pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Wedding Photography as RM on Alamy  (Read 8404 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

« Reply #25 on: April 12, 2016, 05:42 »
0
[quote author=Sean Locke Photography link=topic=27421.msg451638#msg451638   As RM editorial we're talking very limited usage and RM is clearly not microstock, it would be midstock or macrostock.  There is a very clear distinction ...

I understood you were talking about Alamy: what do you think is the 'clear distinction' between selling RM there and RF-editorial elsewhere? Certainly the price can be lower than credit sales on iS (which are becoming very rare!), but not (yet) as low as some sales I've had via Getty.

Your files can be misused just the same, and are just as likely to be lifted from legitimate uses and used elsewhere in a way you can't control.

You will not necessarily get credited even in legitimate uses1, and Alamy won't necessarily help you in the case of misuses/abuses. In my experience, either they won't pursue, but say you're free to pursue if you wish (usually), or if it's one of their exisiting customers, you have to fill in a form listing every misuse (a Google Search page won't do, you have to fill in the form), then they send you an email saying your file is 'in the system' and not to contact them again. (I sent mine in early Jan, still waiting; and I've read someone still waiting after six months.)

1 I notice that the T&C says: "Unless otherwise agreed in writing, if any Image/Video is reproduced by you for editorial purposes (i.e. for any non-promotional purpose) you must include the copyright / credit line
"(Photographers or Agencys name)/Alamy stock photo", or any other copyright / credit line specified by Alamy. If a copyright / credit line is omitted then an additional fee equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the original amount invoiced attributable to the Image/Video in question shall be payable by you."
, which is interesting, but just like iS, who have a similar requirement, I doubt very much if they will pursue any 'miscreant'. I know that if I do reverse searches on files reported as sold, they're as likely not to have a credit, or to credit only Alamy2, as to have the full, required credit, and if they are reluctant to go after image thieves or existing customers who reuse RM files without reporting/paying again, it's hard to imagine they'll go after a legitimate buyer for not crediting the photographer.

2I once had two Alamy photos illustrating an article in a magazine which regularly uses Alamy images, together with one which they had published directly from me, and two by other Alamy togs. Only the one they'd purchased directly from me had my name on it; the others were all credited only to Alamy, and I know a magazine which regularly buys photos from both SS and Alamy, uses them editorially, and only credits SS and Alamy, not the togs.

Still, in the event you and your couples are happy with all that ...


« Reply #26 on: April 12, 2016, 06:07 »
+3
I have a few weddings that I license as commercial RF and have model releases for, but in all honesty I don't want to license much of my work in that way since I can't track the usage in any way and it can end up on sites like TheOnion for example.

I'm pretty sure a satire site qualifies as editorial usage.  And, again, licensing is licensing, whether it's "micro" or anything else.

ShadySue

« Reply #27 on: April 12, 2016, 06:13 »
0
I have a few weddings that I license as commercial RF and have model releases for, but in all honesty I don't want to license much of my work in that way since I can't track the usage in any way and it can end up on sites like TheOnion for example.

I'm pretty sure a satire site qualifies as editorial usage.  And, again, licensing is licensing, whether it's "micro" or anything else.

Yes, I've had an editorial pic use on a satire site - it was altered more than I'd have expected to be allowed, but it seemed to be perfectly legitimate use.

« Reply #28 on: April 12, 2016, 06:15 »
0
Its like said indeed. It doesnt matter the fact if a image is RM of RF. Shutterstock has a large collection of RF editorial photos. You could also sell other photos for editorial use only on SS as RF. Alamy will soon introduce also editorial use only RF.

License doesnt matter it is all about what you agree with your client.

Mirco

« Reply #29 on: April 13, 2016, 16:06 »
0
Thanks for all the input.  I guess what I'm saying with RM compared to RF is that if I license an RM image through Alamy we're talking a few sales at max in the lifetime of it, compared to 100's or 1000's or more if we go with RF at SS.  I had no idea that satire sites could use editorial images.  If that is correct and legal, that's crazy!  So, a satire site could put up a photo of an Apple store and says that Apple is being sued for millions of dollars in a sexual harassment lawsuit and Apple would be ok with that because it's "editorial"?!  False journalism and satire is not an editorial use.  If Alamy and SS allow that, then the whole editorial license in general has a major flaw that needs to be fixed.  There would be a major lawsuit if a newspaper did that, why is it different being a satire site?  And how is that editorial if they are not reporting news?  They are creating fictional work for comedy and shock value, how is that a news usage?

« Reply #30 on: April 13, 2016, 16:09 »
0
Thanks for all the input.  I guess what I'm saying with RM compared to RF is that if I license an RM image through Alamy we're talking a few sales at max in the lifetime of it, compared to 100's or 1000's or more if we go with RF at SS.  I had no idea that satire sites could use editorial images.  If that is correct and legal, that's crazy!  So, a satire site could put up a photo of an Apple store and says that Apple is being sued for millions of dollars in a sexual harassment lawsuit and Apple would be ok with that because it's "editorial"?!  False journalism and satire is not an editorial use.  If Alamy and SS allow that, then the whole editorial license in general has a major flaw that needs to be fixed.  There would be a major lawsuit if a newspaper did that, why is it different being a satire site?  And how is that editorial if they are not reporting news?  They are creating fictional work for comedy and shock value, how is that a news usage?

That's not satire.  That's libel.  Satire is "Apple release iPhone 8.  Nobody cares." or something.

« Reply #31 on: April 13, 2016, 16:11 »
0
Thanks for all the input.  I guess what I'm saying with RM compared to RF is that if I license an RM image through Alamy we're talking a few sales at max in the lifetime of it, compared to 100's or 1000's or more if we go with RF at SS.  I had no idea that satire sites could use editorial images.  If that is correct and legal, that's crazy!  So, a satire site could put up a photo of an Apple store and says that Apple is being sued for millions of dollars in a sexual harassment lawsuit and Apple would be ok with that because it's "editorial"?!  False journalism and satire is not an editorial use.  If Alamy and SS allow that, then the whole editorial license in general has a major flaw that needs to be fixed.  There would be a major lawsuit if a newspaper did that, why is it different being a satire site?  And how is that editorial if they are not reporting news?  They are creating fictional work for comedy and shock value, how is that a news usage?

That's not satire.  That's libel.  Satire is "Apple release iPhone 8.  Nobody cares." or something.

Ok, thanks for the clarification!  What about representing someone as a different person, is that satire?  That's what most of photos on the Onion have been.  Like, "this person hates God" but in reality they might be a Christian and that is super offensive.  Stuff like that is satire?

« Reply #32 on: April 13, 2016, 16:17 »
0
From the Alamy license: "Unless otherwise agreed in writing, if any Image/Video is reproduced by you for editorial purposes (i.e. for any non-promotional purpose) you must include the copyright / credit line (Photographer's or Agency's name)/Alamy stock photo, or any other copyright / credit line specified by Alamy."

Satire would seem to fall under "non-promotional".

« Reply #33 on: April 13, 2016, 17:17 »
0
If I hired a wedding photographer who then sold my photos on without my permission I would be extremely annoyed and never recommend him to anybody else.

i would not just be annoyed, i would get a class action suit and put them out of business.

« Reply #34 on: April 13, 2016, 17:25 »
+1
Thanks for all the input.  I guess what I'm saying with RM compared to RF is that if I license an RM image through Alamy we're talking a few sales at max in the lifetime of it, compared to 100's or 1000's or more if we go with RF at SS.  I had no idea that satire sites could use editorial images.  If that is correct and legal, that's crazy!  So, a satire site could put up a photo of an Apple store and says that Apple is being sued for millions of dollars in a sexual harassment lawsuit and Apple would be ok with that because it's "editorial"?!  False journalism and satire is not an editorial use.  If Alamy and SS allow that, then the whole editorial license in general has a major flaw that needs to be fixed.  There would be a major lawsuit if a newspaper did that, why is it different being a satire site?  And how is that editorial if they are not reporting news?  They are creating fictional work for comedy and shock value, how is that a news usage?

That's not satire.  That's libel.  Satire is "Apple release iPhone 8.  Nobody cares." or something.

Ok, thanks for the clarification!  What about representing someone as a different person, is that satire?  That's what most of photos on the Onion have been.  Like, "this person hates God" but in reality they might be a Christian and that is super offensive.  Stuff like that is satire?
It might have to go to court but I think it would be satire if it is clearly nonsense if you tried to pass it off as the truth then it could well be libellous....trouble is people increasingly take what is on the "satire" sites as true.........Facebook is turning people into idiots :-\

« Reply #35 on: April 14, 2016, 13:37 »
0
If I hired a wedding photographer who then sold my photos on without my permission I would be extremely annoyed and never recommend him to anybody else.

i would not just be annoyed, i would get a class action suit and put them out of business.

Wow, are you serious?!  First, I clearly explained that a lot of my wedding photography gets used for editorial purposes, and my clients agree to that.  So, I'm not selling photos without a client's permission as they agree to that in the contract.  However, I reward my clients when I do get paid for uses (still editorial, never commercial) and they're super excited about it.  Guess what I'm saying is I'm really glad my clients support my photography and they're happy to have work from their wedding published!  It makes them look good and it justifies the expense they paid for the photography, also shows that others think their wedding (and my photography) was great.  Looks like there are some people who are not into that, they're more into suing legitimate businesses that do things legally, respectfully, and with integrity.  Or maybe you just didn't take the time to read anything before you responded?  Seriously though, before you're ready to jump on the sue train (and against other photographers no less) read a couple of lines, it will take you less than 10min.  Cheers!

« Reply #36 on: April 14, 2016, 13:41 »
0
If I hired a wedding photographer who then sold my photos on without my permission I would be extremely annoyed and never recommend him to anybody else.

i would not just be annoyed, i would get a class action suit and put them out of business.

Wow, are you serious?!  First, I clearly explained that a lot of my wedding photography gets used for editorial purposes, and my clients agree to that.  So, I'm not selling photos without a client's permission as they agree to that in the contract.  However, I reward my clients when I do get paid for uses (still editorial, never commercial) and they're super excited about it.  Guess what I'm saying is I'm really glad my clients support my photography and they're happy to have work from their wedding published!  It makes them look good and it justifies the expense they paid for the photography, also shows that others think their wedding (and my photography) was great.  Looks like there are some people who are not into that, they're more into suing legitimate businesses that do things legally, respectfully, and with integrity.  Or maybe you just didn't take the time to read anything before you responded?  Seriously though, before you're ready to jump on the sue train (and against other photographers no less) read a couple of lines, it will take you less than 10min.  Cheers!

my point isn't directed at you; at least not directly.
the point being, weddings are something personal, and the last thing i expect, or anyone hiring someone to shoot at their wedding is to expect you to not use it for other usage.
stock photographers do have wedding shots, but most of it i am sure are simulated.
lastly, you  assumptionly  are being paid , right??? for the wedding?
isn't that enough ??? .. as opposed to opening let your clients images to be used
at the risk of abuse. 
i would never give any of my studio and wedding shots away for stock.
but then again, i separate myself between what i give to stock and what i get from local contracts.

my point lastly being, if you value your reputation as a local photographer,
i'd do the same thing... instead of opening your contract work to microstock or whatver.
you are shooting "work for hire" aren't you???
work for hire is being paid and where the person paying you owns the rights.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2016, 13:44 by etudiante_rapide »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
24 Replies
5858 Views
Last post October 10, 2008, 11:01
by nativelight
0 Replies
884 Views
Last post August 25, 2010, 17:02
by Artmyth
12 Replies
3526 Views
Last post April 06, 2011, 17:42
by donding
6 Replies
2326 Views
Last post August 01, 2012, 05:58
by ShadySue
5 Replies
2199 Views
Last post September 13, 2016, 09:37
by Minsc

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results