Photos in the Ritz Hotel, London

[Phil Robinson]

Of course it may simply be that you are the only Alamy photographer who can afford tea at the Ritz...

 

 

("Sainsburys interior" = 183 results)

[spacecadet]

There are a good few unreleased Ritz interiors on Alamy already and 20  related searches in the last year. If I were Doc I'd be looking a piece of that.

[Niels Quist]

Of course it may simply be that you are the only Alamy photographer who can afford tea at the Ritz...

Perhaps one should put on the ritz next time in London (quite a while since) - £47 plus tips (suppose they are still not included in the UK - at least not at the Ritz probably).

 

[Mike@Meonshore]

Personally I wouldn't.

 

You were inside private property, and whether you were presented with it explicitly on arrival or not there is a clear non-commercial clause on photography.

 

Given the high profile or the Ritz I'd suggest that they would persue this if they felt it breached their policy and the privacy of their clients (which I would suggest is important to them).

[Guest]

Here's my thoughts, based on what I believe is American law. Hotels are privately owned but some spaces are public. In fact hotels are going out of their way to make these spaces more attractive for public use, such as adding wifi access and advertising their lobbies as a place for business meetings. So as a public place it is safe to assume that you have been granted implicit permission to photograph unless or until it has been explicitly forbidden. Anyone in that public space has no reasonable expectation of privacy either. If a hotel were to tell you that all their space was private then merely point to their video surveillance cameras and inform them they are violating your privacy rights; they can hardly argue privacy for me, but not for thee. Of course without releases, these photos would be for editorial use.

[Martin P Wilson]

I have just been in touch with Alamy News about whether I could use a photograph taken inside a shop during a protest by breastfeeding mothers. I was told I shouldn't as permission was needed to shoot on private property. Like Doc, staff saw me walk in and take photographs without any objection but we decided to be safe rather than sorry.

 

The press pack stayed firmly outside the door despite no one requiring them to do so; just recognised their obligations. A useful lesson for me.

[Craig Yates]

I have just been in touch with Alamy News about whether I could use a photograph taken inside a shop during a protest by breastfeeding mothers. I was told I shouldn't as permission was needed to shoot on private property. Like Doc, staff saw me walk in and take photographs without any objection but we decided to be safe rather than sorry.

 

The press pack stayed firmly outside the door despite no one requiring them to do so; just recognised their obligations. A useful lesson for me.

 

Martin is E01R5H   one of your shots taken from inside or through the doors?

 

 

Regards

Craig

[Martin P Wilson]

I thought it had been deleted at my request, I uploaded the batch to be timely while I was waiting for the answer from the Alamy newsdesk. I have rerequested its deletion. I am beginning to get lost with what's happening.

 

It was certainly not going to be pitched by the news desk to clients.

 

Thanks for spotting it. I am still relearning the craft of news photography and I guess I will make mistakes as the rules have changed since I did any in the distant past. I will need to read up on the codes of practice etc for photography again.

 

Interestingly my local paper has used images from inside; not mine I hasten to add. So I am not unduly concerned that I may run into problems and in any case I have demonstrably tried to do the right thing.

[Martin P Wilson]

Don't know UK specifics, but in US, AFAIK:

as long as one is NOT illegally trespassing or legally invading privacy,

one can take & publish photos editorially regardless of posted rules

unless one has signed a legal document in advance of taking photos...?

 

But regardless, agency rules may "trump" a stock shooter's legal rights:

break the rules & risk getting kicked out of agency...

 

As to being "forced" to delete photos, that's illegal, even if by police,

& even if it occurs, as long as one didn't "format", one can still retrieve hi res JPG...?

 

 

Pretty much the same here inb the UK AFAIK. I will check as I was surprised how clear the press pack were about not entering the store - so I thought I better give Alamy the choice. it is a space with public access after all, I guess they could have thrown me out but I felt I had tacit approval as staff (and  possibly the manager) saw me walk in with a camera and take pictures; but whether it was their call is another matter.

 

However there are some issues in the UK about taking photos of people in a private space, especially using long lens even from a location where a photographer is permitted to go. But then investigative journalists do use hidden cameras in genuinely private spaces.

 

In this case the protestors were not going to object to publicity and I would think the store had had enough negative PR for the time being. If I start to achieve worthwhile coverage I will join one of the professional associations and get proper advice; probably don't qualify as things stand. I am not looking to get involved in heavy investigative journalism - too old to go down that route, I'm all for the quiet(ish) life..

[Keith Douglas]

I think there may be two separate aspects to this.

 

The store is privately owned, which allows the owner to decide who is allowed to enter and on what conditions. That might be why the press pack remained outside.

 

The second is the question of whether members of the public have an expectation of privacy when in the store. In that context is the store a private or a public space? I'd say it was a public space.

[Mark Baigent]

IMHO, I would say that it is a private space because it is privately owned. But with public access subject to their terms and conditions.

[Martin P Wilson]

And of course I would have left if asked.

[Mike@Meonshore]

I have just been in touch with Alamy News about whether I could use a photograph taken inside a shop during a protest by breastfeeding mothers. I was told I shouldn't as permission was needed to shoot on private property. Like Doc, staff saw me walk in and take photographs without any objection but we decided to be safe rather than sorry.

 

The press pack stayed firmly outside the door despite no one requiring them to do so; just recognised their obligations. A useful lesson for me.

 

The inside of a shop/restaurant is always considered a privately owned space.

 

The fact that the public are admitted does not commute it to being a public area. You try popping into Nobu with some Tesco sandwiches and sitting down to eat them ;-)

 

The reason the press pack stayed outside is because they are aware of the restrictions placed on publication of images taken in a private area. Taking them from the street is OK for editorial use. Taking them inside isn't clear cut.

 

You may have had the tacit or explicit permission of the store employees or manager, but not necessarily the shop owner, or the landlord of the property if rented space. Leaving when asked, or being prepared to, also doesn't permit you to use the images that you captured before that happened.

 

Inside a private property you would almost certainly need a property release and whilst of course the responsibility always rests with the publisher of the image, and not the  creator - I can see why Alamy want to limit their exposure.

 

So once again for the interior of the Ritz I wouldn't at all - for the breastfeeding protest I would have stayed outside and tried to beat the other guys in wiring the images in.

[digi2ap]

Rather than the Ritz how about an interior of any 'cafe'?!  A quick search yields 17,547 results for 'cafe interior'.  Is there more than one rule? 

[Alex Todd]

There were lots of interior shots of the protest credited to PA so they didn't stay outside with the press pack.

[RedSnapper]

Not seen this story...but what use is a pic from outside when the story is of the breastfeeding women inside?

 

I know where i would have been

 

 

km

[Martin P Wilson]

Not seen this story...but what use is a pic from outside when the story is of the breastfeeding women inside?

 

I know where i would have been

 

 

km

 

Thanks Keith, as it happens the inside pix did not get taken down anyway. Also other pictures were published from inside.

 

Actually it was the F2 article and David K's post about you on these forums that got me thinking about how I should be approaching my photography. They were timely as I am rebuilding my photo career and gave me ideas for what I wanted to do; I can't copy you,  I am starting over 30 years too late to do that, but I can learn from you and others. In any case:

 

"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken." ~ Oscar Wilde

[Bryan]

If the photos were of friends/family I would be inclined to use them, but I would be a tad wary of pics of strangers in such an environment. I suspect that the risk is very slight, but there are plenty of folk with deep pockets who might be prepared to sue.  Whatever the law says, and even if you won the case, it could be financially damaging. It comes down to your attitude to risk.

[kensplace]

The people in the rich could have deep pockets as mentioned, what if you captured someone having an affair...

[kensplace]

Here's my thoughts, based on what I believe is American law. Hotels are privately owned but some spaces are public. In fact hotels are going out of their way to make these spaces more attractive for public use, such as adding wifi access and advertising their lobbies as a place for business meetings. So as a public place it is safe to assume that you have been granted implicit permission to photograph unless or until it has been explicitly forbidden. Anyone in that public space has no reasonable expectation of privacy either. If a hotel were to tell you that all their space was private then merely point to their video surveillance cameras and inform them they are violating your privacy rights; they can hardly argue privacy for me, but not for thee. Of course without releases, these photos would be for editorial use.

 

CCTV images,in the UK at least, if taken on a businesses property are subject to the Data protection act, which ensures the images stay private - they could not be used even editorially without your permission.