Alamy legal complaint

[Marianne]

I've had photos of books licensed via Alamy that I originally took on assignment for a "summer reading" article for a local magazine. The books were sent to my editor by the various publishing houses specifically for that purpose. So, if they ever complained or tried to take me to court, I doubt they'd have a leg to stand on. New York, where I live, has very broad protections for the media but I try to be careful. I had some great images taken at the US Open, many of which were zoomed, and then realized I didn't have a press pass and, not sure if that was a legal impediment, I took them all down. Disappointing because we were right up front and I had my 500mm lens with me. Many other photos I've taken on private property/in restricted locations, I took with a press pass granted for the occasion, including a few Alamy Live News helped me get, so again I feel comfortable with them. I figure if I have them marked "editorial only," I should be safe. 

 

So many people, especially cops, have no idea of what's allowed - I was accosted by one cop while taking photos on the street in NYC because she thought I might have taken a photo of her. I had to show her the photos on the back of my camera, while this large angry woman loomed over my petite 4'1" frame. I knew she was wrong, but it seemed wiser to appease her. That's why those stories of the press suffering abuse at the hands of the cops make me so very angry.

 

It's the same with big corporations throwing their weight around and threatening to sue even if they're in the wrong. Unlike the UK legal system (I think), here in the US there are very few instances where your legal fees are covered if you win, so people cave even when they are in the right because they fear the costs they'll incur even if they win. 

[Jansos]

On 25/02/2023 at 19:27, Marianne said:

I've had photos of books licensed via Alamy that I originally took on assignment for a "summer reading" article for a local magazine. The books were sent to my editor by the various publishing houses specifically for that purpose. So, if they ever complained or tried to take me to court, I doubt they'd have a leg to stand on. New York, where I live, has very broad protections for the media but I try to be careful. I had some great images taken at the US Open, many of which were zoomed, and then realized I didn't have a press pass and, not sure if that was a legal impediment, I took them all down. Disappointing because we were right up front and I had my 500mm lens with me. Many other photos I've taken on private property/in restricted locations, I took with a press pass granted for the occasion, including a few Alamy Live News helped me get, so again I feel comfortable with them. I figure if I have them marked "editorial only," I should be safe. 

 

So many people, especially cops, have no idea of what's allowed - I was accosted by one cop while taking photos on the street in NYC because she thought I might have taken a photo of her. I had to show her the photos on the back of my camera, while this large angry woman loomed over my petite 4'1" frame. I knew she was wrong, but it seemed wiser to appease her. That's why those stories of the press suffering abuse at the hands of the cops make me so very angry.

 

It's the same with big corporations throwing their weight around and threatening to sue even if they're in the wrong. Unlike the UK legal system (I think), here in the US there are very few instances where your legal fees are covered if you win, so people cave even when they are in the right because they fear the costs they'll incur even if they win. 

In London we have the joy (not) of Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS) where businesses/corporations can severely limit /enforce restrictions on photography. I've been accosted numerous times in a wide range of locations and told to stop taking photos on what otherwise appears to be a normal public space (e.g. near Tower Bridge, Docklands, King's Cross area). Apparently, you now have to own a prohibitively expensive licence if you want to publish your pics. The privatisation of previously publicly accessible outdoor spaces really makes my blood boil! 😡

[sooth]

we have the same in nyc, developers propose creating a privately owned public space in exchange for a zoning variation or tax break; but in the end breaking the agreement and not allowing public access or not maintaining the space or other violation. so many pops in nyc, the city doesn't even know what's open or not.

 

or that they are entities like crookfield (replace the c with a b) which own some of the biggest corporate buildings in nyc with wide london-esque restrictions on the public complete with very friendly relationship with the nypd (being invited to take part in monitoring activites at the once secret police surveillance office at 55 broadway, etc)

 

ten years ago walking around in nyc with a camera nets you stares if you were not white. thankfully with the prevailance of more mobile phones and people with cameras, social media and influencers, people are a bit more relaxed about photography nowadays and it is easier to take photos without people batting an eye. still have to be careful and consider how security and the police may react if you are taking images in a public place where they are nearby. 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 2, 2023 by sooth

[Cal]

9 hours ago, Jansos said:

In London we have the joy (not) of Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS) where businesses/corporations can severely limit /enforce restrictions on photography. I've been accosted numerous times in a wide range of locations and told to stop taking photos on what otherwise appears to be a normal public space (e.g. near Tower Bridge, Docklands, King's Cross area). Apparently, you now have to own a prohibitively expensive licence if you want to publish your pics. The privatisation of previously publicly accessible outdoor spaces really makes my blood boil! 😡

 

I actually need to brush up on my legalese on this but I'm not sure much of this stands up to scrutiny with regards to UK laws. If it's a publicly accessible area that isn't gated or ticketed entry I'm not really sure they have any legal grounds to stop photography. They may try to make up their own rules, which are just as valid as sign posts that say "no photography"... right next to a public right of way.

 

The Americans take this ridiculousness to a whole new level - if you've been to the Top of the Rock in NYC, they claim (and it is written on the back of the ticket) that all views from the platform are "protected" and you cannot publish them without permission. It actually sounds like they are trying to claim copyright on everything you can see up there, but given that this is the US I wouldn't mess with it.

[Betty LaRue]

I’ve never been to the top of the rock & don’t even know what you’re talking about. I have traveled around the country (US) though, and I’ve freely taken photographs outdoors anywhere I like, with only one hassle. And that was from a RV park when land around it was in a lawsuit. They thought I was the press because I had a Nikon D300 mounted on a monopod shooting sandpipers in San Diego. I listened to them rant a bit, & soon as they left on their little golf cart, I photographed what I pleased since I was outside of the RV park fence & gates.

One other time I had pulled off the road to shoot an oil field pump jack and a Highway Patrolman stopped & very nicely asked what I was doing. This was when the country was in heightened alert for a few years after 9-11, after the twin towers fell.

I explained about stock photography. We had a nice chat, then he led me to another place to take photos of a wheat harvest in progress because I told him I wanted harvest pictures.

I’ve taken photos inside the museum “Cowboy Hall of Fame” & other places, no hassle. Inside of here, too, the Crystal Bridge, a paid venue with tropical plants from all over the world.

And I’ve never had anyone threaten to sue me or demand I take images down.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Betty LaRue

[Cryptoprocta]

35 minutes ago, Cal said:

The Americans take this ridiculousness to a whole new level - if you've been to the Top of the Rock in NYC, they claim (and it is written on the back of the ticket) that all views from the platform are "protected" and you cannot publish them without permission. It actually sounds like they are trying to claim copyright on everything you can see up there, but given that this is the US I wouldn't mess with it.

Top of the Shard in London says the same.

Or at least, there was a prominent notice to that effect right next to the bloke trying to lure in passers-by the last time I was in London, which was in 2018. I pointed it out to him as my reason for not buying a rather expensive ticket, and he seemed confused.

However, I can't find anything about it on their website as of right now.

[spacecadet]

12 hours ago, Cal said:

I actually need to brush up on my legalese on this but I'm not sure much of this stands up to scrutiny with regards to UK laws. If it's a publicly accessible area that isn't gated or ticketed entry I'm not really sure they have any legal grounds to stop photography. They may try to make up their own rules, which are just as valid as sign posts that say "no photography"... right next to a public right of way.

IMO you're correct unless there is prominent signage prohibiting photography. Even then, their only remedy is to ask you to leave if you do as you would then be trespassing. They can't do anything about photographs you have already taken.

[ChrisR Photo]

On 03/03/2023 at 10:32, spacecadet said:

IMO you're correct unless there is prominent signage prohibiting photography. Even then, their only remedy is to ask you to leave if you do as you would then be trespassing. They can't do anything about photographs you have already taken.

 

Yes, I think this is pretty much true, especially in London where there are so many tourists coming through stations and popular sites, realistically it would be virtually impossible to police with the amount of people taking pictures daily, otherwise Alamy would have to delete around 20,000 images they have on sale of say King-X and alike. 

[Phillip]

In Australia, there are some spots that are prohibited, like the Shrine of Remembrance. 

 

However, photographs of statues or models in public spaces are allowed to be used without the need for a release form, this changes though for murals and works of art, such as the Silo Arts trail. That is really disappointing as they make great subjects.

 

One interesting fact I found out is that in National parks, normal photography is accepted, but for stock or commercial use a permit needs to be obtained. So for landscape photography with one camera and tripod, all that is needed is public liability insurance. There is a project in a National Park that I will be undertaking next month on a contentious issue.

 

The recent Southern 80 Water ski race is run on a public waterway and the river goes past private land and public park areas. The restricted places were the start line and the finish line. In between anyone could be there. I managed to get media accreditation for the event and you will only see on my portfolio a very small fraction of the images I captured over two days.

 

The Railways in NSW are publicly owned so photography is not an issue, however, in Victoria, the Railways are leased to private companies so permission needs to be sort to take photographs.

 

[sooth]

.

Edited October 19, 2023 by sooth

[Ognyan Yosifov]

26 minutes ago, sooth said:

 

too many parasites with useless jobs in a city filled with totally useless people who don't do their jobs making this city (nyc), and this geographic region (east coast usa) a general misery to be in. today I was at moynihan train hall taking a few general photos as I was passing by, i was asked by some nosey private security if I had a press pass. like what?  I'm just passing through and these photos are for my own personal use. i should have told him it was a public place, mta property, and he had no authority and to f off. but unfortunately didn't. the private security was only there to harass the homeless if they sat on the floor (there are no seating in this fancy building) freeing up amtrak police, mta police, and nj transit police to monitor everybody else....  anyway, I find out there was a massive several hour delay with no trains leaving nyc due to "police activity" on the mainline, and I'm looking over my shoulder everytime I want to take a pic. just why, private security, f parasites.

Come to shoot in Sofia, Bulgaria as freely as you wish, but there's no demand for those photos... I'd prefer NYC

[sooth]

.

Edited October 19, 2023 by sooth

[Ognyan Yosifov]

On 04/05/2023 at 15:27, sooth said:

 

There's always demand, maybe not immediately.... The images you have of the vertical platform barriers in the metro; the caps for future; and the one with the modern flat building with what looks like a solar panel on top of a ev charging station (it's a car wash)  I found interesting. Did a quick search to see what the city was doing about air pollution, but seems like bandaids fixes. One positive was the country building up solar plants like the one near Sofia that promised to be finished this year (but they are also building coal plants).

Thank you, sooth (I wish I knew your real name :-)) for taking the time to check my portfolio.

Edited May 5, 2023 by Ognyan Yosifov

[spacecadet]

2 hours ago, Ognyan Yosifov said:

sooth (I wish I knew your real name :-))

It's on his images. As is mine.

[Ognyan Yosifov]

2 hours ago, spacecadet said:

It's on his images. As is mine.

Thank you, Mark 😉