Jump to content

Photos in the Ritz Hotel, London


Recommended Posts

HI all,

 

Advice please.

 

I was fortunate enough to have afternoon tea in the Ritz Hotel, London last week, and (of course) took some pictures of people enjoying tea in the Palm Court while I was there. There were no signs saying no photography, no-one asked me not to take pictures indeed the waiters kindly waited till I had taken them before passing in front of me.

 

My images have passed QC and are awaiting keywording, but I note on Alamy there are very few images of the Ritz interior and virtually none of people having tea. This tends to ring alarm bells in terms of whether the Ritz has a policy of no photography/stock imaging in its interior which I am not aware of 

 

Does anyone know, and what would you do with the images? 

 

thanks in advance

 

Kumar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe an email direct to the Ritz to check on any restrictions or to gain permission.

 


 

 

 

An extract from their terms and conditions.

 

Photography, which may only be for personal use and not to be published in any format, is permitted only in the designated area of the front hall under the supervision of an hotel employee. Photography or filming are not permitted in any other public areas of the hotel. Commercial photography or images including trade marks or trade names requires the prior written consent of the Ritz.

 

 

Regards

Craig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Send the email and they will say no or ask for a large fee. They will also be on notice.

I would adopt the David K approach- if there are no signs and I'm not told to stop, I'll submit. The legal remedies are very limited even against a publisher. Whether the Ritz bothers with National  Trust-style strongarming, I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As reported above by Craig, it is not permitted to publish such images for commercial use, it took me 20 secs to find the clause via an internet search of the Ritz site. I would not submit these without written permission from the Ritz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As reported above by Craig, it is not permitted to publish such images for commercial use, it took me 20 secs to find the clause via an internet search of the Ritz site. I would not submit these without written permission from the Ritz.

Not permitted by whom, and on what legal basis? This is an ongoing debate.

We know what the conditions say, we simply doubt they're enforceable in the UK against stock images. If you have a search of the forum you'll find may threads about this.

The only clear remedy a venue has is to ask you to leave and if you don't to eject you for trespass.

Doc wasn't even asked to leave.

Alamy would have a much smaller collection if every image conformed strictly to the purported terms and conditions of the places they were taken. A fair majority of my sales probably don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure publishing T&Cs on a web site are enforceable for services where you walk in off the street. I seem to recall a case (in UK I believe) where they were deemed unenforceable even when a ticket was bought; my understanding (but I am not a lawyer) is that they have to be explicit at or before the time of purchase or before using a free service. Just referencing them on the back of a ticket may still not be sufficient, especially if bought at the gate (unless there is clearly visible sign setting them out) as the purchase has already been made. Hence the tick box on most online purchases to confirm acceptance of T&Cs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These should not be used without permission. You have taken them on private property and not a public place and therefore not usable for stock, even editorial.

Why not just ask the Ritz if you can use them as editorial stock and possibly offer them anything that they may use as goodwill. I generally have had no problems when asking permission for this scenario, I send an email asking permission and keep the reply for future reference.

Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Doc, there you have it.

Interesting that those in favour say maybe and those against are rather more definite- I wonder if any  legal advice that we don't know about has been taken to account for such categorical opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arguably as soon as you move off the public highway you are on land owned by someone with terms and conditions, byelaws, custom and practice all of which could, if strictly applied, prevent or limit photography. It is a minefield and potential bonanza for lawyers. Fortunately, most of the time common sense and reasonableness prevails.

 

Has anyone looked at the terms of use for National Parks - I bet there is something in them and relevant byelaws about using them for commercial purposes. Think about the ban on photography without a permit  for commercial use in Trafalgar Square. I seem to recall threads about Alamy contributors with "professional" looking cameras being challenged.

 

So as a photographer you have to apply your own judgement on the reasonableness of using images taken in any but the most straightforward of situations. Then don't make assumptions about the people in them when keywording, discussed recently with relation to the "homeless" in street photography.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhat related albeit different situation:

 

I was in a long queue in Waitrose the other day and snapped a few shots to pass the time of day. I was approached by a member of staff who told me that either I delete the images or they would need to call the manager. I see however that there are many interior shots of supermarkets on Alamy. Indeed it is a minefield, as someone posted earlier.

 

Anthony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhat related albeit different situation:

 

I was in a long queue in Waitrose the other day and snapped a few shots to pass the time of day. I was approached by a member of staff who told me that either I delete the images or they would need to call the manager. I see however that there are many interior shots of supermarkets on Alamy. Indeed it is a minefield, as someone posted earlier.

 

Anthony

Yes, it's criminal damage. I do hope you didn't give in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it's criminal damage. I do hope you didn't give in.

 

 

I turned the camera off and put it away which diffused the situation. Seen as I was just idly passing the time while queuing (playing with a new lens ;-))) I had nothing I intended to keep anyway.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one, not even a policeman can demand or force you to delete photographs without a court order. If they do they are committing an offence themselves.

 

Whether it is a battle worth fighting is another matter entirely.

Well, I had to delete some shots from a parade in Iran after being surrounding by five young men, secret police?, and force me to delete one by one those with women. Of course I recovered those later back at home in Spain:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No one, not even a policeman can demand or force you to delete photographs without a court order. If they do they are committing an offence themselves.

 

Whether it is a battle worth fighting is another matter entirely.

Well, I had to delete some shots from a parade in Iran after being surrounding by five young men, secret police?, and force me to delete one by one those with women. Of course I recovered those later back at home in Spain:-)

 

 

I should have added "in the UK" to my statement. Like you I don't think I would have attempted to fight that battle especially as you had alternative options once you got home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Ritz would undoubtedly say NO if asked and policy statements on a web site could be argued to be "Contract after the fact". On the other hand, Carlton Ritz have deep pockets and might rattle your cage pretty hard if they took offence at something you published. I expect Alamy might back off pretty quickly if asked by The Ritz. Not worth the hassle!

 

There are a few shots on Alamy showing the Palm Court and just a few posed shots of single nicely dressed women. Wouldn't really satisfy a request for taking tea at The Ritz. There is a decent shot by Adam Wolfitt via Robt Harding which captures the mood with the tea takers faces carefully turned away from the camera. 

 

If you trawl Tea/Ritz on the web you will be presented with shots of the room and food details but people shots are elusive. Perhaps you should look at this from the client point of view. I guess you were on a celebration outing, how happy would you be if an opportunist photographer snapped your party and lobbed the shots up on a stock site without even asking if you were cool with the idea.

 

I dont think I would be too comfortable submitting pix from such a high profile cafe, but you would likely get away with it. For a while!  Is it worth it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it worth it, well you may get one of these $ 6.51 sales but I suspect that would not cover legal costs.

 

For me it is a moral issue, I would not want someone to make images of my kitchen and sell them without permission. I do not see it as any different for a business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what if you invited them into your kitchen, whose raison d'être was to sell tea, and sold them tea? You might not wish them to publish, but could you lawfully prevent them? Indeed, if the publication led to more people buying tea, would you even want to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure that I see any difference, the legal issue is a bit of a side issue, to me as it is a moral issue and I do not like being sneaky.

Selling more tea would also not make a difference

I don't think I over-stretched your analogy. Sorry if you missed the point.

Not the sort of area you seem to cover but many of us do and we need to feel free to offer our images. Given the price of tea at the Ritz one might feel entitled anyway!

Seriously, Doc was not being 'sneaky', he took his photographs openly, with staff co-operation, even. It doesn't get near being a moral issue. IMHO.

If there had ever been a case of something like this going to law my opinion might be different but I'm willing to stick my neck out and say there hasn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hiya

 

No not my sort of thing, I'm not sure what that is :-)

I do not want to single out the OP but if you make images in a private place that is not being sneaky if people see what you are doing.

It is then selling them strikes me as a tad sneaky .

If you upload the images to Alamy hoping to "get away with it" also a tad sneaky.

 

I think for me there is a big difference between a private place (without permission) and a public place.

 

Note these are only my thoughts for what little they are worth, I would not want to fall out with anyone over them.

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not sure that I see any difference, the legal issue is a bit of a side issue, to me as it is a moral issue and I do not like being sneaky.

Selling more tea would also not make a difference

I don't think I over-stretched your analogy. Sorry if you missed the point.

Not the sort of area you seem to cover but many of us do and we need to feel free to offer our images. Given the price of tea at the Ritz one might feel entitled anyway!

Seriously, Doc was not being 'sneaky', he took his photographs openly, with staff co-operation, even. It doesn't get near being a moral issue. IMHO.

If there had ever been a case of something like this going to law my opinion might be different but I'm willing to stick my neck out and say there hasn't.

 

If any picture implies consent and gets used commercially, that's close to 'passing off' and has gone to court in UK. Eddie Irvine case for example. Not sure anyone would be stupid enough to do so but there have been equally stupid uses in past.

 

Is it worth it, I would say there are better things to shoot. Moral grounds, I like the tea in the Ritz more than I think one would make from the images. Is the Olympus gallery still part of Ritz building? We used to have tea there after going to the gallery - old days when David Bailey seemed to be in permanent residence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.