as a person but completely unidentifiable.

ShadySue

« Reply #11 on: September 11, 2012, 18:19 »
0

I don't have it on hand but I can assure you that you are not the only one who couldn't really grasp the point of submitting a release for a dot in the background that was recognizable as a person but completely unidentifiable.

I don't even mind the needs-MR thing; but they really should think about what a buyer wants if they positively search on 'one person' or 'more than four people'. With one person, they might well want just a toe (e.g. they may want a person's toe wearing a toe ring rather than a toe ring isolated on white), but like I said elsewhere, I'm sure if they positively search on 'more than four people', even for editorial use, they want to see the actual people, not a vague smudge.

RacePhoto

« Reply #12 on: September 18, 2012, 02:17 »
0
Nope, just very hard to find. I finally bookmarked them because I wanted to send them to someone and had to go hunting through a bunch of Blog posts by year in the archives..

http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2008/01/14/2594.aspx

Don't feel left out. I was totally befuddled by this point a few years back. Editorial is not a license. Took me a week to "get it".  :D RF or RM or maybe something else, but Editorial isn't one of them. It should be?



James West addressed this like 3 years ago - at the time they revamped their submission system. Both him and the content management guy talked about this and were swamped with questions of confused photographers.

This was published on the Alamy web site as a youtube video. I had a very hard time finding any of the contributor meeting videos as they were private links I believe.

I don't have it on hand but I can assure you that you are not the only one who couldn't really grasp the point of submitting a release for a dot in the background that was recognizable as a person but completely unidentifiable.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
24 Replies
7167 Views
Last post November 29, 2006, 14:37
by Lizard
7 Replies
4107 Views
Last post April 20, 2007, 15:32
by a.k.a.-tom
7 Replies
4496 Views
Last post November 13, 2008, 17:38
by dbajurin
2 Replies
1786 Views
Last post February 02, 2013, 22:22
by disorderly
12 Replies
1909 Views
Last post March 24, 2014, 11:42
by grsphoto

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results