Shooting from non public places

[Guest Stockfotoart]

.

 

[JamesH]

I'm also slightly perplexed by this, Top of The Rock (Rockefeller) in New York clearly states images can't be sold that are taken from the top, yet I have seen probably hundreds on Alamy alone.

[JamesH]

2 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

It is the contributors' responsibility to know that what they upload is allowed. Alamy can't possibly know the rules everywhere. So just because lots of other people have done something does not mean that Alamy has approved what they have done.

 

You know the rules. Your decision and your responsibility.

 

I do realise that, but I would have thought that going through QC there would be a list of main landmarks that are off limits.

 

Anyway, I've not uploaded any from there personally due to the restriction.

[JamesH]

3 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

QC doesn't check anything apart from the technical quality of the image = Quality Control

 

It doesn't do anything else apart from check that. How could the person possibly know what the photographer should know.

 

I see we will go round in circles on this. Yes the photographer should know, but the stock agency should have a little knowledge of well known off limits areas.

[RedSnapper]

Also , QC only actually check a small % of images....not everything is actually eye-balled by a human being...

 

km

[gvallee]

Lots of people keyword after upload. How would QC know where it is?

 

Gen

[Guest Stockfotoart]

.

[Guest Stockfotoart]

 

 

.

[Cryptoprocta]

@OP: good luck getting any sort of answer. I've posted previously about getting permission. Normally, I don't even get replies to requests I make asking for permission, or even if permission is needed, other than one reply which said, 'under no circumstances' (and there are plenty of images on here) and another of an event which said I could submit images, but not of people at the event. Anyway, I had a thread a few months back asking how people managed to get permission, and got few replies apart from one which said it was all about doing a deal, maybe offering photos, but I've tried that and still go no replies.

[Guest Stockfotoart]

.

 

[Essexps]

Isn't this another area where technology and social media is blurring definitions.  There are plenty of people earning revenue from video blogging, much of that seems to be in non public places. What's the difference between taking a still and offering it for Licence on Alamy and putting a videoblog on the net that get thousands of hits and payment to the blogger?  Not sure if it happens yet, but even if you post an image purely for personal use, I suspect that the big tech companies can or are developing the capability to piggy back advertising on it if they recognise the environment?  

 

Also in the UK, there can be problems knowing what is public and non-public property.  Much of Docklands isn't public property and I believe the area round the London Eye isn't either.   

 

As a further thought, I wonder whether in the near future we might begin to see  images where faces and number plates have been blurred - like Google do?  Probably been discussed before, but didn't see any threads when I searched blurred faces.

 

 

[Martin Carlsson]

29 minutes ago, Essexps said:

Isn't this another area where technology and social media is blurring definitions.  There are plenty of people earning revenue from video blogging, much of that seems to be in non public places. What's the difference between taking a still and offering it for Licence on Alamy and putting a videoblog on the net that get thousands of hits and payment to the blogger?  Not sure if it happens yet, but even if you post an image purely for personal use, I suspect that the big tech companies can or are developing the capability to piggy back advertising on it if they recognise the environment?  

 

Also in the UK, there can be problems knowing what is public and non-public property.  Much of Docklands isn't public property and I believe the area round the London Eye isn't either.   

 

As a further thought, I wonder whether in the near future we might begin to see  images where faces and number plates have been blurred - like Google do?  Probably been discussed before, but didn't see any threads when I searched blurred faces.

 

 

 

Of course there are rules how much of copyrighted material you can show, stipulations to follow if on private land/buildings etc., but I think as a whole a vlog falls more under reality, thus editorial. That is my interpretation anyway and I'm no expert. A bit of a conundrum and certainly different in different countries - perhaps someone with more knowledge than my gut knows?

[KTC]

13 hours ago, JamesH said:

 

I see we will go round in circles on this. Yes the photographer should know, but the stock agency should have a little knowledge of well known off limits areas.

 

Alamy simply leave the responsibility to the photographer. The last time they interferred by removing images of UK train stations after complaints by Network Rail ended up with them reinstating the images, after NR backed down on editorial use, and also amongst complaints by photographers here that some of the images removed were taken with authorisation.

[IanDavidson]

This is a difficult and vexed question.  I would, at least in the UK, argue that the word "illegal" does not apply.  With limited exceptions (prevention of terriorism Act etc ), it is not Illegal to take  photos.  However, you may breach "right to family life" or potentially copyright. There may be issues under the Data Protection Act, but is an entire can of worms on its own.  The recourse is in civil law.  The remedies are "limited" to damages and or an injunction to remove the photos.  In the case of the zoo they would argue loss of revenue -  but for a small number of photos the loss would be small.  I an no lawyer, so I am open to correction.  Of course a major issue for us poor photographers is legal costs....  this is what many organisations rely on to scare people.

 

Using the Nasty Trust as an example, the can ask for removal of the images and may threaten legal action - but then what?

[spacecadet]

They can prosecute under the byelaws, effectively for trespass. The fine used to be 40/- but it's probably more now.

Then theoretically a civil case for loss of revenue.

But as I've said before, I don't think they want the byelaw tested in court unless they lose. So they resort to bullying.

Had there ever been a conviction in recent years I think we would have heard about it.

[Trevor Chriss]

17 hours ago, JamesH said:

 

I do realise that, but I would have thought that going through QC there would be a list of main landmarks that are off limits.

 

Anyway, I've not uploaded any from there personally due to the restriction.

How would Alamy know at QC stage where something was photographed? Only if tagged, but I don't tag until after QC, I know many do tag before, pretty sure I am not alone.

In any case, this would surely slow the QC process if all tags had to be read.

[JamesH]

1 hour ago, Trevor Chriss said:

How would Alamy know at QC stage where something was photographed? Only if tagged, but I don't tag until after QC, I know many do tag before, pretty sure I am not alone.

In any case, this would surely slow the QC process if all tags had to be read.

 

I saw my views on this has created a minor debate. I forget that on Alamy you don't apply the releases until after clearing QC so there would be no way to check.

 

BTW, as an aside, a lot of us use reverse image searches for our images, these frequently show similar images and can guesstimate what it is you photographed. I can upload a photo of a cat and it knows it is a cat. Its not improbable for that to be used in an automated fashion to screen images. A few video sites I upload to process videos and suggest tags already. The technology is already available to read image data and extrapolate what it is, even without tags.

 

Anyway, thanks for clarification.

[Joseph Clemson]

3 hours ago, JamesH said:

...A few video sites I upload to process videos and suggest tags already. The technology is already available to read image data and extrapolate what it is, even without tags.

 

Anyway, thanks for clarification.

 

In my experience a lot of the suggested keywords on the sites you mention are no use at all - I don't even bother looking at their suggestions now and just use my own keywords. At Alamy it would be even less use in most cases as the subject of each image and the required keywords are very specific to that location.   Such software technology may recognise a church building but it would not be able to identify the specific location, type of architecture, denomination or any number of other features which I would normally include in keywords.

[Julie Edwards]

Bona-fide Press photographers are often invited to locations / venues such as museums and zoos to cover news stories there. When questioned about images by the content team, I have proof of the invite/ accreditation and the organisation that's complained usually agrees to leave them.