Author Topic: Getty: why does this photo not need a release? (Read 17220 times)

ShadySue · « **on:** October 01, 2012, 07:00 »

I realise it's considered invidious to single out individual images, but I can't see how I can ask this question otherwise. Plus, this photo is in iStock's HotShots newsletter which popped into my inbox a couple of minutes ago:
http://tinyurl.com/9c4rr9d
It's from Getty's Flickr collection. There are two people in the photo. I can't zoom in to see how recogniseable they are, but surely at least they are 'recogniseable by context'.
But the Release information says: "No release, but this image does not require a release. This image is available for commercial use."
Is it just 'different rules' for Getty RF than iStock RF (non-editorial)?

CD123 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 01, 2012, 08:06 »

Can not really make out the faces, but considering the feedback from other sites which indicate that if the person in the photo can recognize him/herself (thus even from the back), you need a release, this should at least fall within that category.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 01, 2012, 08:23 »

Why not ask them, there is a live chat button on that page.

RT · « **Reply #3 on:** October 01, 2012, 11:35 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 01, 2012, 07:00

It's from Getty's Flickr collection. There are two people in the photo. I can't zoom in to see how recogniseable they are, but surely at least they are 'recogniseable by context'.
But the Release information says: "No release, but this image does not require a release. This image is available for commercial use."
Is it just 'different rules' for Getty RF than iStock RF (non-editorial)?

Without using - "Because other stock agencies require a release for this photo to be used commercially" or similar context, explain to me why you believe this photo (or any with people in it) must require a model release to be used commercially, whether obtained via Getty or any other website.

CD123 · « **Reply #4 on:** October 01, 2012, 18:42 »

Quote from: RT on October 01, 2012, 11:35

Without using - "Because other stock agencies require a release for this photo to be used commercially" or similar context, explain to me why you believe this photo (or any with people in it) must require a model release to be used commercially, whether obtained via Getty or any other website.

Not sure if I understand you correctly. Do you firstly want to change the OP's topic of discussion and secondly do you actually want her to explain to you the need for model releases in general?

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** October 01, 2012, 19:32 »

I see that Article 4.1 of Getty's licencing conditions says:

"4.1 Getty Images will notify Licensee in the Rights and Restrictions if it has obtained a model release and/or a property release for Licensed Material. The warranty and indemnity set forth in Sections 5.1(iv) and 6.1 below are only provided if and when such written notification is given. If no such notification is given, then no such model or property release has been obtained. No releases are generally obtained for Editorial Licensed Material. Licensee acknowledges that some jurisdictions provide legal protection against a person's image, likeness or property being used for commercial purposes when they have not provided a release. Licensee shall be responsible for payment of any amounts that may be due under, and compliance with any other terms of, any applicable collective bargaining agreement(s) (such as Screen Actors Guild in the US) as a result of Licensee’s use of the Licensed Material."

So I guess they're throwing the onus onto the buyer. Except that in the photo referenced, it specifically says, "no release, but the image does not need a release for commercial use", and that's what I'm curious about.

RT · « **Reply #6 on:** October 02, 2012, 11:13 »

Quote from: CD123 on October 01, 2012, 18:42

Quote from: RT on October 01, 2012, 11:35
Without using - "Because other stock agencies require a release for this photo to be used commercially" or similar context, explain to me why you believe this photo (or any with people in it) must require a model release to be used commercially, whether obtained via Getty or any other website.

Not sure if I understand you correctly. Do you firstly want to change the OP's topic of discussion and secondly do you actually want her to explain to you the need for model releases in general?

My point was that most people judge that any photo with a person in it must have a model release in order for it to be used commercially, that is not the case, never has been and never will be unless there is an international law passed specifically about the use of people in commercial photos, which will never happen.

Most people do this because they take policies from stock agencies and confuse this as being some kind of law, which it isn't because there isn't one.

So no I'm not changing the OP's discussion but just wanted to know if the OP realises that the reason Getty may deem this photo to not need a release whereby iStock may do is just because of each individual agencies policy, irrelevant of whether they are under the same umbrella or not.

I've said many many times before do not take any agencies policy on model releases as law because there is no law regarding model releases. Agencies each apply their own policy to suit their own individual requirements.

A model release is just an indication that the person in question was aware of the purposes for which the photo was taken, a photo without a model release can (in most circumstances) quite legally be used for commercial purposes, and millions of such instances happen every single day.

ShadySue · « **Reply #7 on:** October 02, 2012, 11:41 »

Quote from: RT on October 02, 2012, 11:13

So no I'm not changing the OP's discussion but just wanted to know if the OP realises that the reason Getty may deem this photo to not need a release whereby iStock may do is just because of each individual agencies policy, irrelevant of whether they are under the same umbrella or not.

I thought that was covered by "Is it just 'different rules' for Getty RF than iStock RF (non-editorial)?"

RT · « **Reply #8 on:** October 02, 2012, 14:57 »

So what is the point of your thread or question, someone other than you has uploaded a photo to Getty without a release and Getty has deemed that they can license it for commercial use without a model release.
Are you intending to license it?
Or if you intend to upload a similar photo to iStock follow their policy, if it's to Getty follow theirs, I just don't understand what you're trying to achieve by asking this question which I answered for you by pointing out each and every agency can ask for whatever they want.

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** October 02, 2012, 15:18 »

I'm asking for an explanation, because I'm apparently too thick to work it out for myself, about the discrepancy between:
"Licensee acknowledges that some jurisdictions provide legal protection against a person's image, likeness or property being used for commercial purposes when they have not provided a release."
and
"This photograph does not need a license and is available for commercial use."
Is it as simple as "India is not a jurisdiction that privides that legal protection?
It's a simple question. I don't understand why you're being so hostile about it.
Obviously if I was going to license it, I'd as Getty myself.
It's a purely academic question, I'm trying to understand. If you find it offensive, just ignore the thread.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #10 on:** October 02, 2012, 15:20 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on October 01, 2012, 08:23

Why not ask them, there is a live chat button on that page.

Like I said before why not spend 5 minutes using the live chat and ask them?

CD123 · « **Reply #11 on:** October 02, 2012, 15:36 »

Quote from: RT on October 02, 2012, 11:13

.... as law because there is no law regarding model releases. Agencies each apply their own policy to suit their own individual requirements.

Wow, what a far reaching legal statement! There is just about half the world's lawyers in more that half the world's countries who will find your statement quite humorous, as they are constantly involved in legal battles, defending their client's RIGHT to privacy, which are based on COMMON LAW principles or some ACT of their GOVERNMENT or STARRE DECISIS (findings of higher courts they are bound to - normally also referred to as LAW).
Do you really think the agencies make up these rules just to annoy contributors?

ShadySue · « **Reply #12 on:** October 02, 2012, 15:44 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on October 02, 2012, 15:20

Quote from: traveler1116 on October 01, 2012, 08:23
Why not ask them, there is a live chat button on that page.

Like I said before why not spend 5 minutes using the live chat and ask them?

Because I'm not a buyer, and have no intention of becoming one at this stage. Besides, I'd probably just get whatever answer came into the head of the person I was 'chatting' to, like certain other spupport people. (have you seen this thread? http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=347703&page=1

traveler1116 · « **Reply #13 on:** October 02, 2012, 16:09 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 02, 2012, 15:44

Besides, I'd probably just get whatever answer came into the head of the person I was 'chatting' to...

You think you'll get a more reliable answer from here?

ShadySue · « **Reply #14 on:** October 02, 2012, 16:15 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 02, 2012, 15:18

I'm asking for an explanation, because I'm apparently too thick to work it out for myself, about the discrepancy between:
"Licensee acknowledges that some jurisdictions provide legal protection against a person's image, likeness or property being used for commercial purposes when they have not provided a release."
and
"This photograph does not need a license and is available for commercial use."
Is it as simple as "India is not a jurisdiction that provides that legal protection?
It's a simple question. I don't understand why you're being so hostile about it.
Obviously if I was going to license it, I'd ask Getty myself.
It's a purely academic question, I'm trying to understand. If you find it offensive, just ignore the thread.

Suljo · « **Reply #15 on:** October 02, 2012, 16:50 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 01, 2012, 07:00

I realise it's considered invidious to single out individual images, but I can't see how I can ask this question otherwise. Plus, this photo is in iStock's HotShots newsletter which popped into my inbox a couple of minutes ago:
http://tinyurl.com/9c4rr9d
It's from Getty's Flickr collection. There are two people in the photo. I can't zoom in to see how recogniseable they are, but surely at least they are 'recogniseable by context'.
But the Release information says: "No release, but this image does not require a release. This image is available for commercial use."
Is it just 'different rules' for Getty RF than iStock RF (non-editorial)?

Maybe photographer knows that this individuals are dead now, few seconds after shoot because he see how guy on bike fall down and kill both of them. So dead persons dont need MR.
Anyhow WB is total Off in yellow cast and black is without any detail and also nothing is in focus because of camera shake and shoot is just snapshot vulgaris.

cathyslife · « **Reply #16 on:** October 02, 2012, 18:13 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on October 02, 2012, 16:09

Quote from: ShadySue on October 02, 2012, 15:44
Besides, I'd probably just get whatever answer came into the head of the person I was 'chatting' to...
You think you'll get a more reliable answer from here?

I don't know if Shady Sue thinks an answer from here would be more reliable, but after reading what some admins answer on all the sites, I'm gonna say that I put just as much stock in answers from some people here as I do from them.

I think it's like a case of the "not everyone has to abide by the same rules", just like at istock, just like at DT, and just like at every other agency. Certain people get perks that "regular" contributors don't. Of course agencies' policies are not law, but they are if you want to upload there and I don't see how that image can be licensed commercial without the proper releases.

So I can understand why Sue is asking the question.

RT · « **Reply #17 on:** October 02, 2012, 18:46 »

Quote from: CD123 on October 02, 2012, 15:36

Quote from: RT on October 02, 2012, 11:13
.... as law because there is no law regarding model releases. Agencies each apply their own policy to suit their own individual requirements.
Wow, what a far reaching legal statement! There is just about half the world's lawyers in more that half the world's countries who will find your statement quite humorous, as they are constantly involved in legal battles, defending their client's RIGHT to privacy, which are based on COMMON LAW principles or some ACT of their GOVERNMENT or STARRE DECISIS (findings of higher courts they are bound to - normally also referred to as LAW).
Do you really think the agencies make up these rules just to annoy contributors?

As you seem so well versed in the subject please refer me any single law in any country throughout the world that mentions or defines a 'model release', and a legal definition of when a photo to be used for commercial use requires one.
It's not just me that will be amazed, but so will every single stock agency in the world because then they could all have the exact same policy and folks such as Shadysue wouldn't need to ask questions like this, of course if you're too busy just ask any of 'half the worlds lawyers' you refer to.

RT · « **Reply #18 on:** October 02, 2012, 19:13 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 02, 2012, 15:18

I'm asking for an explanation, because I'm apparently too thick to work it out for myself, about the discrepancy between:
"Licensee acknowledges that some jurisdictions provide legal protection against a person's image, likeness or property being used for commercial purposes when they have not provided a release."
and
"This photograph does not need a license and is available for commercial use."
Is it as simple as "India is not a jurisdiction that provides that legal protection?
It's a simple question. I don't understand why you're being so hostile about it.
Obviously if I was going to license it, I'd as Getty myself.
It's a purely academic question, I'm trying to understand. If you find it offensive, just ignore the thread.

Sorry I wasn't meaning to be hostile or to imply that you're thick, I was just trying to get you to understand that there is no international law that defines when or where a persons representation can or cannot be used in a photo for commercial use, just as there is no international standard model release and just as there is no standard policy requirement between agencies - hence you'll find that each agency has different policies that define when a release is required, whether a person needs to be recognisable or not, what defines recognisable. Is there was such a law or standard definition then every agency would have the same policy and we'd all be clear as to when and what.

In the part of Getty's T&C's that you highlighted they have outlined just that, or in others words/to simplify it, what they're trying to say is - 'We don't know how or where you're going to use this image and as each country has different laws it's impossible for us to say whether you'd need a release or not, so it's down to you to check'

Any agencies prime concern is to cover their backsides where possible, which is why an agency such as iStock, who don't have legally trained reviewers and who has a high number of amateur contributors, find the need to have a broader requirement for when a release is required, even so they have a more definitive policy than some . Alamy for instance have the policy that if any part of a person is in a photo they need a release for it to be used commercially, most probably because they don't individually check each and every upload.

So the answer to your question in the title of this thread - Getty: why does this photo not need a release? - (and the reason I asked you to try and work it out yourself) is - It does, It doesn't, It depends. i.e. There can't be an answer because there isn't a standard to base an answer on.

CD123 · « **Reply #19 on:** October 03, 2012, 00:57 »

@RT. Congratulations, your last post to ShadySue is a remarkable improvement on your previous sweeping statements about "no law", with replacing it with "no standard" law. Else your statement was like:
"There are no law and no international law about throwing bricks from high buildings. Tell me why I may not throw bricks from the Empire State."
Model Releases are not governed by a law on its own (like throwing bricks of high buildings). These releases falls under the bigger umbrella of the right to be treated with integrity and the right to privacy.
Examples: http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q113.html (if you are American) and you will find in every country Acts and Common Law (you can look it up yourself, a forum is not suited to summarize 500 page textbooks).
Your newly found insight in your last post did a lot taking the humor out of your previous legal outspokenness.

RT · « **Reply #20 on:** October 03, 2012, 03:32 »

Quote from: CD123 on October 03, 2012, 00:57

@RT. Congratulations, your last post to ShadySue is a remarkable improvement on your previous sweeping statements about "no law", with replacing it with "no standard" law. Else your statement was like:
"There are no law and no international law about throwing bricks from high buildings. Tell me why I may not throw bricks from the Empire State."
Model Releases are not governed by a law on its own (like throwing bricks of high buildings). These releases falls under the bigger umbrella of the right to be treated with integrity and the right to privacy.
Examples: http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q113.html (if you are American) and you will find in every country Acts and Common Law (you can look it up yourself, a forum is not suited to summarize 500 page textbooks).
Your newly found insight in your last post did a lot taking the humor out of your previous legal outspokenness.

No no congratulations to you for an (flawed) attempt to save face. I would go as far to say I'm glad you've finally got it because you said "Model Releases are not governed by a law on its own", but your 'brick' law comment clearly indicates that you haven't.

FTR I haven't replaced my "no law" with "no standard law" so I'll say it again there is no law (international or otherwise) on model releases. And if you read what I said again you'll see I was saying there is no standard definition of a model release or when one is required.

"There are no law and no international law about throwing bricks from high buildings. Tell me why I may not throw bricks from the Empire State."

Ummm whilst I do not admit to being an expert, could I point out to you that there probably is no 'Throwing bricks from high buildings' law, and you could go ahead and throw a brick from the Empire State - however the very act of doing so may mean you have broken other laws, but you wouldn't be charged under the 'Throwing bricks from high buildings' law you'd most likely be charged for: 'Illegal Trespass' if you weren't meant to be there, 'Assault' if your brick hit someone causing them injury, 'Criminal damage' if it landed on a car or other building and 'Theft' if it wasn't your brick. But if it was your brick, you had permission to do so and it landed nice and safely there's no law to stop you, in fact builders around the world do it each and every single day I expect.

I really can't put it any clearer than that, there is no 'model release law' or 'selling photos of people for commercial use law' international or country specific, but there are many laws that may cover the consequence of doing so, because of that photo agencies try to safeguard themselves by setting up their own policies and uploading rules along with putting the onus on the buyer, but these are not law just their opinion - hence they differ from agency to agency.

My whole reason for replying to Shadysue in the first place was because I feared she'd fallen into the trap that a lot of people do by taking what a certain agency has said about model releases and deeming that to be law, it isn't, I bet if you ask a number of microstock contributors what the law is regarding 'recognisable person' they'll reply along the lines of "if you can recognise yourself in a photo......." which is complete and utter rubbish as a lot of countries have the 'third party' requirement. The best and only advice that any contributor needs is - If you don't fully understand about model/property releases just comply with the requirements for the individual agency you're uploading to at the time and ignore that it may be different to another one.

CD123 · « **Reply #21 on:** October 03, 2012, 06:09 »

People have rights to walk safely underneath a building. They had the right before you throw a stone from the building (even if there is no clear standard or international law about it). If you hit someone, there will be cause for damages. People have a right to privacy. If you take a picture of them and sell it they have the right to sue you. That is a legal principle (LAW) applied in most western (and even other countries).

Quote from: RT on October 03, 2012, 03:32

Ummm whilst I do not admit to being an expert...

Yes (quite an understatement), because you are clearly not. Rather take some nice pictures and just comply to each site's interpretation of what they require to protect themselves against legal claims (as you very wisely pointed out).

ShadySue · « **Reply #22 on:** October 03, 2012, 07:07 »

Quote from: RT on October 03, 2012, 03:32

I bet if you ask a number of microstock contributors what the law is regarding 'recognisable person' they'll reply along the lines of "if you can recognise yourself in a photo......." which is complete and utter rubbish as a lot of countries have the 'third party' requirement.

In fact, the release protects you also from the third party requirement. There's a photo on iStock (at least it was, I can't even remember which it is now) with a woman who looks just like me from the back: hair, shape and way she is sitting. Both my husband and sister were sure it was me. I'm equally sure that the contributor didn't sneak a photo of me and put a different jacket onto me and paste me into a place I've never been. However, in the event of some sort of claim, the release would help show that it wasn't 'me' in the photo.
Though I have to say, I've always wondered what would happen if a claim came to court and the model who had signed the release couldn't be found (moved on, new address/phone/email).

@RT, I think you overthought the reason behind my question. I'm perfectly aware that MR and PR requirements are different between agencies, and have noticed too often that rules don't seem to be applied equally to everyone, at least on iStock. Or that what you're told categorically by the 'resident expert' is a personal opinion, not a policy.

I've posted often that Alamy's rule that even smudged pixels of people in the background must be declared as people is counter-productive, as a buyer who indicates that they want a photo with 1, or with 4+ or however many people in it actually wants to see the people.

OTOH, their rule about leaving it to the client to take the risk is more sensible in other ways. For example: a photo of shops on e.g. Rialto Bridge. It seems highly unlikely that the shop owners would object to such a photo being used in an advert for visiting Venice, so the buyer might decide to take that risk. But on iStock, that would not be an acceptable use of an editorial image (though I've found several similar in-uses of my own editorial photos from iS).

RT · « **Reply #23 on:** October 03, 2012, 09:34 »

Quote from: CD123 on October 03, 2012, 06:09

People have rights to walk safely underneath a building. They had the right before you throw a stone from the building (even if there is no clear standard or international law about it). If you hit someone, there will be cause for damages. People have a right to privacy. If you take a picture of them and sell it they have the right to sue you. That is a legal principle (LAW) applied in most western (and even other countries).
Quote from: RT on October 03, 2012, 03:32
Ummm whilst I do not admit to being an expert...
Yes (quite an understatement), because you are clearly not. Rather take some nice pictures and just comply to each site's interpretation of what they require to protect themselves against legal claims (as you very wisely pointed out).

I really have no idea what you are going on about, when have I or anybody else ever said that people don't have rights, whether it be walking under a building or having a photo taken of them. Is English your native language?

RT · « **Reply #24 on:** October 03, 2012, 09:39 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 03, 2012, 07:07

Quote from: RT on October 03, 2012, 03:32
I bet if you ask a number of microstock contributors what the law is regarding 'recognisable person' they'll reply along the lines of "if you can recognise yourself in a photo......." which is complete and utter rubbish as a lot of countries have the 'third party' requirement.
In fact, the release protects you also from the third party requirement. There's a photo on iStock (at least it was, I can't even remember which it is now) with a woman who looks just like me from the back: hair, shape and way she is sitting. Both my husband and sister were sure it was me. I'm equally sure that the contributor didn't sneak a photo of me and put a different jacket onto me and paste me into a place I've never been. However, in the event of some sort of claim, the release would help show that it wasn't 'me' in the photo.
Though I have to say, I've always wondered what would happen if a claim came to court and the model who had signed the release couldn't be found (moved on, new address/phone/email).

That's not the 'third party' requirement I was referring to, I was referring to 'third party identity' like we have in the UK.

But I'm confused by your scenario, if it isn't you and you know it isn't you why would you be taking the photographer or agency to court? And if a 'claim came to court and the model who signed the release couldn't be found' who's making the claim?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Getty: why does this photo not need a release? (Read 17220 times)

ShadySue

CD123

traveler1116

RT

CD123

ShadySue

RT

ShadySue

RT

ShadySue

traveler1116

CD123

ShadySue

traveler1116

ShadySue

Suljo

cathyslife

RT

RT

CD123

RT

CD123

ShadySue

RT

RT

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors