Thomas Kyhn

You were right.

Right. It looks like it isn't included yet (it doesn't show up on the dashboard yet either).

How do you tell if it's a distributor's sale? This is what the summary says: Country: Worldwide; Usage: Editorial; Media: Editorial website; Start: 01-May-2019; End: 01-May-2024 Additional Details: Croatia, Web, One month, Bulk Discount, Flat Rate

A $3.21 sale with a $2.24 deduction – ? (The photo is marked as exclusive.)

$$.

Got one of those too today – though with a 0.61 deduction!

$$.

You may be right that it isn't worth the risk. But I don't quite believe the threat. If you google the the building, you'll find numerous photos of it. There's a series here, for instance: https://www.arkitekturbilleder.dk/bygning/palaegaragerne/ – I doubt that they've paid to photograph the building. Another thing is when I took the photo that's already on Alamy, another guy from the company was working outside the building, and he didn't say anything, apart from hello. In any case, I'd like to know what exactly is legal. The Danish copyright law (§ 24, stk. 3) says that buildings can be depicted freely, also for commercial use. Karnov's Ophavsretsloven med kommentarer – 'The Danish copyright law with commentary' – (I have the 5th edition from 2011, but nothing appears to have changed since then, at least not in this section) only specifies what is included in the category "buildings"; it says nothing about the circumstances under which a photograph was taken. And I haven't been able to find any authoritative information on this anywhere else.

I'm sure you're right that Alamy will remove it if it comes to that. Freedom of panorama isn't mentioned in the Danish copyright law, at least there's no direct reference to the concept; it only says that buildings can be depicted freely, not from where they can be depicted, though obviously there must be certain requirements.

At least it says in the Danish copyright law that you're free to depict buildings.

Thanks for your comments! I forgot to add that I was actually on their property. The building is a parking house, so it's open to the public, but as it's located in a yard behind another building, you need to enter the yard in order to get a proper view of it.

Earlier today when I was taking photos of this building (again), someone from the company who owns the building politely informed me that I would have to pay (335 euro for each fraction of an hour) to photograph the building, otherwise I would be fined by the company if any of the photos were published. Before I ask Alamy to delete the photo I've already uploaded, I just wanted to hear if anyone here has ever been fined for a similar reason? Right away I should imagine that it would be the publisher who would be responsible for not having obtained permission to publish a photo of the building. Any opinions on this?

Probably true for most of them, but I assume some, such as that of #4 (taken from this page), would require permission.

Interesting. Are there any other companies that make lenses like this?

Interesting. I was considering that; perhaps I should give that a try. I've taken a few photos of the US embassy; they always have guards outside, and it generally appears quite forbidding, so I tried to be quick about it – no tripod and tilt-shift lens – and not get too close.