Jump to content

Thomas Kyhn

Verified
  • Content Count

    196
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Thomas Kyhn

  1. $$ Country: WorldwideUsage: Magazines and books, Use in a magazine article (print, digital, electronic), 2,500 circulation, worldwide for 5 years (excludes advertising)Start: 06 September 2019End: 06 September 2024 (Nordic Marine Oil, Frederikshavn, Denmark)
  2. Right. It looks like it isn't included yet (it doesn't show up on the dashboard yet either).
  3. 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
  4. A $3.21 sale with a $2.24 deduction – ? (The photo is marked as exclusive.)
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. At least it says in the Danish copyright law that you're free to depict buildings.
  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  10. Probably true for most of them, but I assume some, such as that of #4 (taken from this page), would require permission.
  11. Interesting. Are there any other companies that make lenses like this?
  12. 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.
  13. Has anyone here had trouble photographing embassy buildings (in Northern/Western Europe)? I'm sure it's fine with most embassies, but some are probably a bit "sensitive" when it comes to strangers taking pictures.
  14. Thanks for your input. Finally, I've made a decision and ordered a ProMediaGear TR344 (from Augenblicke in Germany).
  15. On Flickr, in the rights section, there's a link to this page: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ It says you're free to "Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially", but it's not entirely clear if commercial use is OK without any adaptation. In any case, it says: "You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made". All of this is missing from the photos FP Collections are selling on Alamy.
  16. But a creative commons license doesn't allow you to sell someone else's photos, does it?
  17. The photographer confirmed, he didn't upload the photos to Alamy. Apparently, some of his family photos have been uploaded to Alamy too, and, according to him, Alamy refused to do anything about it.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.