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.

[geogphotos]

11 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

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 RM 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

 

 

Mark,

 

Did you mean to write RF rather than RM?  My understanding is that it is images set as RF that require releases for commercial use. With RM we have always been told that releases are optional even for commercial uses ( it is at the buyer's discretion). Maybe I am out of date with all the 'RF editorial' stuff?

 

Try another 'London Natural History museum' search for RF images only. Then see how many claim to have releases ( a dubious handful) and how many don't.

 

 

Edited August 29 by geogphotos

[MDM]

11 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

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 RM 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

 

 

It doesn't matter what licence the images are being offered under - editorial or otherwise, RF or RM. The contibutor is still breaking the contract unless they have had permission from the Natural History Museum to sell images taken there which is most unlikely. Whether this would be upheld in law ior whether it would ever come to that in the first place is an entirely different issue but as things stand the onus is on the contributor. Saying that there are 1 million images from other contibutors would hold no weight if it did become an issue. 

Edited August 29 by MDM

[M.Chapman]

11 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Mark,

 

Did you mean to write RF rather than RM?

Ooops yes, I've now corrected, thanks.

 

Mark

[geogphotos]

46 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

It doesn't matter what licence the images are being offered under - editorial or otherwise, RF or RM. The contibutor is still breaking the contract unless they have had permission from the Natural History Museum to sell images taken there which is most unlikely. Whether this would be upheld in law ior whether it would ever come to that in the first place is an entirely different issue but as things stand the onus is on the contributor. Saying that there are 1 million images from other contibutors would hold no weight if it did become an issue. 

 

 

All very true. 

 

The point I am making is a different one. 

 

Alamy must know, or can easily check, about these breaches of contract. There must presumably in law be some onus on Alamy to actually police their own contract. One wonders what happens at the point of a sale, perhaps involving a member of Alamy staff, for subjects such as the Natural History museum. 

 

In the past ( long ago now) I reported to Alamy images that directly contradicted their contract rules ( this was when I was annoyed to see RF versions with unreleased property etc). I would check back weeks later and would see that nothing had changed despite Alamy being directly informed. 

 

So rightly or wrongly, even if a contributor knows about the terms of the contract, they will see tens of thousands of images already on Alamy that are in breach and may feel that there is some safety in numbers, or some sort of tacit approval.

 

On reflection, and to return to the OP, it actually might be really helpful to everyone for Alamy to create a list of 'forbidden' museums and other 'forbiddens'. 

Edited August 29 by geogphotos

[M.Chapman]

15 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

It doesn't matter what licence the images are being offered under - editorial or otherwise, RF or RM. The contibutor is still breaking the contract unless they have had permission from the Natural History Museum to sell images taken there which is most unlikely. Whether this would be upheld in law ior whether it would ever come to that in the first place is an entirely different issue but as things stand the onus is on the contributor. Saying that there are 1 million images from other contibutors would hold no weight if it did become an issue. 

Sorry I didn't make myself clear. I agree that the contributor should follow the rules, but Alamy also have a role to play and can't just absolve themselves of all responsibility. The images I saw also appear if the a filter is set to include people, so it looks like the contributor did complete that box correctly, and Alamy says they don't have releases, but is offering as RM unrestricted.
 

Mark

Edited August 29 by M.Chapman

[M.Chapman]

5 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

All very true. 

 

The point I am making is a different one. 

 

Alamy must know, or can easily check, about these breaches of contract. There must presumably in law be some onus on Alamy to actually police their own contract. One wonders what happens at the point of a sale, perhaps involving a member of Alamy staff, for subjects such as the Natural History museum. 

 

In the past ( long ago now) I reported to Alamy images that directly contradicted their contract rules ( this was when I was annoyed to see RF versions with unreleased property etc). I would check back weeks later and would see that nothing had changed despite Alamy being directly informed. 

 

So rightly or wrongly, even if a contributor knows about the terms of the contract, they will see tens of thousands of images already on Alamy that are in breach and may feel that there is some safety in numbers, or some sort of tacit approval.

 

On reflection, and to return to the OP, it actually might be really help to everyone for Alamy to create a list of 'forbidden' museums and other 'forbiddens'. 

Well said.

 

Mark

[Mr Standfast]

Bit off topic.

 

Just up the road from me there is a small factory unit that was recently ram raided and trashed by a political group.  People got hurt. The company makes military products. I went along to see what was happening and found the place quite easily. Their security asked that I did not take any pictures of the factory. The factory was a generic industrial unit without a name over the door or gate, nothing to see realy. Security pointed out that there was a court order or injunction forbidding photography of the building, and pointed to a big sign at the front explaining the situation. All quite legit. So no pictures of the non descript building for me or for the SWNS chap. I told the story with some snaps of the police cars, no factory.

 

When I got back home I could not resist a look on google street view of, there it was, of course.

That evening the story was on  the local BBC news who took more offence of being forbiden to get pictures than I was, a couple of concerned local people interviews all had the only view possible of the factory over the interviewees shoulder.

Some nice pictures in the Wall Street Jounal as well.

I'm not mentioning my dashcam.

 

All very well forbidding photography to keep the location discrete but the bad guys had already raided the place. Very likely that all their friends now have the address as well.

 

Probably a sensible rule but enforcing it after the event, whilst technically correct, a bit pointless. However rules are rules.

 

Take care.🦔

 

 

 

[geogphotos]