MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Submitting Person without Release as RF on Alamy  (Read 9927 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 26, 2011, 15:31 »
0
I have a few images of people where I don't have a release.

One is this one (for example)
http://yaymicro.com/stock-image/arctic-expedition/1304131?referredBy=leaf
or this one
http://yaymicro.com/stock-image/snowmobile-in-svalbard/1303729?referredBy=leaf

On Alamy, if I say the image has people in it, I have to specify how many and then if I don't have a release for the people it automatically wants to submit as a Rights Managed image.  Other times it is just a hand detail of a person or even less of a person where I haven't bothered to get a release.  i can't say there are 0 people, but if I say there ARE people I can't submit it as RF.  Anyone have a work around?


« Reply #1 on: July 26, 2011, 15:34 »
0
I don't think so, as they don't have RF editorial.

« Reply #2 on: July 26, 2011, 15:47 »
0
no, but with these images I shouldn't 'need' a release to be sold as regular RF

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #3 on: July 26, 2011, 16:30 »
0
no, but with these images I shouldn't 'need' a release to be sold as regular RF

Nope they're very clear that a teeny tiny person or a part of a person counts as a person.
"Why you need releases for people and property
    To maximise the potential to sell your images for Commercial use.
    To sell your images Royalty Free.
    If a person can recognise themselves in an image. Examples when you need a model release also include, crowd scenes, team sports, and scenarios when the face is not visible such as parts of the body, or silhouettes. For a picture of two people shaking hands, where only the hands are in shot, you need two model releases."
Source: http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/image-releases.asp

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2011, 07:37 »
0
I agree with leaf. It's absurd. I've had similar experiences, including a shot where a single person in the distance, facing away from the camera, was deemed to need a model release. Agencies really overestimate the public's ability to recognize themselves, from behind at a distance or their capacity to give a dam if they do.

It's likely a case of gun shyness. perhaps there was one time where someone recognized themselves and threatened to sue and now they take no chances. Certainly in the shots leaf references, there's no way anyone could prove it's them in the shot and that should be a necessity should it get legal.

One more thing to make photography and even more acute pain in the butt.

grp_photo

« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2011, 08:10 »
0
You can watch the videos on their site where  a contributor on a conference asked the same question and the CEO clearly states that it doesn't matter if the people are recognizable or not under NO circumstances they will accept pictures with people as RF if the are not released - watch it!
« Last Edit: July 27, 2011, 09:24 by grp_photo »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2011, 09:04 »
0
You can watch the videos on their site where  a contributor on a conference asked the same question and the CEO clearly states that it doesn't matter if the people are recognizable or not under NO circumstances they will accept pictures with people as RF if there are not released - watch it!
From the buyer's pov it makes little sense, as if they indicate when searching that they want a person, or two people (or whatever) they actually want to see the people, not some little blur way in the background. Of course, if the person is a tiny blur and you want to sell the pic RF, that's not a problem, clone them out.

RacePhoto

« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2011, 15:02 »
0
no, but with these images I shouldn't 'need' a release to be sold as regular RF

I'll try to answer from my personal point of view. Stock agencies make their own rules and what's legal isn't always what they require or demand.

No legally you may not need a release and the buyer probably doesn't need one to use it, but the selling site requires it.

Some other site may not require it and you can sell the same image RF, but Alamy does.

This also carries over to other areas, where SS takes an image as Editorial and it sells well, IS refuses it because they don't think it meets their editorial standards. I can upload a PD image from the 1800s to one site, while IS refuses it as "needs a model release".  :o

In the same way, an unidentified person on one site, blurred, from behind, or so tiny, that they could never know it was them-self, is fine and suitable for RF. Alamy says, no it's RM or you need a release.

I wish I could find the post where someone had shot a golfer from behind, at a driving range I believe, and the person in the picture (claiming to be) has filed a suit with the agency. After some time and trying to get money, it finally got down to the fact that the picture was shot in a different country and it couldn't have been the person making the claim. Now somewhere the agency had to defend that and spend money and the artist had to prove that they were never in "X" and prove where they did take the picture. PITA for everyone because someone wants money for being shown from behind in a photo?

We never know how many people will come out of the woodwork saying, that's me, if it's a big ad campaign use?

So they error on the side of caution. This is one of the problems with Micro or any other stock. CYA policies. :D

« Reply #8 on: July 28, 2011, 03:47 »
0
What difference would it make to the golfer issue if the image had been sold RF without a release or RM without a release? Would the agency refuse to sell it for non-editorial usage? I think you would have to put restrictions on it in Alamy for that to happen (and I stopped using that after I began to suspect I had restricted my initial editorial images to advertising-only use, due to the lousy wording of their restrictions page).

As the agency would still have been sued for selling that to a campaign RM, the solution is not to use a different license (unless it is editorial only) but to ban all pictures of unidentifiable people. And if the golfer lost, didn't he/she have to pay all the legal costs? And why sue the stock agency instead of the advertiser?

Anyway, why not just let them have those images RM, if that is what they want? Their standard RM license doesn't conflict with the micro RF license, anyway, as we have discussed before.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #9 on: July 28, 2011, 04:08 »
0
no, but with these images I shouldn't 'need' a release to be sold as regular RF

You certainly would on iStock:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=68478&page=1
at least in theory, though I know that isn't always followed.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #10 on: July 28, 2011, 04:13 »
0
I have a few images of people where I don't have a release.

One is this one (for example)
http://yaymicro.com/stock-image/arctic-expedition/1304131?referredBy=leaf
or this one
http://yaymicro.com/stock-image/snowmobile-in-svalbard/1303729?referredBy=leaf

On Alamy, if I say the image has people in it, I have to specify how many and then if I don't have a release for the people it automatically wants to submit as a Rights Managed image.  Other times it is just a hand detail of a person or even less of a person where I haven't bothered to get a release.  i can't say there are 0 people, but if I say there ARE people I can't submit it as RF.  Anyone have a work around?

If it was just that you 'didn't bother' to get the release, could you get one now?

RacePhoto

« Reply #11 on: July 29, 2011, 01:27 »
0
What difference would it make to the golfer issue if the image had been sold RF without a release or RM without a release? Would the agency refuse to sell it for non-editorial usage? I think you would have to put restrictions on it in Alamy for that to happen (and I stopped using that after I began to suspect I had restricted my initial editorial images to advertising-only use, due to the lousy wording of their restrictions page).

As the agency would still have been sued for selling that to a campaign RM, the solution is not to use a different license (unless it is editorial only) but to ban all pictures of unidentifiable people. And if the golfer lost, didn't he/she have to pay all the legal costs? And why sue the stock agency instead of the advertiser?

Anyway, why not just let them have those images RM, if that is what they want? Their standard RM license doesn't conflict with the micro RF license, anyway, as we have discussed before.

Not my case and the person who was accused would need to fill in details. My only point was, people will and can make claims, without substance and it costs money to defend.

As for your second question. No the cost isn't always assumed by the claimant, especially if there is no trial and case, but it just was someone going to the agency and threatening them, until the details were revealed. That's why the whole thing is a mess.

When you write to someone and say they are using your image illegally (hypothetical situation of course) and it turns out they paid for it. Do they sand you a bill for the time it took to look up and prove they had a license.

See where this all leads? If there's a proper release, the issue is ended before it starts. :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
3356 Views
Last post May 28, 2007, 11:45
by snoozle
9 Replies
5854 Views
Last post November 05, 2007, 12:14
by Elenathewise
54 Replies
59033 Views
Last post July 10, 2012, 15:16
by Freedom
3 Replies
4211 Views
Last post September 18, 2017, 20:01
by namussi
12 Replies
5340 Views
Last post November 09, 2018, 02:56
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors