MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Alamy.com => Topic started by: eendicott on January 17, 2007, 14:38
-
I'm fairly new to Alamy. One thing I find alarming (and maybe I'm alarming myself for no reason at all) is that I'm finding a ton of RM and RF images that are not model released or property released and are not restricted to just editorial distribution when they should be. I'm even finding RF images with brand names being the central focus of the image!?
Is this a matter of contributors not following the rules, and Alamy
not policing the matter? Should I not concern myself in that the
buyers will know better? I'm a bit confused by the whole thing.
Per the site:
**************
As it is not possible to set usage restrictions on Royalty-Free (RF)
images, you need to ensure that all RF images are free from potential
legal issues for our clients. There are some things which should never
be Royalty-Free (RF), and should always be Licenced (L). These include
the following:
* People with no model release.
* Domestic buildings with no property release.
* Famous people.
* Logos, trademarks, copyrighted buildings.
o Images which are of a logo and little else should not be
uploaded to Alamy as they represent a breach of copyright.
o Where a logo/trademark is incidental to an image (i.e.
it's visible in the image but isn't the central focus), these images
can be submitted, but must be Licenced (L). You should restrict these
images for Editorial use only, as below (see the section on
restrictions for guidance on how to do this).
+ 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
Examples of subject matter which should definitely not be submitted as
Royalty-Free are:
* General non-released celebrities
* Las Vegas sign
* Gerkin building London
* Eiffel tower at night
* Guggenheim museum
* City of arts and sciences Valencia
* Hollywood sign Los Angeles
* Oscar Award
* European union flag
* Olympic rings
* Atomium Monument
* Henry Moore Sculptures
* New York Chrysler building
* New York radio city
* Paris Louvre
* Paris La Defence
* Coca cola logo
* McDonalds logo
* Apple Mac logo
You should also be aware of the necessity to gain permission to take
photographs on private property, particularly in the case of museums
and art galleries. Permission is required regardless of whether the
image is going to be sold for editorial or commercial purposes. If you
have not been granted permission, then images of these subjects should
not be submitted to Alamy.
You should never put duplicates of images, or similar images on the
site, one licenced as L and one as RF. Image duplication may
potentially have legal implications for the contributor and in
addition is not aesthetically pleasing to our customers.
*******************
Here's a link to the licenses and guidelines that detail this
information: http://www.alamy.com/licensing.asp
Am I missing something? I mean I'm even looking at photographers that have over 40,000 images on the site and they aren't restricting their images - should they be? Does it make a difference?
Thanks.
-
I'm fairly new to Alamy. One thing I find alarming (and maybe I'm alarming myself for no reason at all) is that I'm finding a ton of RM and RF images that are not model released or property released and are not restricted to just editorial distribution when they should be. I'm even finding RF images with brand names being the central focus of the image!?
Is this a matter of contributors not following the rules, and Alamy
not policing the matter? Should I not concern myself in that the
buyers will know better? I'm a bit confused by the whole thing.
One point to note is that no matter what site you're on, the legal libilities are always on the photographer. Some sites like to collect the Model/Property Releases for extra legal protection.
I'd be interested to see a RF image with brand names that isn't model release, do you have a link?
-
There are a bunch. I did a search on "Coca Cola" with "Royalty-Free" checked and came up with about a half dozen. For example:
(http://4.78.169.18/thumbs/3/%7BA0676B1F-0688-4EEA-9C2A-0A56D8154ABA%7D/AYBT20.jpg)
I'd be interested to see a RF image with brand names that isn't model release, do you have a link?
-
there are quite a few images on alamy that are legally questionable.
there are also some photogs who click the button 'model released' when it is a pictures of a statue, or building or egg.... I can't help but think they also click the button for pictures of people who they don't have a release for.
-
i just used the word egg as an example not knowing what results i would get.
But a little check on alamy.
but not to any surprise
here is an egg picture where the eggs managed to sign a release.
And there are many more where that came from.
(http://www.alamy.com/thumbs/3/%7B1BFE7171-E517-4A7D-8590-E5AB455CF19D%7D/A2C33F.jpg) (http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography-search-results.asp?st=0&lic=6&lic=1&mr=1&ns=1&qt=egg&go=1&a=-1)
-
All I can say is that there is never a dull moment in the microstock world.
One thing the industry does do for me is entertain me to no end...
;D
-
personally i think it is all a crock of rot. Watching TV now and the logo for something is being blurred out.
How can anyone suggest that because their logo is visible in the background their trademark is being used. Nobody asked you to put up the sign, and if it is part of a streetscape (for instance) that is either bad or good luck.
-
I agree, and yingyang0 makes a very good point. The surprising part to me is that many of these folks are top photographers - pros selling through Alamy and they are doing it as well. Very strange.
I didn't want to point out one person or another specifically, but if you do a search on 'GAP Shopping' and restrict to RF you will also find various images of the GAP store sign as being the central focal point of the image. Not good for liability's sake.
I've restricted my images if it's appropriate.
-
I suspect the eggs did not sign a model release but the photographer maybe be claiming to have model releases for all their photos just in a customer is doing a search for only photos with model release, its one of their options.
I have now over 2,000 RM images online at Alamy so I am rather hoping to have another sale there.
-
i realize that the photographer is probably just trying to get into more searches, but if they don't have a release for something, they shouldn't check the box that they do have a release.
-
IS any one reporting this kind of stuff to Alamy?
-
I mentioned it a couple of times on the Alamypro forum. Apparently, Alamy's solution to the problem is AlamyRank. One contributor brought up that it was mentioned at the last meeting in the UK.
I figure I'll do my best to keep myself in line - a buddy of mine reminded me today that I need to stop getting caught up in nonsense like this and just go out and shoot.
Good advice.
-
Here's an interesting link - if I did it right - http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=21672636
It may be that Alamy was once more fine art related?