Forbidden museums & other “forbiddens”

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

Does pre-PA acquisition list still exist?
Has it changed any since PA acquisiton?
Has anyone had museum images deleted from collection, say,
in 2023-2024 or does PA allow Editorial-Only museum images
to remain online…?  Any comments-advice appreciated.

[Brian Yarvin]

Jeff, I just checked the roughly twenty or so images I have of museums and their collections and none have had any changes made to them. 

[John Mitchell]

Not familiar with the list you're referring to, Jeff. I've never had any museum images deleted. However street murals are another story. A number of those got deleted a few years ago, even though set to editorial only. Not sure if that was pre or post-PA.

[geogphotos]

The onus is on the contributor.

 

I don't think that anything has changed.

 

Alamy did have a blitz on removing London National History museum images - a long time ago and no doubt after pressure was put on them. Likewise National Trust properties have been culled from time to time.

 

Contributors are responsible for what they upload. Alamy does not supervise or regulate this. 

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

thanks for all responses;

I was hoping to hear

a. list had shrunk

b. PA, being news-feature photo savvy, was

leaning more towards "right to photograph"

which would be reflected in their actions
& lack of actions...

[geogphotos]

57 minutes ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

thanks for all responses;

I was hoping to hear

a. list had shrunk

b. PA, being news-feature photo savvy, was

leaning more towards "right to photograph"

which would be reflected in their actions
& lack of actions...

 

 

I think that Alamy reacts when it has to - when it feels under some sort of legal threat. And in the past has chosen not to resist but to just go along with what has been requested. But having said that we only know when they have conducted a purge. There may have been times when they refused to co-operate with the complainer and the complainer has backed off.

 

Maybe PA have been more assertive that Alamy was in the past - who knows? They are not going to tell us or encourage us to push the boundaries because if they did they would become implicated. For Alamy it is much easier ( and more profitable) to sit on the sidelines and leave the responsibility to the contributor. 

 

These comments based on nothing but my suppositions. 😵‍💫

Edited August 27 by geogphotos

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

I think that Alamy reacts when it has to - when it feels under some sort of legal threat. And in the past has chosen not to resist but to just go along with what has been requested. But having said that we only know when they have conducted a purge. There may have been times when they refused to co-operate with the complainer and the complainer has backed off.

 

Maybe PA have been more assertive that Alamy was in the past - who knows? They are not going to tell us or encourage us to push the boundaries because if they did they would become implicated. For Alamy it is much easier ( and more profitable) to sit on the sidelines and leave the responsibility to the contributor. 

 

These comments based on nothing but my suppositions. 😵‍💫

 

There must have been complaints from artists when Alamy went on a street art/murals deleting binge a number of years ago. Interesting to note that images featuring street art with little or no context have returned in full force since then.  🤔

[Normspics]

Sounds like a Ben Stiller movie sequel : Forbidden Museums

Edited August 27 by Normspics
Spelling

[Normspics]

The Guggenheim museum in Bilbao exterior shots are on a stock photo black list 

[Normspics]

There is a list of museums that pursue infringements, but it’s on another two competitors sites

[John Mitchell]

23 minutes ago, Normspics said:

There is a list of museums that pursue infringements, but it’s on another two competitors sites

 

There are lot of other "forbidden" subjects on those lists as well. I wonder why Alamy doesn't put together something similar. It would be very helpful for contributors and probably save Alamy some headaches as well. 🤕

[Radim]

2 hours ago, Normspics said:

Exteriérové záběry Guggenheimova muzea v Bilbau jsou na černé listině fotografií 

There are 11,888 images of the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao on Alamy

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

5 hours ago, Normspics said:

...museums that pursue infringements...

please provide evidence in form of legal settlement
reported by press involving museum vs [stock photographer / stock agency]

for editorial use of stock photo taken in museum...

that's editorial use, not commercial use;

anyone?  please enlighten me please will you someone

 

[geogphotos]

3 hours ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

please provide evidence in form of legal settlement
reported by press involving museum vs [stock photographer / stock agency]

for editorial use of stock photo taken in museum...

that's editorial use, not commercial use;

anyone?  please enlighten me please will you someone

 

 

I'd say that it is about potential risk rather than legal precedent. Also to some extent about ethics in the case of museums who have clear, known rules.

 

We both sumbit to another place. I have been told by LN ( who edits) that they do not want any more of museum interiors.

 

With Alamy no checks are made but contractually we accept responsibility for what we upload. 

 

Not to do with museums but hasn't there been some legal wrangle between Alamy and a German newspaper publishing group? In that case Alamy has alerted contributors that they may have exposure to financial penalties - NOT SURE OF THE DETAILS - but there have been contributors posting here in some alarm and worry.

[Harry Harrison]

In the UK Museums have been put on the back foot regarding copyright in general because of a recent legal decision, Dr. Bendor Grosvenor even mentions Alamy in this piece:

 

https://www.arthistorynews.com/articles/7707_Images_fees_and_UK_copyright_law__a_breakthrough

 

"In theory, museums’ terms of entry prohibit this, though it’s hard to see how they could enforce them. Look on other image licensing sites like Alamy and you will find thousands of photos taken by people in museums."

 

However until recently I think contributors on here may, or may not, have decided to make such images 'Editorial only' but there was a middle ground where the fact that there were clearly no releases might have protected them in the event of any buyer using them for commercial use. Now, with this new system that is slowly being rolled out I wonder if the onus is more on the contributor to make sure that they are 'Editorial only'

 

Still, that's just in the UK. Anecdotedly I've noticed museums and galleries often figure in the work of 'influencer' street photographers but that is I suppose a different situation.

Edited August 28 by Harry Harrison

[Sally Robertson]

4 hours ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

please provide evidence in form of legal settlement
reported by press involving museum vs [stock photographer / stock agency]

for editorial use of stock photo taken in museum...

that's editorial use, not commercial use;

anyone?  please enlighten me please will you someone

 

 

Hi Jeff, I am aware of at least two other stock sites that have a list of restricted subjects. We are not allowed to name other stock sites here, but if you have a look at those lists you may be able to do some research on the restrictions mentioned to find out if there has been a past legal case in relation to photographs of them. Some museums are mentioned among other subjects such as monuments, brands etc. Past legal issues may explain how some of them came to be on the list.

 

Some are "known restrictions" and some are fully prohibited. The terms "known restrictions" and "known image restrictions" suggests awareness of past issues with those subjects. But I think as Ian suggests it is also about potential risk as well as past precedent. So I think learning as much as possible about a subject and the restrictions that might exist in that locality (specific museum/country/state/local shire or council) is probably necessary to ensure it is ok.

 

I have found this site quite helpful in Australia with regard to arts law and photography here, though it isn't about museums:

https://www.artslaw.com.au/information-sheet/street-photographers-rights/

 

I did find this older article from Alamy on photographing in museums:

https://www.alamy.com/blog/tips-for-photographing-private-property-and-museums#:~:text=Ask a member of staff,with someone that will know.

 

Basically, from the perspective of many museums, any use of an image taken for monetary gain may be seen as commercial, even if used editorially, and the article suggests this. So you could still be in breach of the photography rules for a particular location even if it is marked for editorial use only. The best thing would be to directly ask a museum and get their official position on it.

[Sally Robertson]

23 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

However until recently I think contributors on here may, or may not, have decided to make such images 'Editorial only' but there was a middle ground where the fact that there were clearly no releases might have protected them in the event of any buyer using them for commercial use. Now, with this new system that is slowly being rolled out I wonder if the onus is more on the contributor to make sure that they are 'Editorial only'

 

I have interpreted the changes that way. I have applied Editorial Only more strictly now.

[Sandi]

29 minutes ago, Sally Robertson said:

 

I have interpreted the changes that way. I have applied Editorial Only more strictly now.

Thank you for all that info, Sally. I'm in Qld but expect the same sort of rules apply. The only one I had to think about was taking a photo of a theme park attraction from the public road alongside the park.

Another point not mentioned is the law regarding photos of public atractions/artworks/buildings which no longer exist, ie they have been removed or demolished. Do historic owners still own any copyrights?

 

Sandi

[Sally Robertson]

34 minutes ago, Sandi said:

Thank you for all that info, Sally. I'm in Qld but expect the same sort of rules apply. The only one I had to think about was taking a photo of a theme park attraction from the public road alongside the park.

Another point not mentioned is the law regarding photos of public atractions/artworks/buildings which no longer exist, ie they have been removed or demolished. Do historic owners still own any copyrights?

 

Sandi

 

Hello Sandi, I don't know anything about the historic owners of those things that no longer exist, such as a building that has been demolished. You could try contacting the arts law.com.au people https://www.artslaw.com.au/contact/. You would think if it is no longer in their ownership it would not be an issue. I have many images of buildings which I have all made Editorial Only now. Providing you are standing on public land when taking the photo, an image of most buildings should be fine if marked for editorial use (with the exception of defence facilities).

 

I know there are laws about certain artworks losing their copyright after a certain amount of time, usually 70 years as I understand. E.g. see here:

https://copyright.unimelb.edu.au/shared/basic-principles-of-copyright/duration-of-copyright#:~:text=Copyright generally lasts 70 years,Literary works

 

I have refrained from uploading anything with a mural in it based on the laws around two dimensional artworks. However, I have included sculptures which are indicated as ok.

 

I know one of the strictest places is in Sydney in the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Precinct. I am in WA but I have read about the experiences of other photographers being spoken to by authorities there.

Edited August 28 by Sally Robertson

[Sandi]

Thank you, Sally. I think I'll make sure all public facilities, past anf present, are labelled as "Editorial Only". My rate of sales can't get any worse than it is at the moment.🙂

[Sally Robertson]

1 minute ago, Sandi said:

Thank you, Sally. I think I'll make sure all public facilities, past anf present, are labelled as "Editorial Only". My rate of sales can't get any worse than it is at the moment.🙂

 

It's possible what I am doing with Editorial Only is overkill but I just feel better ensuring I have done everything at my end to ensure an image is not used as it shouldn't be. Best of luck for more sales soon 🙂 

[M.Chapman]

6 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

In the UK Museums have been put on the back foot regarding copyright in general because of a recent legal decision, Dr. Bendor Grosvenor even mentions Alamy in this piece:

 

https://www.arthistorynews.com/articles/7707_Images_fees_and_UK_copyright_law__a_breakthrough

 

Very interesting article. Thanks for posting.

 

Mark

[MDM]

This is all very simple. Clause 4.1.15 of the Contributor Contract states that you warrant that the Content was not taken in any place where photography for commercial gain is forbidden, e.g. some museums, art galleries ....... There is no debate. If you upload images taken in a place where photography for commercial gain is forbidden, you are in breach of the contract and Alamy is indemnified. If a legal problem follows, it's all on the contributor. I think it has always been like this but it has been made very explcit in recent versions of the contract. Is that risk worth it for the likely tiny fee for editorial images? Not to me. 

 

The link Harry posted is about copyright, not about taking pictures in museums or places where photography for commercial gain is forbidden. This is a different issue. 

 

 

Edited August 28 by MDM

[NYCat]

Yes. I was getting some very nice prices, actually, for museum pics but it's not worth the risk and all are taken down. Same with zoos. The policies can change over time and a zoo that I had been told was OK is now not OK. I'm too old for a lot of risk. Not building a career so I can let some sales go.

 

Paulette

[geogphotos]

4 hours ago, MDM said:

This is all very simple. Clause 4.1.15 of the Contributor Contract states that you warrant that the Content was not taken in any place where photography for commercial gain is forbidden, e.g. some museums, art galleries ....... There is no debate. If you upload images taken in a place where photography for commercial gain is forbidden, you are in breach of the contract and Alamy is indemnified. If a legal problem follows, it's all on the contributor. I think it has always been like this but it has been made very explcit in recent versions of the contract. Is that risk worth it for the likely tiny fee for editorial images? Not to me. 

 

The link Harry posted is about copyright, not about taking pictures in museums or places where photography for commercial gain is forbidden. This is a different issue. 

 

 

 

On one level it is indeed very simple - the wording of the contract.

 

But I also think that it is  more complex than that and I would doubt in law that Alamy can simply pass all responsibility to its contributors.

 

Any publisher has to take ultimate responsibility for what it publishes whether in print or on the internet. 

 

Just try a search for 'London Natural History museum' to see that the situation is far from simple.

[M.Chapman]

13 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Just try a search for 'London Natural History museum' to see that the situation is far from simple.

Good point - the contract is indeed clear and your example shows Alamy is currently offering licences for images that clearly break the rules... e.g. Images with obvious unreleased property and people are currently being offered for sale as RF without any restriction. Something's not right. Did the contributor incorrectly mark such images as containing no property and no people, or is Alamy's software not yet applying the new "Editorial only" restriction correctly?

 

Mark

 

Edited August 29 by M.Chapman
Changed RM to RF