Home > Contributors > Blog

Blog

Contributor contract terminated after model release issue

Permalink Comments (28)25 February 2008 at 17:20 by Alan Capel
Posted under News

We were recently contacted by a member of the public who had seen himself on an image appearing on Alamy. The gentleman involved was concerned to see that the image was marked as 'Model Release: YES' when he was adamant that he had not signed a release.

We removed the image from the site pending further investigation. Upon contacting the contributor who had supplied the image, his response was that he hadn't got a release but was maybe hoping to track the person down later.

Given that the contributor had knowingly provided false information we felt we had no choice but to terminate the contract of the contributor and remove all of their images with immediate effect.

We are seeking to gain more of a foothold in the commercial market where there is greater sensitivity to the need for releases. By providing the new annotation tools we are giving contributors the opportunity to make their images available to this market if they meet the necessary requirements.

We take breaches of the contributor agreement very seriously but we also want to stress that by providing correct release information you are protecting yourselves against any legal action.

Top

Add your own commentComments (28)

  1. 25 February 2008 at 17:37 Steve



    A tough stance but hopefully it will make other contributors much more careful/honest.

    It is possible to "mis-key" the various tick boxes - hopefully more than 1 of this contributors images were suspect.

    Maybe time to cull some of the RF airline images too that show full branding logo colour schemes - ie BA , Easyjet too


    Cheers

  2. 25 February 2008 at 17:45 Jaybee

    Well done Alamy. Good start. Clear out the people falsely claiming releases who make a mockery of the declaration boxes for the rest of us who abide by the rules.

    Unfortunately Agencies seem to be the main culprits of "tick it all" fever.

    Especially on Property Releases.

    How about taking a look at the 168 images of the Eiffel tower that are apparently "property released" for a start...

  3. 25 February 2008 at 18:07 IanMurray

    I'm pleased that Alamy is starting to make a stand. I feel that there are other areas of real concern as discussed on the forum especially in terms of trust in the commercial marketplace.

    There are many of us who are grateful and appreciative of Alamy and I hate to see it being taken for granted and even worse taken advantage of.

    Sorry if that sounds a bit creepy or precious but it's what I genuinely feel.

    I'd predict a fairly intense period of contributor housekeeping in the next few days!

  4. 25 February 2008 at 23:12 JP

    Yes - Good. No false declarations - it should be made clear that liability rests with the photographer if false release claims are made.

  5. 26 February 2008 at 10:37 Clive Rowley

    "I'd predict a fairly intense period of contributor housekeeping in the next few days!"

    The point is that you have to ACTIVELY put a model or property release in, and good housekeeping should prevent a wrong click.

    But deliberately deceiving is unforgiveable. But I guess we all have done the wrong click at times. The only way to be sure is to check all our MR images and that's where the good housekeeping comes in.

  6. 26 February 2008 at 10:45 Clive Rowley

    Oh dear! I found one! (Embarrassed red face) Now changed.

  7. 26 February 2008 at 12:31 Robert Stainforth

    I found two errors in my collection, now corrected!

  8. 26 February 2008 at 16:21 Ronnie mcmillan

    Thought I'd just check ... not that I expected to find anything of course. But oh my! I found one too! Don't feel so smug now. Thanks for the reminder Alamy. A useful task added to my housekeeping list.

  9. 26 February 2008 at 16:47 Ian m butterfield

    After checking mine - I discovered that apparently my cat had signed a model release form!

    I changed it immediately because if the cat could work out how to call a lawyer, he'd definately sue me for every last packet of cat food and every piece of string I owned!

    Thanks, Alamy, for the reminder.

  10. 26 February 2008 at 18:04 Derek vallintine

    What about silhouettes and landscapes with people in them? With both examples the people cannot be identified so I didn't bother with a model release. Do I tick the box with "No People" or just ignore the page/boxes?. Please advise

  11. 26 February 2008 at 21:13 ronald weir

    A professional photographer friend of mine was contacted by a Solicitor regarding a photograph of a skier in a brochure. The bill £2500!... for no model release. The skier claimed it had taken them years at great expense to get to that standard and the equipment had cost a lot of money! Ah! now the catch, it was difficult to identify the skier exactly as they were small in the picture, but they claimed that was their ski suitand they skied in this area.. As it was more of a scene rather than a full frame shot the case was dropped after two years. Due mostly to the facts and the skier just trying it on a bit. If you can identify a person without question then you need a release. But be warned some people states side have tried it on and won. Make sure you tick the correct boxes and cross the T's as well. Take your time, the law is there and they will use it. Well done Alamy, honesty goes a long way.
    Info from a professional photographer

  12. 27 February 2008 at 09:38 bob croxford

    I once had a very small figure in the distance of a beach shot. 4 people claimed to be the person but they all identified the wrong beach.

  13. 27 February 2008 at 13:03 José elias

    Excellent action!

    Still, I agree that a mistake can be made when checking the boxes.

    A way to avoid this would be for alamy to demand the attachement of the MR /PR to each image where the YES was checked like many other agencies do.

    I see A LOT of portuguese monuments where a PR is required sold as RF and also claiming they have a PR. I have the strongest doubts most of them have that document.

    Just check the hundreds of the Regaleira Palace images and contact Fundação Cultursintra (which manages the patrimony) to see if they issued any PR...

    I've been trying to get one for my pictures and in conversation the Main Administrator showed very surprised that any images from the palace and gardens are being sold at Stock agencies. The images from this palace are a law action just about to happen. (No, I haven't told where the images are being sold).

    They are extrememly protective and only recently, photos for souveniers were allowed to be taken in certain areas. The restrictions for taking and selling photos are very clear there.

    All of this would avoidable with the MR / PR upload.

    I think that putting the responsibility over the photographers by checking boxes is not enough. Asking for a copy of the documents is not only a greater protection for us and alamy but also a way to defend honest contributors.

    Regards,
    José Elias
    www.fotoelias.com

  14. 27 February 2008 at 21:43 Stan rohrer

    These license defaults should be available in the My Images Defaults page. I would like to set Required and No I Don't Have One as a default for all new images (and during edits of old unspecified images). Most of my images need to be set this way and I would like to avoid a miss-click in the tedious job of updating my image data.

  15. 27 February 2008 at 22:39 Christopher Barnes

    I believe 13. and 14. to be the best way forward, i.e. request all releases where declared and default the tick boxes to be set to "required" and "no release" until they are altered by the contributor. I scan all my releases, and could attach them all to an email with file references on quite quickly.
    I am sure that everybody makes mistakes, but the majority try to be honest. Perhaps if one is found, get a warning and then check some more. Multiple offences should lead to dismissal.
    I do find it difficult sometimes to decide if I should say there are any people, when they are a spot in the distance. It depends on what size they are used as to whether they would be identifiable. Sometimes I say perhaps 4 people when 1 is in the foreground and I can only see the other 3 at full 100% resolution of more than A3! I am trying to err on the side of caution, but when most sales are for 1/8 or even 1/2 page there is no way they are going to be identified as an individual. Perhaps we should have a tick box we declare as "maximum recommended published image size for this image" which might cover us in law for such images? And who can get all model releases for a London street scene with 100 people in it then without an army of assistants?
    Alamy is still developing but I think they are doing a great job. If they can get more commercial sales then that will be great.

  16. 28 February 2008 at 09:05 Paul williamns

    I think the model release question is interesting and has been clear for a number of years now, particularly with street scenes. The more difficult question are property rights. For example, I spent half a day trying to find out English Heritage's policy on property rights. There is nothing at their sites or obvious on their web site. I spoke to 3 departments including the people who organize photo and film shoots on English Heritage site. Nobody gave me an answer, so I am still in the dark especially as the buildings are technically public buildings owned by the nation as are a lot of tourist sites around the world. Is it time for us to collectively produce a reference list maybe in the form of a blog that clarifies know public buildings with property issues. Any thoughts Alamy? .

  17. 28 February 2008 at 20:12 monomo

    http://bankrupt.com/CAR_Public/990615.MBX

    scroll down to the "royalty free" article, about 1/3 of the way down.

  18. 28 February 2008 at 22:14 Simon Stanmore

    If Alamy is to offer the same level of commercial peace of mind as it's larger copmpetitors, every piece of every 'commercial' image will need to be checked at 100% for logo's & trademarks. With the larger distributors even a tiny (almost invisible) instance of one of these is a rejection.
    Obviously contributors supplying digitised copies of releases are also the only way to go.

  19. 29 February 2008 at 09:16 Scott Hortop

    A week or so ago I ticked the 'Vitual CDs' box to take a look at wnat came up on a search on 'London'. There are several RF CDs here where EVERY image has both property and model releases.

    Did the photographer really run out of the crowd to get MR's for those 12 guardsmen, the crowd milling in the station, or a PR for Buckingham Palace?

  20. 29 February 2008 at 16:46 Jorge sanchez

    Also looking at the virtual CDs available for Madrid, one agency claims to have MR's for the paintings of Goya. I wonder how they've managed to get the signature of 200 year old ladies.

  21. 29 February 2008 at 22:35 Patrick ray dunn

    Any photographer that misrepresents an important issue such as a MR is looking for serious trouble--not too bright!

    Patrick Ray Dunn

  22. 01 March 2008 at 08:05 IanMurray

    Other issues. Alamy accepts RF images also on any other site including micros. Some photographers on the forum with 'RF exclusive' micro contracts report posting RF images on sale elsewhere as L on Alamy. Apparently Alamy terms and conditions do not prohibit this. Could the rules be changed to prohibit RF to L cross overs except by explicit Alamy permission.

  23. 01 March 2008 at 08:34 Emil Pozar

    And after all, why not "Alamy exclusive"? I have very most of my images marked as "Image is exclusive to Alamy Ltd" in Description field - because they are so!

  24. 01 March 2008 at 13:02 Tibor Bognar

    This makes me think of the "Does this picture contain a property that needs a release?" button. As many people have pointed out, it's almost impossible to answer this question correctly unless you are a lawyer and make an in-depth analysis of the specific image content and intended use. Last year another agency of mine has sold a big city skyline for a major advertising use and no, I didn't have a release from any of the owners of the many visible buildings. Where do you draw the line? Alamy should realize that this is an impossible and unfair question to answer. A simple "Do you have a property release" should be sufficient. Also, it would be so simple to set the release buttons at "No" as a default to avoid misclicks.....

  25. 05 March 2008 at 04:54 John rocha

    I have a slightly different slant on the property release question though it's mainly a question of wording perhaps. A number of my pictures are of antiques, artworks and so on which are my own property. I haven't bothered to make up a release perhaps I should but all the release forms I know about assume that the photographer is one person and the owner of the property another. It's probably an easy matter but there might be legal angles. Anyone in the same situation with a good solution?

  26. 06 March 2008 at 13:39 Vidra

    A contributor can make an error in uploading a photo.

    Then, if the photographer ask Alamy to detele the photo,

    Alamy HAVE to DELETE the photo IMMEDIATELY, not after 6 mounths!

  27. 18 March 2008 at 08:36 Trevor payne

    Concerning property releases - I expect I like others find it impossible to know which buildings are or or are not subject to property releases so have little option but to declare NO to the question "Does this picture contain property that needs a release" What do others have to say about the question of the property release decalaration?

  28. 02 May 2008 at 18:52 Robert destefano

    Just a question on this issue: If the person is not recognizable (silhouette or person too distant), do we still check that there is a person in the photo with no photo release?

Add your own comment
Means that we require this information. We respect your privacy and store your details securely. See our privacy policy for more.
Security code picture
No picture? Reload page.
No picture? Reload page.