Accredited photographer?

[Nick Hatton]

I have had a nasty experience with Alamy this week, I received an email saying it had been brought to there  attention that I had been taking photos at the Hay on Wye book festival without being accredited (probably because I posted a sale on here!), my gripe is that I asked a steward if it was ok to take photos and after consulting their senior replied that it was fine in the areas I was working the only place out of bounds were the paid for events, they said everywhere else being public space with no entry fee was fine, Alamy have now deleted my 120 images from the day as punishment (much to there loss in my opinion ), my question is really when do you need accreditation and how do you know if it is needed? 

 

[spacecadet]

5 minutes ago, Nick Hatton said:

I have had a nasty experience with Alamy this week, I received an email saying it had been brought to there  attention that I had been taking photos at the Hay on Wye book festival without being accredited (probably because I posted a sale on here!), my gripe is that I asked a steward if it was ok to take photos and after consulting their senior replied that it was fine in the areas I was working the only place out of bounds were the paid for events, they said everywhere else being public space with no entry fee was fine, Alamy have now deleted my 120 images from the day as punishment (much to there loss in my opinion ), my question is really when do you need accreditation and how do you know if it is needed? 

 

A are presumably relying on the contract term which says you can only post images that you have taken with permission when it is required but doing it after the fact is pretty shabby.

Of course you won't have a record of what you're told but my policy is not to ask, because if you don't ask you can't be told "no".

The other thing to do would be to refrain from reporting sales when you were effectively on notice that permission was demanded for part of the event. Of course the organisers could have found your sale in the media and dobbed you in out of pique. No doubt if you challenge them on it they will lie and deny you were given permission. Pretty shabby all round.

Of course if you were on public land (rather than an event to which the public were admitted, not the same thing) A have no grounds for removal and you should challenge it.

[geogphotos]

28 minutes ago, Nick Hatton said:

I have had a nasty experience with Alamy this week, I received an email saying it had been brought to there  attention that I had been taking photos at the Hay on Wye book festival without being accredited (probably because I posted a sale on here!), my gripe is that I asked a steward if it was ok to take photos and after consulting their senior replied that it was fine in the areas I was working the only place out of bounds were the paid for events, they said everywhere else being public space with no entry fee was fine, Alamy have now deleted my 120 images from the day as punishment (much to there loss in my opinion ), my question is really when do you need accreditation and how do you know if it is needed? 

 

 

 

I don't see that asking a steward/the steward's manager for permission to take photos is the equivalent of accreditation.  It really isn't.

 

 

[sb photos]

12 minutes ago, Nick Hatton said:

I have had a nasty experience with Alamy this week, I received an email saying it had been brought to there  attention that I had been taking photos at the Hay on Wye book festival without being accredited (probably because I posted a sale on here!), my gripe is that I asked a steward if it was ok to take photos and after consulting their senior replied that it was fine in the areas I was working the only place out of bounds were the paid for events, they said everywhere else being public space with no entry fee was fine, Alamy have now deleted my 120 images from the day as punishment (much to there loss in my opinion ), my question is really when do you need accreditation and how do you know if it is needed? 

 

 

I recently considered shooting there but first read their policy here: https://www.hayfestival.com/wales/press-accreditation.aspx#:~:text=Please use this form to,strict photo and video policies.

 

Their accreditation form is far more extensive than others I've successfully completed, I decided to pass on that one. Even when events are on public roads, if there are roadside barriers manned by stewards, some form of accreditation is required to pass.

[Rebecca Ore]

19 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

I don't see that asking a steward/the steward's manager for permission to take photos is the equivalent of accreditation.  It really isn't.

 

 

 

Other thing is often enough people can take photos for non-commercial purposes, but are required to go through more steps/pay fees to photograph for commercial use, even if the photos are taken speculatively with no guarantee of commercial use.  And any number of people can believe that we're wannabees who are claiming to be professionals, so may say, "sure, go ahead." 

[M.Chapman]

1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

Of course if you were on public land (rather than an event to which the public were admitted, not the same thing) A have no grounds for removal and you should challenge it.

+1

[geogphotos]

2 hours ago, spacecadet said:

A are presumably relying on the contract term which says you can only post images that you have taken with permission when it is required but doing it after the fact is pretty shabby.

Of course you won't have a record of what you're told but my policy is not to ask, because if you don't ask you can't be told "no".

The other thing to do would be to refrain from reporting sales when you were effectively on notice that permission was demanded for part of the event. Of course the organisers could have found your sale in the media and dobbed you in out of pique. No doubt if you challenge them on it they will lie and deny you were given permission. Pretty shabby all round.

Of course if you were on public land (rather than an event to which the public were admitted, not the same thing) A have no grounds for removal and you should challenge it.

 

 

Not asking does not provide any legal protection.

 

It is our job to know. 

Edited October 15, 2023 by geogphotos

[Nick Hatton]

Thanks all, 

 

Looks like I will have to put it down to experience  

[Chuck Nacke]

5 hours ago, Rebecca Ore said:

 

Other thing is often enough people can take photos for non-commercial purposes, but are required to go through more steps/pay fees to photograph for commercial use, even if the photos are taken speculatively with no guarantee of commercial use.  And any number of people can believe that we're wannabees who are claiming to be professionals, so may say, "sure, go ahead." 

If the images are available for "Editorial Use" then commercial has nothing to do with it.  I have no experience with the Hay on Wye festival, but this all sounds disgusting.  Professional and Wannabees also has nothing to do with it, in my opinion.  I would be more than upset if images of mine were removed for the few reasons stated above, but I do not know all the circumstances.

 

Chuck

[imageplotter]

9 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

If the images are available for "Editorial Use" then commercial has nothing to do with it.  I have no experience with the Hay on Wye festival, but this all sounds disgusting.  Professional and Wannabees also has nothing to do with it, in my opinion.  I would be more than upset if images of mine were removed for the few reasons stated above, but I do not know all the circumstances.

 

Chuck

Actually, that is not true. News and stock photography can be defined as commercial photography by some events and venues these days, that is often the case in the t&c's and sadly is the reason why we are now often required to put things like "use only in relation to event xyz" and "during the news period" or "during the duration of the event" into the news headline disclaimer or embargo note, it is often required by the event organisers/PR before they even grant accreditation. And this happens increasingly now in the last 10 years at events and photocalls. Not being accredited and hence not knowing doesn't mean that the restrictions don't apply to you. Of course, one can get away with it and many do, but that's not the point. 

 

 

[Steve F]

Nick, sorry to hear that. Thanks for sharing

[Chuck Nacke]

9 hours ago, imageplotter said:

Actually, that is not true. News and stock photography can be defined as commercial photography by some events and venues these days, that is often the case in the t&c's and sadly is the reason why we are now often required to put things like "use only in relation to event xyz" and "during the news period" or "during the duration of the event" into the news headline disclaimer or embargo note, it is often required by the event organisers/PR before they even grant accreditation. And this happens increasingly now in the last 10 years at events and photocalls. Not being accredited and hence not knowing doesn't mean that the restrictions don't apply to you. Of course, one can get away with it and many do, but that's not the point. 

 

 

I am not an attorney, so I cannot give legal advice to anyone, but I would never make any agreement with any event organizer or organization that limited my distribution (editorial).  Any "Professional photographer" or "photojournalist" that agrees to that kind of limitation is NOT PROFESSIONAL and is doing a disservice to the profession.  IN MY OPINION and I've been working around the world for a few decades.

 

After much thought I will add:  There are complicated circumstances where all sorts of deals are made.  Back in the days of professionals and soon to be professionals, live photo agents made these deals and most of those live agents are no longer.  In these sad times to many are trying to limit other people and their work and it is my firm belief that all photographers, visual artists, need to standup and protect their right to make and distribute images.  I also think that libraries like Alamy could do a lot more to protect visual artists and their rights.  I also believe that each photographer should educate themselves on their rights as well as the current professional terms and requirements of making images.

 

Chuck

Edited October 16, 2023 by Chuck Nacke
addition

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

16 hours ago, Nick Hatton said:

Thanks all, 

 

Looks like I will have to put it down to experience  

if you think you would have generated income from

those (120) removed images, consider this:

 

contact media-public relation for that event;

explain all that happened;

tell them that your images are most likely

to be published in a way that will promote

that event;

consider offering, say, 5 images of their

choice that they can use to promote their

event in future;

who knows -- if they really like your images

they may invite you to other events they rep...

[Nick Hatton]

3 hours ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

if you think you would have generated income from

those (120) removed images, consider this:

 

contact media-public relation for that event;

explain all that happened;

tell them that your images are most likely

to be published in a way that will promote

that event;

consider offering, say, 5 images of their

 

choice that they can use to promote their

event in future;

who knows -- if they really like your images

they may invite you to other events they rep...

Good idea Jeffrey

[Robert M Estall]

This whole area of accreditation stinks! If possible, it's more wretched than the NT control freakishness. I've seen some go as far as copyright grabs in the music business. At best they mean to restrict what you can do with YOUR photographs. There is probably no reasoning with them as suggested by Jeff. Many venues might be justified in wanting some evidence that you are a genuine professional photographer, but that's not really what they are about. I just walk away!

Edited October 17, 2023 by Robert M Estall

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

21 hours ago, Nick Hatton said:

Good idea Jeffrey

PS. in previous post I forgot to mention

you're asking them to grant you accreditation
retroactively so those (120) images can return to PAlamy online...

[Rebecca Ore]

Some of what happens, I suspect, is that the event has its accredited photographers who share some profits for exclusivity.   I had two pros at a US Scottish Heritage event complain about me taking pictures of them, near them.  The museums that grant permission to take photos as long as they're not used to make money for the photographer, but if the photographer is or might early money, you need a commercial use permit (not in the sense of commercial compared to editorial).    National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City has steep fees for anyone doing photography for money. 

 

Charging people a permit fee even for personal photography is a thing in Mexican museums. I've never had this happen in US museums, just watched tourists with auto flash point and shoots get chewed out while I borrowed a guard's stool (with their permission) to use as an tripod substitute or lay down on the floor.   The poor point and shoot people didn't know how to turn the flashes off.  (All these photos were on film and never scanned).

[Simon]

Hi Nick, are you signed up with Alamy live news ? - if you are then they do a pretty good job nowadays of helping with accreditation for events, obviously pre the event.

[Nick Hatton]

3 hours ago, Simon said:

Hi Nick, are you signed up with Alamy live news ? - if you are then they do a pretty good job nowadays of helping with accreditation for events, obviously pre the event.

No, not signed up to live news, although have sold a couple of news worthy shots by asking for 24 hour pass