Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi

I'm a new(ish) contributor.

I thought I'd search Alamy to find out how high ranked my images were.

To my surprise I find a photo of my house, with the 'details' bit saying 'Property: no' or similar.

The image was available for all use, not just editorial.

Looking further it appears that quite a few contributors simply choose 'no' when there's a property.

What do people think?

 

(I couldn't insert the image - wouldn't let me!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'no' must mean that the photographer does not have a Property Release.  It would be unlikely to be used commercially without a release.

 

If it was taken from public land then that is fine. If the photographer entered your garden without permission then you have reason to grumble. 

 

I certainly take photos of buildings including private houses, but only from public land. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it was taken from my front drive / garden (private land) in Chelsworth, Suffolk

That doesn't bother me. 

What bothers me a little is that the detail states that there are no identifiable properties in the shot.

Not a big deal but it made me wonder how honest contributors are.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're using windows on a desktop you can just drag the photo from one tab directly into your post.

 

Pretty amazing you found your own house by chance. As far as marking property, I err on the side of caution more than most photographers here at Alamy and use editorial if I'm not sure, but there seems to be a difference depending on whether your home is isolated in the photo - was the subject of the photo, or is just seen on a street in a row of homes for instance.

 

Also, if you're referring to the Release section of the photo information under the photographic, the "property: no" refers to whether there was a release filled out or not. They're not saying there isn't property, but saying there is but they don't have a release for it.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Sounds like its one of my photos if it's the pink historic cottage that you walk past going to and from the church. My understanding was that this is a public footpath crossing your property. 

 

I obviously don't have a Property Release for it and don't claim to have one. Therefore it would be unlikely for it to be used commercially ( advertising products) but could be used to illustrate what an attractive pink-wash historic house in Chelsworth, Suffolk looks like. I'm assuming that it is Tudor - is that right?

 

A lovely house and a lovely village. I enjoyed photographing the church.

 

 

Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s the one. It’s from 1300, so a bit earlier.

I’m very privileged to live there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My house in Shottisham is from approx 1830s so not as interesting or as beautiful as yours.  I have a few pics of it on Alamy - as I am the owner I can indicate that there is a PR available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chris Cullen said:

it was taken from my front drive / garden (private land) in Chelsworth, Suffolk

 

Next time you see Ian in your front garden, I suggest you set the dogs on him...

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, John Morrison said:

 

Next time you see Ian in your front garden, I suggest you set the dogs on him...

 

 

I found this :

 

 

VISITING

It is easy to spot the church as you travel along the B1115, but what isn't at all obvious is how to get there. There is no signposted drive, and no obvious footpath. I ended up parking some distance away and walking along the road until I came to the drive leading to The Grange. 

There didn't seem to be any other way to reach the church, so with some trepidation I walked down the drive, passed directly in front of The Grange's front door, and found myself in the churchyard. I would imagine that residents of The Grange get used to people walking past their door to explore the church!

 

And this:  https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5440605

Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like your florals. I might suggest that you tag them a bit more in depth. 

Use the common name and the scientific name in your caption and location. Repeat the names again in your tags. 

I might say:

weeping willow, (scientific name) growing in an urban setting in Wichita, Kansas, USA.

 

I search wiki to give me a starting place, then investigate further until I feel I have the ID nailed down. More often than not, my botanicals are searched by scientific name only. If you leave those out, your image will not be seen.

 

Symphytum is a genus of flowering plants in the borage familyBoraginaceae. There are up to 35 species,[1] known by the common name comfrey (pronounced /ˈkʌmfri/). Some species and hybrids, particularly S. officinale and S. × uplandicum, are used in gardening and herbal medicine. They are not to be confused with Cynoglossum virginianum, known as wild comfrey, another member of the borage family.[2]

 

Betty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Chris Cullen said:

it was taken from my front drive / garden (private land)

 

14 hours ago, geogphotos said:

If the photographer entered your garden without permission then you have reason to grumble. 

 

I'm, intrigued.

 

So Chris... did Ian Murray trespass on your land (giving you reason to grumble) or was it as he says, a public footpath???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feels a bit like I'm on trial here! 😊

 

Perhaps Chris will let me have a signed PR as a reward?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tony said:

 

 

I'm, intrigued.

 

So Chris... did Ian Murray trespass on your land (giving you reason to grumble) or was it as he says, a public footpath???

It's private land.

It's not actually a footpath, though people think it might be.

There is a way leave right of access for visitors to the church.

I never intended to create a fuss. I won't shoot Ian or set the dogs on him.

Just wondered what the 'Property: no' thing meant. Now I know!

Ian is welcome to visit again (......perhaps not in his shesh)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see there is a sign saying "to the church"- you may find that a right of way has arisen by usage unless you put up a disclaimer. It only takes 20 years.

What's a shesh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a shesh if the wound fabric head gear of the Bedouin tribesmen that it looks like he's wearing in his profile pic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

deleted

Edited by Niels Quist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chris Cullen said:

a shesh if the wound fabric head gear of the Bedouin tribesmen that it looks like he's wearing in his profile pic

 

Is that why we say "Shesh it's hot in here!"

 

Allan

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.