MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Alamy.com => Topic started by: joshuarainey on April 10, 2016, 00:08
-
Just wanted to see if anyone has had any luck with licensing wedding photography as RM on Alamy. This would be strictly as editorial RM since there would be people and no releases. Trying to gauge whether or not it could be worth the effort, as I shoot 30+ weddings per year and have plenty of work published (albeit usually for no pay, just great publicity and often leads to more work) on major wedding blogs and occasionally in print. Thanks!
-
In any case you have to have a record in your service contract signed, that they allow this. Due to work and life of some of my clients it is not possible to publish their wedding photos anywhere. Others don't mind. Mutual respect at first. Partial solution - photos where are no faces shown.
-
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.
-
Yes of course. For example, in the French law it is mentioned that wedding is a public event, but photographer should not abuse or overuse it. For many people simple sharing on social networks is ok, but selling is not, even with a compensation.
-
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'd sue them to smithereens and close them down >:(
-
Agree totally with fotografer and Teddy, and there are other 'issues' with your idea (e.g. you may not be shooting in a 'public' place, everyone would hate you as you took a lot more time1 looking for more 'stocky' places and angles as well as the 'family will love it' shots, etc).
1Word would get round very quickly about how long you took.
But actually, it's all pretty much irrelevant.
You have to ask yourself, how big the market is for 'editorial' rather than 'advertorial' wedding photography.
And note that big budget shooters hire models and venues with releases, get releases for the dress and accessories etc., to shoot 'wedding' shots, so there are 217,759 'wedding' pics on Alamy which claim to be Model released (interestingly, a good number of them don't actually have models in them) and 10,707 which claim to be model and property released.
-
For me model release is a part of a contract. I am not selling wedding photos, but for photographer promotion usage it is necessary and if they sign this option, i can use the photos. May be my contract is big (3 pages of text) and complicated, but it is better to have it.
-
For me model release is a part of a contract. I am not selling wedding photos, but for photographer promotion usage it is necessary and if they sign this option, i can use the photos. May be my contract is big (3 pages of text) and complicated, but it is better to have it.
I would decline any photographer who included something like this. I am hiring them. I am not there to be their next promotional model.
-
It is an option and i have people which signed it and are happy. If not signed then no use. Simple. Between clients also there are real models. And in difference from you i am not so aggressive against "colleagues"
-
It is an option and i have people which signed it and are happy. If not signed then no use. Simple. Between clients also there are real models. And in difference from you i am not so aggressive against "colleagues"
No one is being aggressive just stating the obvious issues of selling photos of a couples special day.
Don't forget microstock images can be used for all sorts of nefarious uses.
-
Read what i wrote above. I keep my opinion. Thanks
-
It is an option and i have people which signed it and are happy. If not signed then no use. Simple. Between clients also there are real models. And in difference from you i am not so aggressive against "colleagues"
It wasn't "aggressive". It was a simple statement. I could be aggressive if you want me to be.
-
I expressed my opinion, don't see a reason to change it. This discussion is not interesting anymore. It is going out of discussion of legal agreements between clients, models, photographers, agreed usages etc. Good night
-
Sweet dreams.
-
For me model release is a part of a contract. I am not selling wedding photos, but for photographer promotion usage it is necessary and if they sign this option, i can use the photos. May be my contract is big (3 pages of text) and complicated, but it is better to have it.
I would decline any photographer who included something like this. I am hiring them. I am not there to be their next promotional model.
I wouldn't use the material for stock sales unless I worked out an agreement with the couple before hand even if the contract allowed for it. But as for promo work, it's near impossible to get a future gig as a wedding photographer without showing near past work of the exact same type. People spending actual money want to see what style they are buying and showing promo work is the only way to achieve this.
-
Sounds like an abuse of trust. I'm not sure that any young couple would want you to further capitalize on their images of a very personal and ultimately intimate affair (wedding, duh...) let alone the images of their friends for sale to the general public. Frankly I'd be embarrassed to even ask such a question on a public forum...
You got paid for a job, so do that job. The rest of the photos should never see the light of day outside of the immediate family circle which hired you in the first place...
Common decency still exists right???
-
For me model release is a part of a contract. I am not selling wedding photos, but for photographer promotion usage it is necessary and if they sign this option, i can use the photos. May be my contract is big (3 pages of text) and complicated, but it is better to have it.
I would decline any photographer who included something like this. I am hiring them. I am not there to be their next promotional model.
I wouldn't use the material for stock sales unless I worked out an agreement with the couple before hand even if the contract allowed for it. But as for promo work, it's near impossible to get a future gig as a wedding photographer without showing near past work of the exact same type. People spending actual money want to see what style they are buying and showing promo work is the only way to achieve this.
You should realise there is a world of difference between having sample photos in your portfolio for display on your website or as part of a catalogue and selling photos on the free for all that is microstock.
-
For me model release is a part of a contract. I am not selling wedding photos, but for photographer promotion usage it is necessary and if they sign this option, i can use the photos. May be my contract is big (3 pages of text) and complicated, but it is better to have it.
I would decline any photographer who included something like this. I am hiring them. I am not there to be their next promotional model.
I wouldn't use the material for stock sales unless I worked out an agreement with the couple before hand even if the contract allowed for it. But as for promo work, it's near impossible to get a future gig as a wedding photographer without showing near past work of the exact same type. People spending actual money want to see what style they are buying and showing promo work is the only way to achieve this.
You should realise there is a world of difference between having sample photos in your portfolio for display on your website or as part of a catalogue and selling photos on the free for all that is microstock.
I honestly thought that's what I said. Okay to use as promotional work to acquire future jobs of a similar nature, not okay to use as stock sales.
-
Wow you guys really went for it on this one, huh?! I have a line in my contract that expressly says photos can be used for editorial purposes. A lot of my wedding photography gets published, with permission from the couple of course. This would not be microstock, as I said RM not RF. With no release and people involved Alamy would only license RM as editorial. I'm not abusing trust here, I'm promoting my work, and my clients that agree to have work from their wedding published are very very excited about it. Yes common decency still exists... Sheesh!
-
This would not be microstock, as I said RM not RF. With no release and people involved Alamy would only license RM as editorial. I'm not abusing trust here, I'm promoting my work, and my clients that agree to have work from their wedding published are very very excited about it.
Not sure what the "this would not be microstock" has anything to do with. Licensing their likeness as stock content is licensing, regardless. Editorial still allows a usage like "50% of married couples get divorced". But, as long as they're good with it.
-
This would not be microstock, as I said RM not RF. With no release and people involved Alamy would only license RM as editorial. I'm not abusing trust here, I'm promoting my work, and my clients that agree to have work from their wedding published are very very excited about it.
Not sure what the "this would not be microstock" has anything to do with. Licensing their likeness as stock content is licensing, regardless. Editorial still allows a usage like "50% of married couples get divorced". But, as long as they're good with it.
People were acting like I was licensing the work as RF for commercial use. 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 and it relates to my point. I'm not asking if it would be a good idea or if anyone has had any success licensing wedding images as RF editorial content on Shutterstock.
However, that being said, absolutely nobody has chimed in with any meaningful answers as to my original question. Everyone went into the legality and morality of the issue which is no concern to me considering my clients want work from their weddings published (for the most part, and those that don't would not be in this...).
-
i just updated my wedding photo contract this week.
I put in a bonus to the couple, 5% off your photo quote if bride and groom sign a commercial model release, and 1% off for each additional person in the wedding party that signs a commercial release to a maximum of 10% savings. just an idea for you as you move into a new wedding season.
I think genuine wedding photos can have real value. I also shoot weddings but so far have only submitted images of the cakes bouquets and rings to any agency so I can't comment on the real portraits and their sales..
I see a lot of individuals who submit the portraits with cutting off faces at the neck. whether or not they sell - i don't know. I just got married in september and I specifically made sure my photographer wouldn't be putting a 100 image gallery even on Facebook of our day as we lean more towards privacy.
why not just go back to the couples you've photographed for and ask them straight up? maybe use it as an incentive to throw in a 1-year anniversary mini photo session. ;) i don't know. good luck!
-
i just updated my wedding photo contract this week.
I put in a bonus to the couple, 5% off your photo quote if bride and groom sign a commercial model release, and 1% off for each additional person in the wedding party that signs a commercial release to a maximum of 10% savings. just an idea for you as you move into a new wedding season.
I think genuine wedding photos can have real value. I also shoot weddings but so far have only submitted images of the cakes bouquets and rings to any agency so I can't comment on the real portraits and their sales..
I see a lot of individuals who submit the portraits with cutting off faces at the neck. whether or not they sell - i don't know. I just got married in september and I specifically made sure my photographer wouldn't be putting a 100 image gallery even on Facebook of our day as we lean more towards privacy.
why not just go back to the couples you've photographed for and ask them straight up? maybe use it as an incentive to throw in a 1-year anniversary mini photo session. ;) i don't know. good luck!
Thanks for the input! 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 constantly have people that comment on social media about how they see my work somewhere big and they think I've earned a ton of money for it. I don't want that to start happening with weddings too. But, for RM editorial work I'd be happy to have a license that helps get my name out there and gains exposure for my work, while getting paid a little. What are your thoughts on that? And how many weddings do you shoot? (or what percentage of your income comes from weddings?) Weddings are the bulk of my business so I want to make sure that is first and foremost, as well as clients being happy to find out one of their images was licensed, rather than upset when they find it on a spoof site...
-
Thanks for the input! 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 constantly have people that comment on social media about how they see my work somewhere big and they think I've earned a ton of money for it. I don't want that to start happening with weddings too. But, for RM editorial work I'd be happy to have a license that helps get my name out there and gains exposure for my work, while getting paid a little. What are your thoughts on that? And how many weddings do you shoot? (or what percentage of your income comes from weddings?) Weddings are the bulk of my business so I want to make sure that is first and foremost, as well as clients being happy to find out one of their images was licensed, rather than upset when they find it on a spoof site...
oh I see, that makes a bit more sense to me now, especially about not wanting your images to show up on somewhere like the onion. I have no idea how well RM does in general, let alone how well a particular subject matter like weddings would do, so I think I am little help to you on that note. If it were me though, I'd just approach each couple you've photographed and get their thoughts on the matter, then you're covering your bases. but If you already had something in your contracts that allowed for that kind of usage then I'd probably just move forward with it since they've already agreed to it.. weddings and real estate are about 50/50 for me with a few things like microstock and art prints filling in the blanks, so you're probably more of a dedicated wedding photog than I am from the sounds of it.
-
I didn't plan to sell wedding photos, but i have a couple which signed releases for online selling. Luckily, they were people which know about photo stocks. For now i used these photos only for our presentation. Updated contract to give a space for notes on every option. With more space taken it looks like more clear and simple.
-
[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
"(Photographer’s or Agency’s 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 ...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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".
-
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.
-
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 :-\
-
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!
-
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.