Removal of images, Royal De Luxe

[ChrisC]

Anyone else Photographed the Giants in Liverpool have an e-mail off Alamy regarding Royal De Luxe asking for removal of images understand the law below? There are over 2,000 on Alamy.

 

My photos were taken in 2012, the first year the Giants came to Liverpool, I didn't have a press pass, but as this event wandered the streets of Liverpool and the photos by everybody, made this event and Royal De Luxe famous in the UK, after several visits, it seems to me, they have gotten to big fo their boots, can any advise? :-

 

 

Dear Chris

 

.....They say they have not authorised these images to be displayed on Alamy and that the reproduction of their creations constitutes an infringement of the Theatre Company’s copyright within the works, as such they have requested that the images be removed.  

As the creations are not permanently situated in a public place, we understand that images of the work would not be eligible to rely on the freedom of panorama exemptions under s62 of the UK Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. We are however aware that Royal De Luxe grants use of the works for press purposes when prior consent is obtained.

We just wanted to check whether you have the necessary permission from Royal De Luxe to attend the event in question to provide editorial coverage so we can let them know. Alternatively please let us know whether you would like us to remove the images in question......

 

Thanks

Chris

[losdemas]

I don't have any such images, but this seems totally wrong to me. I haven't seen your pictures, but surely - public space, public display, you have a right to take the pictures, which then are your property. Freedom of panorama not applying because they weren't on permanent display? Never heard that one before.

IANAL and all that.

[Harry Harrison]

It seems totally wrong to me also, and disappointing that Alamy should be asking you "whether you have the necessary permission from Royal De Luxe to attend the event in question to provide editorial coverage" when it is clear from your pictures that they were taken in the streets of Liverpool. I guess there are a few close-ups with no context but surely otherwise they are of "artworks in context". Maybe this is one of those situations where you might consider marking them for Editorial only, but it is clear of course to any buyer that you have no model release or property release. 

[vpics]

Got the email, too. I was accredited for the event in 2009 - but given the fact, that this is now 11 years ago, it's probably difficult to dig out any emails.

[Harry Harrison]

2 minutes ago, vpics said:

I was accredited for the event in 2009

Do you think that you would need to have been accredited to photograph them in order to put pictures up on here? I absolutely don't know but I'd like to know, if they were photographed in a public place and the pictures show them in context (i.e. with crowds or Liverpool landmarks behind) could that be a problem? It does seem to be setting a bit of a precedent.

[illuyas]

I got the email too, I had accreditation for the 2018 event, but just realised not for the 2012 event after telling Alamy Copyright Team that I had, (will email them), all are marked editorial with no property release, can't remember them ever being sold.

 

[mickfly]

I have a similar problem with a Spanish Council department who say my images from a film shoot, in Spain, in public areas, need to be removed from sale. Alamy (with my permission) passed my details to them and I am now in correspondence.
They are all marked editorial only, but they (the Spanish film department) pointed out the possibility to download them for presentation or newsletter use.
I will post the results at some point.

[ChrisC]

2 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

It seems totally wrong to me also, and disappointing that Alamy should be asking you "whether you have the necessary permission from Royal De Luxe to attend the event in question to provide editorial coverage" when it is clear from your pictures that they were taken in the streets of Liverpool. I guess there are a few close-ups with no context but surely otherwise they are of "artworks in context". Maybe this is one of those situations where you might consider marking them for Editorial only, but it is clear of course to any buyer that you have no model release or property release. 

Yeah that's exactly what I thought, I was on the streets of Liverpool and also in Stanley Park, I don't understand why Alamy hasn't asked my opinion and then helped to defend a "Photographer", taking photos on the streets, it wasn't a paid event, there weren't any tickets, I guess you can say its an artwork, but surely marking as Editorial is the answer, it sounds like a large franchise type of idea, Royal De Luxe has only done well, because a) it was popular and b) people went along and took photos

Chris

 

[ChrisC]

1 hour ago, vpics said:

Got the email, too. I was accredited for the event in 2009 - but given the fact, that this is now 11 years ago, it's probably difficult to dig out any emails.

Thats bonkers, in my opinion

[ChrisC]

10 minutes ago, illuyas said:

I got the email too, I had accreditation for the 2018 event, but just realised not for the 2012 event after telling Alamy Copyright Team that I had, (will email them), all are marked editorial with no property release, can't remember them ever being sold.

 

Yeah none of mine have sold, but out sends an alarming precedent, we already have enough hassle on the streets, with people saying "you can't take my photo", "do you have permission?" etc.

Generally, one idea of accreditation is that you are getting preferential access to an event others aren't able to get, but as this was on the streets and is also many years later, it is setting a precedent that Alamy and their lawyers should be helping Photographers with, in my opinion anyway, other wise what is the point?

Chris

 

[ChrisC]

14 minutes ago, mickfly said:

I have a similar problem with a Spanish Council department who say my images from a film shoot, in Spain, in public areas, need to be removed from sale. Alamy (with my permission) passed my details to them and I am now in correspondence.
They are all marked editorial only, but they (the Spanish film department) pointed out the possibility to download them for presentation or newsletter use.
I will post the results at some point.

I sort of understand the film set idea, but if it's in a public place, but I'll be interested to see what replies you get.

 

I'll reply to Alamy for Monday morning, but were does it end if you can't take a photograph on the streets?

Chris

[mickfly]

29 minutes ago, ChrisC said:

I sort of understand the film set idea, but if it's in a public place, but I'll be interested to see what replies you get.

 

I'll reply to Alamy for Monday morning, but were does it end if you can't take a photograph on the streets?

Chris

Is a film set in a public place, which can be viewed from a public place, any different too a publicly viewable display the likes of which you were shooting?
I think not, but I'm not a lawyer.
I hope that Alamy support you, or at least refuse to remove the images, as they should be safe re their T & C's.

[ChrisC]

46 minutes ago, mickfly said:

Is a film set in a public place, which can be viewed from a public place, any different too a publicly viewable display the likes of which you were shooting?
I think not, but I'm not a lawyer.
I hope that Alamy support you, or at least refuse to remove the images, as they should be safe re their T & C's.

Sorry to clarify, I think it's the same, I meant I get the idea, but if it's in a public place and they are filming there, it should be fine, If they gave closed the roads off and built barriers, like they did with War Of The Worlds and then you climb over them, then that is different, if they are filming in a public place, a public place is a public place, so I don't understand that, if they wanted privacy, it should be filmed as such

Chris 

[meanderingemu]

2 hours ago, mickfly said:

I have a similar problem with a Spanish Council department who say my images from a film shoot, in Spain, in public areas, need to be removed from sale. Alamy (with my permission) passed my details to them and I am now in correspondence.
They are all marked editorial only, but they (the Spanish film department) pointed out the possibility to download them for presentation or newsletter use.
I will post the results at some point.

 

 

what would be interesting is if the argument from the Spanish Council is due to warantees they made the the production theme, but didn't put in place enough security to ensure the representation. 

 

the other issue is Spanish laws are more protective to rights of person (assuming there are people visible on the sets) 

[mickfly]

9 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

what would be interesting is if the argument from the Spanish Council is due to warantees they made the the production theme, but didn't put in place enough security to ensure the representation. 

 

the other issue is Spanish laws are more protective to rights of person (assuming there are people visible on the sets) 

There were two security people stooping movement only during filming.

Sorry Chris, not trying to hijack your thread so I'll leave my problem after this snippet which I sent the film people.

The general rule under Spanish law affords greater weight to freedom of information than to the right to privacy.

Image rights under Spanish law entitle the owner to prevent the obtaining, reproduction or publication of his or her own image by a third party, whatever the aim pursued by the party taking the picture (whether commercial, scientific, cultural, etc).  However, there will be NO UNLAWFUL INFRINGEMENT of these rights provided that there is express consent from the owner of the image or THERE IS A GENERAL INTEREST TO PUBLISH THE IMAGE AND THE INFORMATION IT CONVEYS.

[David Reed]

I too have been contacted by Alamy to remove my images of the Sultans Elephant in London in 2006 performed by Royale De Luxe.  Artichoke who promoted the event state on their website this was ‘ The biggest piece of free, outdoor theatre ever seen in London’ therefore at the time I did not feel the need to be accredited and have put this argument to Alamy with no success. I have had a few sales from this event. I do feel as these events were on the streets and free Royale De Luxe are trying it on. Alamy obviously does not want to get into a legal battle with this company so will give in.

[ChrisC]

On 14/03/2020 at 16:44, mickfly said:

There were two security people stooping movement only during filming.

Sorry Chris, not trying to hijack your thread so I'll leave my problem after this snippet which I sent the film people.

The general rule under Spanish law affords greater weight to freedom of information than to the right to privacy.

Image rights under Spanish law entitle the owner to prevent the obtaining, reproduction or publication of his or her own image by a third party, whatever the aim pursued by the party taking the picture (whether commercial, scientific, cultural, etc).  However, there will be NO UNLAWFUL INFRINGEMENT of these rights provided that there is express consent from the owner of the image or THERE IS A GENERAL INTEREST TO PUBLISH THE IMAGE AND THE INFORMATION IT CONVEYS.

No problem Mickfly, I'd say there is no unlawful infringement myself, but we'll see

[Boggins]

Photographed the London event in 2006 and have received the same email.  Like others I assumed that as it was non-ticketed, and on public land, authorisation wouldn’t be necessary. Thought my pics were marked as ‘editorial only’ but just checked and they’re not. I’m sure they used to be, so I’m wondering if that’s fallen off during one of the many Alamy updates over the last 14 years. Although looking at the email, I don't think that makes a difference anyway.

 

The argument seems to be that because the models/puppets were non-permanent, freedom of panorama is out; and that the models used in the show are copyrighted, so reproduction is a breach of copyright, and without permission, even editorial usage is out.

 

 

[IanDavidson]

I don’t like this any more than anyone else, but, in Alamy’s defence, it is not commercially in their interests to get involved in a legal copyright argument.  That, even if they win, will involve a lot of time and expense.for little return in terms of licence sales.

[AndrewP]

I had the email too -- I photographed the 2 previous visits to Liverpool from in amongst the crowds. The nature of the event was no different to the Notting Hill Carnival and that's not getting deleted, all I can think of is that the 'a person photographed in a public place' rules in France are different to the UK and RdL is a French company. Alamy do tend to comply with all requests for removal as soon as they come in - I remember a few years back Network Rail wanted all photos taken in their stations removed.

Edited March 17, 2020 by AndrewP