Allan Bell Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 I thought the idea of having a logo was to promote the business. Any time the logo is used in editorial it's free advertising - what's their problem? As I suggested to John on page two. The logo owners do not want you to make money from their logo. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TABan Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 An overzealous no logo policy would mean no sales like this: http://time.com/money/3994237/trader-joes-whole-foods-home-values/ I've had several photos of businesses and their logos used in the financial and business press, so I imagine this is probably a large amount of revenue overall for Alamy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDoug Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 I suppose I won't be uploading this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Gaul Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 Totally agree with comments by Mark, although I don't understand why images need to be removed rather than the licencing changed to Editorial. I too fell foul of the National Trust (are we allowed to speak the name without legal threat?) and am no longer a member. Rather bizarrely Alamy did contact me about the licencing terms of D2DYDY which was changed, apparently my own hand is a recognisable person. A couple of images of the Angel of the North were just rejected by a micro for no release, although every other micro accepted them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 I thought the idea of having a logo was to promote the business. Any time the logo is used in editorial it's free advertising - what's their problem? As I suggested to John on page two. The logo owners do not want you to make money from their logo. Allan Those darn capitalists. You just can't keep them happy. Although with today's low prices for photos, they don't have much to worry about. We won't be the ones getting rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 So, in light of all this, should we be going back and putting the necessary restrictions (as suggested by Alamy) on all our images containing logos in order to make them "editorial only"? It would be helpful to know. It would also make things a lot easier for Alamy. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Crean Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 So, in light of all this, should we be going back and putting the necessary restrictions (as suggested by Alamy) on all our images containing logos in order to make them "editorial only"? It would be helpful to know. It would also make things a lot easier for Alamy. No? In my humble opinion...Putting an image as RM, stating no releases, is more than sufficient. Onus is on the publisher to ensure correct permissions are available, or, for them to ask the relevant person/corporation for permission to publish. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
York Photographer Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 I'm struggling to see what the problem is (provided its not a tight shot, taken head on), but as part of a scene, which has been taken legally on a public right of way. And provided its used in the public interest in an editorial context (lets face it, its not going to be used in an advert). Perhaps we should all go in our local branches of these brands who are asking for these images to be removed, and request copies of the CCTV footage containing images of us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 I've just been told that two shots have been deleted from my collection "to avoid further legal action." They show the logo of a high street bank - one as a part of a building and another as an old style free standing sign. A quick check finds 700+ images described as brand X logo on sale within Alamy. Has anyone else had photos deleted as a result of this purge, or are there dark forces out to get me? Bryan, are you talking about British subjects and British law or International law? And are you referring to RF vs. RM? And are you referring to not saying NO when when checking the box that asks if you have a priority release? Alamy has never bothered me about any of this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 So, in light of all this, should we be going back and putting the necessary restrictions (as suggested by Alamy) on all our images containing logos in order to make them "editorial only"? It would be helpful to know. It would also make things a lot easier for Alamy. No? In my humble opinion...Putting an image as RM, stating no releases, is more than sufficient. Onus is on the publisher to ensure correct permissions are available, or, for them to ask the relevant person/corporation for permission to publish. Phil Makes sense to me. That's all I usually do. I used to put further restrictions on images. However, I took them off after Alamy sent me an e-mail suggesting that the restrictions might decrease the likelihood of sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert M Estall Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 BARCLAYS AND MOST OTHER BIG UK BANKS HAVE AREAS WHERE THEIR RAT-CATCHERS MIGHT MORE USEFULLY BE DEPLOYED. Sure, close-ups of logos is against the Alamy rules and you have to wonder why anyone would pay for that anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Neither of my two images deleted were close-ups of the logo. There are many that are still on sale that have much more obvious logos than either of my images so one wonders what criteria Alamy has used for selecting which to delete. Pearl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Neither of my two images deleted were close-ups of the logo. There are many that are still on sale that have much more obvious logos than either of my images so one wonders what criteria Alamy has used for selecting which to delete. Pearl As I said it seems that Alamy have removed specific images complained of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Clarke Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 How ironic that this morning the BBC website is displaying a photo of a Barclays Bank with prominent logo on top of a story about customers having IT problems accessing their Barclays accounts this weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 How ironic that this morning the BBC website is displaying a photo of a Barclays Bank with prominent logo on top of a story about customers having IT problems accessing their Barclays accounts this weekend. So Getty isn't frightened by Barclays. Pearl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
York Photographer Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Nor the PA either http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-3288650/Some-Barclays-customers-hit-weekend-glitch-no-cyber-attack.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 BARCLAYS AND MOST OTHER BIG UK BANKS HAVE AREAS WHERE THEIR RAT-CATCHERS MIGHT MORE USEFULLY BE DEPLOYED. Sure, close-ups of logos is against the Alamy rules and you have to wonder why anyone would pay for that anyway. Isn't it just RF images (not RM) of logos that are against Alamy rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shergar Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 They had better have a word with Google earth while they are at it! https://www.google.com/maps/@50.7211915,-1.8768139,3a,75y,36.33h,111.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sf-0XxG5zLb2aWFoOhkk-5A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thyrsis Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 o Had the licensing terms altered for an image in which the Olympic 'rings' were only just visible - and instructed to be a good boy in the future! Me, too. Same !! Now marked as "Editorial only", which it was anyway as an RM image with no releases ! What really annoys me is that Alamy is not consistent in what they do. We have recently had an image deleted that shows the Olympic flag. Even more annoying is the fact that this image has sold over 20 times in the past. However a quick search on Alamy for 'Olympic Flag' brings up hundreds of images, some of them only uploaded in the last month. So they are still accepting new images that break their rules but our best seller has been removed. Hardly a level playing field! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted October 25, 2015 Author Share Posted October 25, 2015 Bryan, are you talking about British subjects and British law or International law? And are you referring to RF vs. RM? And are you referring to not saying NO when when checking the box that asks if you have a priority release? Alamy has never bothered me about any of this stuff. Well the cat appears to be out of the bag now, it's Barclays bank . My shots were taken in the UK published as RM with no releases. As someone else has already observed, shots with more context - e.g. the entire building but including the logo - have not been touched. There are still some shots showing only the logo available in the collection, maybe they are awaiting deletion? I've previously had National Trust images deleted, but, joyously, have since sold one taken from a public road, while recently I was asked to remove a photo of a church (must have been on private land - news to me). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie Edwards Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 I have just had a quick shufti at my images which were removed. Both were pretty much all logo where the context could be debateable. The images which are in some sort of context, the HQ, of a bank on a High Street. They have all been left alone (so far.) Which does make me think that they have taken a considered approach... at least as far as my images are concerned. Ditto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Could be an opening here. As Alamy delete logo images someone could be uploading more. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin McAbee Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Not sure how this would apply to the US, as long as its editorial I would think logos would be OK. I have never been to London so I don't have Pictures of the London Underground, but if I went to London photographed the London Underground and came back to the US and sold pictures of it how would that apply. Whats the problem with pictures of the London Underground being sold? I have never herd of problems with BART or MARTA logos being photographed here in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 The problem is the rights owner's attitude. Alamy isn't going to go to the wire for a few images of this or that. Not until they've taken their legal advice anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Just wondering, a bit late in the discussion, how you know if some of your logo shots have been deleted. Does Alamy send you an e-mail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.