Jump to content
SFL

'Network Rail' the rail transport company

Recommended Posts

I have just emailed the news editor of a leading railway magazine with this story. It will be interesting to see what happens. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just emailed the news editor of a leading railway magazine with this story. It will be interesting to see what happens. 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason given for the removal is it infringes their 'Exclusive Intellectual Property'. As a layman I believe that IP is defined as an invention or idea in the category Patents, Trademarks, Registered Designs and Copyright.

 

Here is the UK Govt website dealing with it: https://www.gov.uk/intellectual-property-an-overview/protect-your-intellectual-property

 

It may be that Network Rail have a legal basis for getting them removed under a different law, however as a non legally qualified person IP doesn't seem to be it.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Not directly relevant, perhaps, but this is from Network Rail's website:

"In September 2014 we were reclassified as a public sector organisation.  We know from our transparency polling that, while important for all organisations, a higher level of transparency is expected from public bodies. So people now expect us to be more open as a matter of course, and we'll have to work harder to exceed their expectations. 

This makes it even more important that all our people are working in a more open, honest and accessible way."

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/transparency/open-culture

 

Does this mean that any photos taken before September 2014 cannot be pulled as they where taken under a previous regime?

 

dov

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've emailed McLoughin and my MP as follows:

 

Begins ...

 

I would like to bring to your attention recent overbearing behaviour by Network Rail in respect of legitimate photography in railway stations.

There is an important UK industry based on the publication and sale of both stock and news images to broadcasting, newspapers and magazines, the advertising industry and many others.

 

Network Rail has now contacted the agencies marketing such images requiring them to remove from sale any images taken in their railway stations. Their requirement applies to both current images, and those taken before Network Rail came into existence.

 

This restriction from what is an “arm’s-length central government” organisation is oppressive, restrictive, and entirely unacceptable. Taken to its logical extreme a photograph of the Queen (or the P.M.) taking the Eurostar from St Pancras could no longer be offered for sale by the photographer. By the same token pictures of striking employees or angry commuters would no longer be available to the press.

 

At the same time National Rail is inviting photographers to take pictures of railway stations and submit them to the organisation on the basis that “If you submit your contribution to National Rail Enquiries you must allow us to use the material on a free-of-charge basis on this website or via our social channels.”

 

In my opinion, this move by Network Rail is a gross abuse of the monopoly power of a public organisation. It is retrospective, it threatens the present and future historic record, is a clear restraint of legitimate trade and a threat to press freedom.

 

I urge you and the Minister to address these issues with Network Rail as a Matter of urgency.

 

... Feel free to borrow any of it if you wish.

  • Upvote 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Sorry Mark, I was a bit abrupt earlier. I do agree that additional restrictions beyond the bylaws can be imposed on what I can do in the station, and that could be the case if a contract is in place. But I don't see how just crossing the threshold of the station brings a contract into place. I do see how buying a ticket does though.

 

No problem.

There's the example of a free car park with a time limit managed by a company that issues charges if you overstay. It's settled law that entering the car park forms a contract- if the notice is clear. The consideration to you is the value you get out of the free parking,  the consideration to the company is your agreement to pay the charge if you overstay.

In the station, both parties get value-consideration- out of the visit. So there's a contract. Probably.

However Notwork Fail alleges a breach of IP, for which it needs to own IP. In the case of the station sculptures, it doesn't. Probably. This is the basis on which I've asked for my pix to be put back on sale.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha, I wasn't sure whether this would be the remit of my MP or my MSP, as the Scottish Parliament has "The power to make laws on certain issues, including ... many aspects of transport, including roads and busses", with no mention on either the Holyrood or Westminster sides about railways.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/PublicInformationdocuments/SP_Holyrood_and_Westminster_English_Sept_2014.pdf  (p2)

 

My MSP and MP are a husband and wife team, but I don't suppose, 'pass it to your spouse if appropriate' is really the way to go.

 

However, in my search I came upon this page, with, ironically, a stock image (I think it's Waverley Station in Edinburgh):

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/88585.aspx

Edited by Cryptoprocta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not directly relevant, perhaps, but this is from Network Rail's website:

"In September 2014 we were reclassified as a public sector organisation.  We know from our transparency polling that, while important for all organisations, a higher level of transparency is expected from public bodies. So people now expect us to be more open as a matter of course, and we'll have to work harder to exceed their expectations. 

This makes it even more important that all our people are working in a more open, honest and accessible way."

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/transparency/open-culture

 

Does this mean that any photos taken before September 2014 cannot be pulled as they where taken under a previous regime?

 

dov

 

 

 

Good question Dov and is the question I asked Alamy given that Network Rail did not exist prior to 2002.

They are clearly searching by major rail station names first as the pic of mine in the link below is taken at a station that looks nothing like this now as it was taken in the 1960s….

 

http://www.alamy.com/search.html?CreativeOn=1&adv=1&ag=0&all=1&creative=&et=0x000000000000000000000&vp=0&loc=0&qt=FADWP2&qn=&lic=6&lic=1&imgt=0&archive=1&dtfr=&dtto=&hc=&selectdate=&size=0xFF&aqt=&epqt=&oqt=&nqt=&gtype=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just emailed the news editor of a leading railway magazine with this story. It will be interesting to see what happens. 

Hi Adepooler,

 

I am sure we would all be interested to hear the response!

Cheers

 

Kumar

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pathetic to think that I can take a photo, share it wherever I want including any publications that may want to use it, but the minute I wan't a few dollars for it it becomes forbidden to do exactly the same.  :rolleyes:

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HI All

 

Not having an interest in railways but knowing several photographers who take and submit to national publications (train specific) I too am awaiting Adepoolers response.

 

Having images at the agency who dare not speak its name (Guess) but again no railway stuff has anyone else bee asked to delete from there??

 

 

Jon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

.. has anyone else bee asked to delete from there?

 

  Nowhere else am I asked or told to delete. This seems to be soley a quaint Alamy practice.

 

  Richard.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice the Network Rail link included is to a page for 'Railway Enthusiasts' - do you think it applies to those who aren't the least bit enthusiastic about railways?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a happy bunny - or should I say "pig"? 

 

This is one of mine that got culled. Says it all. Really. 

 

Also about 20 from a photocall I attended at St Pancras - it was to photograph the artwork and an artist - on invitation by the press department. 

 

a-percy-pig-mascot-helps-to-advertise-th

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

.. do you think it applies to those who aren't the least bit enthusiastic about railways?

 

  I've been losing interest in railways and all things trains-related throughout the day.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a happy bunny - or should I say "pig"? 

 

This is one of mine that got culled. Says it all. Really. 

 

Also about 20 from a photocall I attended at St Pancras - it was to photograph the artwork and an artist - on invitation by the press department. 

 

a-percy-pig-mascot-helps-to-advertise-th

Then tell Alamy and forward the permissions.

Failing that, try my approach- Notwork Fail don't own the IP they're complaining you've infringed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all a bad and stupid mistake by Network Rail. Think of all the magazines and leaflets that promote rail travel and need to have a good photo. Photographers and agencies  provide free publicity assistance for them as well as earning our living. The company should amend their demands by saying that editorial sales of  photos are not restricted but any use which involves advertising a product needs special permission. That sounds correct sensible and reasonable.

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've emailed McLoughin and my MP as follows:

 

Begins ...

 

I would like to bring to your attention recent overbearing behaviour by Network Rail in respect of legitimate photography in railway stations.

There is an important UK industry based on the publication and sale of both stock and news images to broadcasting, newspapers and magazines, the advertising industry and many others.

 

Network Rail has now contacted the agencies marketing such images requiring them to remove from sale any images taken in their railway stations. Their requirement applies to both current images, and those taken before Network Rail came into existence.

 

This restriction from what is an “arm’s-length central government” organisation is oppressive, restrictive, and entirely unacceptable. Taken to its logical extreme a photograph of the Queen (or the P.M.) taking the Eurostar from St Pancras could no longer be offered for sale by the photographer. By the same token pictures of striking employees or angry commuters would no longer be available to the press.

 

At the same time National Rail is inviting photographers to take pictures of railway stations and submit them to the organisation on the basis that “If you submit your contribution to National Rail Enquiries you must allow us to use the material on a free-of-charge basis on this website or via our social channels.”

 

In my opinion, this move by Network Rail is a gross abuse of the monopoly power of a public organisation. It is retrospective, it threatens the present and future historic record, is a clear restraint of legitimate trade and a threat to press freedom.

 

I urge you and the Minister to address these issues with Network Rail as a Matter of urgency.

 

... Feel free to borrow any of it if you wish.

I have also sent the following e-mail to my MP, Matthew Hancock, and also Patrick McLoughlin, Transport secretary, with thanks to Russell for the basis of the letter.

 

Dear............

 

I would like to bring to your attention recent overbearing behaviour by Network Rail in respect of legitimate photography in railway stations.

 

There is an important UK industry based on the publication and sale of both stock (editorial) and news images to broadcasting, newspapers and magazines, historical books and textbooks the advertising industry and many others.

 

Network Rail has now contacted the agencies marketing such images requiring them to remove from sale any images taken in their railway stations. Their requirement applies to both current images, and those taken before Network Rail came into existence, going back in some cases to images taken in the 1960s.

 

This restriction from what is a central government organisation is oppressive, restrictive, and entirely unacceptable. Taken to its logical extreme a photograph of the Queen (or the P.M.) taking the Eurostar from St Pancras could no longer be offered for sale by the photographer. By the same token pictures of striking employees or angry commuters would no longer be available to the press.

 

At the same time National Rail is inviting photographers to take pictures of railway stations and submit them to the organisation! – this from their website:

 

“We’d like to invite all the budding photographers out there to take a picture of your local station or stations and submit them through to us.

We’ll pick the best picture for each station and upload it to the page with a credit showing who took it. We’ll also showcase our favourite entries on our Facebook page & Pinterest gallery.

§  If you submit your contribution to National Rail Enquiries you must allow us to use the material on a free-of-charge basis on this website or via our social channels.”

 

This move by Network Rail is a gross abuse of the monopoly power of a public organisation. It is retrospective, it threatens the past, present and future historic record, is a clear restraint of legitimate trade and a threat to press freedom.

 

I urge you and the Minister for Transport, who I have separately contacted, to address these issues with Network Rail as a matter of urgency, and I look forward to hearing your comments and action on this matter.

 

Yours sincerely

 

I urge you to do the same - the more correspondence they get the more likely they are to take the matter seriously .

Again, feel free to use any part of this....

 

Kumar

Edited by Doc
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, where are they going to get their photographs now? Do they have their own library, or a sweetheart deal with one? Hmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've emailed McLoughin and my MP as follows:

 

Begins ...

 

I would like to bring to your attention recent overbearing behaviour by Network Rail in respect of legitimate photography in railway stations.

There is an important UK industry based on the publication and sale of both stock and news images to broadcasting, newspapers and magazines, the advertising industry and many others.

 

Network Rail has now contacted the agencies marketing such images requiring them to remove from sale any images taken in their railway stations. Their requirement applies to both current images, and those taken before Network Rail came into existence.

 

This restriction from what is an “arm’s-length central government” organisation is oppressive, restrictive, and entirely unacceptable. Taken to its logical extreme a photograph of the Queen (or the P.M.) taking the Eurostar from St Pancras could no longer be offered for sale by the photographer. By the same token pictures of striking employees or angry commuters would no longer be available to the press.

 

At the same time National Rail is inviting photographers to take pictures of railway stations and submit them to the organisation on the basis that “If you submit your contribution to National Rail Enquiries you must allow us to use the material on a free-of-charge basis on this website or via our social channels.”

 

In my opinion, this move by Network Rail is a gross abuse of the monopoly power of a public organisation. It is retrospective, it threatens the present and future historic record, is a clear restraint of legitimate trade and a threat to press freedom.

 

I urge you and the Minister to address these issues with Network Rail as a Matter of urgency.

 

... Feel free to borrow any of it if you wish.

 

I have sent it to mine. A tip: remember to include your address with post code otherwise they may write back asking you to confirm that you are one of their constituents.

 

You can always send it to the appropriate Minister as well, I would suggest the ones responsible for Transport, for Culture and, I guess, for Business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit late to the thread but 10 of mine have been culled too.

At least one was taken from a public area outside Bristol Temple Meads station just showing the station façade.

This is becoming ridiculous now, Soon there will be no independent sources of images of even the most familiar sites, if this mentality persists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit late to the thread but 10 of mine have been culled too.

At least one was taken from a public area outside Bristol Temple Meads station just showing the station façade.

This is becoming ridiculous now, Soon there will be no independent sources of images of even the most familiar sites, if this mentality persists.

If it was taken from the highway then tell Alamy so and get it put back.

One of mine of Network Rail signs taken outside the station was not complained about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although its a public area and outside the station, I do know that its still managed/owned by network rail so unfortunately they are within their rights technically.

Edited by Slartybartfast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine was taken from the steps outside.

Unfortunately a building facade isn't a sculpture.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now 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.