MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Righets Managed  (Read 3789 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

chris-herzog

  • I love photography

« on: May 19, 2016, 10:03 »
0
Alamy asks to specify if there are people in the image.
I have images with body parts from not recognisable people. Therefore I say yes, there is a person on the image. Since I haven't got a model release, the license type is automatically set to "Rights Managed". What does that mean?


ShadySue

« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2016, 10:45 »
0
Rights managed is a different type of licensing to RF.
Instead of buy once, use for (almost) anything, the buyer purchases according to usage, and you get repeat sales to the same buyer if they reuse it (and are honest).

However, if you have the same images selling as RF elsewhere, you can't submit these RM to Alamy, as per your agreement with them.

Added: Alamy is about to introduce RF editorial.  :(
« Last Edit: May 19, 2016, 14:06 by ShadySue »

« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2016, 13:35 »
0
It is annoying how Alamy choose to handle body parts different then every other site I'm on.  Originally, I just listed body parts as not having a human,  considering it wasn't a whole or identifiable human, but a couple years ago they started telling me to go thru my port and attach releases to all those type of shots or they'd be deleted.  Mostly I had releases for them so I uploaded.  A few I had to delete.

« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2016, 18:06 »
0
Even if the person is unrecognizable or off inthe distance, you have toanswer "yes" to people in the image.

« Reply #4 on: May 20, 2016, 03:27 »
0
even if there is a blurry finger in the frame, you need to attach a release

ShadySue

« Reply #5 on: May 20, 2016, 04:03 »
0
I'm astonished that buyers don't complain about this, as I've said often enough.
You have a blurry finger, or tiny smudges which may be people, way in the distance.
You have to tick 'one person' or 'more than 4 people' as appropriate.
These images Then show up if a buyer wants to see 'one person' or 'more than 4 people', but in the vast majority of cases, if a buyer ticks wants to see one/however many people, they actually want to see the person/people, not blurry fingers or out of focus dots.

« Reply #6 on: May 20, 2016, 04:25 »
+3
I'm astonished that buyers don't complain about this, as I've said often enough.
You have a blurry finger, or tiny smudges which may be people, way in the distance.
You have to tick 'one person' or 'more than 4 people' as appropriate.
These images Then show up if a buyer wants to see 'one person' or 'more than 4 people', but in the vast majority of cases, if a buyer ticks wants to see one/however many people, they actually want to see the person/people, not blurry fingers or out of focus dots.

We actually introduced this requirement following on from buyer requests that we do this to help ensure a safer RF collection. If the person in the image can prove it is them for example by proving they were there at that time and place that the image was taken etc etc that can be all that is needed - it's not always about being recognizable as such.

Perhaps the legal landscape will shift in due course, but we didn't introduce this requirement without first getting feedback from buyers and then legal advice from our lawyers.

At the end of the day, it's about trying to safe-guard both our clients and contributors against possible future legal issues.

Cheers

James A
« Last Edit: May 20, 2016, 04:28 by Alamy »

ShadySue

« Reply #7 on: May 20, 2016, 04:30 »
+1
I'm not arguing with the need for a release for a blurry finger or it has to be editorial; I'm thinking how annoyed I'd would be if I were searching for e.g. 'one person' and I couldn't see the person.

« Reply #8 on: May 20, 2016, 21:33 »
0
I'm not arguing with the need for a release for a blurry finger or it has to be editorial; I'm thinking how annoyed I'd would be if I were searching for e.g. 'one person' and I couldn't see the person.

You're easily annoyed by anything that has to do with a computer search that's not what you think it should be. Google made their millions by a smarter search but you and I will still get stupid matches that make no sense. Stop expecting a photo search to be the Oracles, Cassandra and Confucius all wrapped in one.

ShadySue

« Reply #9 on: May 22, 2016, 06:39 »
+6
I'm not arguing with the need for a release for a blurry finger or it has to be editorial; I'm thinking how annoyed I'd would be if I were searching for e.g. 'one person' and I couldn't see the person.

You're easily annoyed by anything that has to do with a computer search that's not what you think it should be. Google made their millions by a smarter search but you and I will still get stupid matches that make no sense. Stop expecting a photo search to be the Oracles, Cassandra and Confucius all wrapped in one.

How about I keep searching for the Holy Grail and you stop getting so easily annoyed by me and stop telling me what to do?

« Reply #10 on: June 28, 2016, 11:57 »
0
So, does Alamy accepts photos of graffitis as RF or does it has to be RM, or they don't accept ti at all? I tried to submit to SS as editorial and they rejected it.
Same question for iS...

« Last Edit: June 28, 2016, 12:00 by Dumc »

« Reply #11 on: June 28, 2016, 11:59 »
0
.

« Reply #12 on: June 28, 2016, 12:00 »
0
.

« Reply #13 on: June 29, 2016, 04:33 »
0
So, does Alamy accepts photos of graffitis as RF or does it has to be RM, or they don't accept ti at all? I tried to submit to SS as editorial and they rejected it.
Same question for iS...




That image would be rights managed if only for the building but add all the decorations it's definitely RM


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
17 Replies
6784 Views
Last post December 11, 2007, 16:39
by northflyboy
9 Replies
4683 Views
Last post November 15, 2007, 16:59
by Kngkyle
45 Replies
15112 Views
Last post April 10, 2008, 20:46
by RGebbiePhoto
41 Replies
11402 Views
Last post January 29, 2011, 04:05
by BaldricksTrousers
14 Replies
4644 Views
Last post January 11, 2016, 16:28
by Cider Apple

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results