Jump to content
SFL

'Network Rail' the rail transport company

Recommended Posts

 

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.

 

I've told them what I think. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no conceivable IP that NR could possibly own there. It's purely been found from the location.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have also received a similar email from Alamy today, and 2 of my pictures taken at Kings Cross Station, London have been removed because quote: - "'Network Rail' the rail transport company, has been in touch with us requesting the removal of the below listed images of your's" and "They say you’re selling these without authorisation and this is violating their exclusive intellectual property rights...."

 

One of the pictures is of my wife as a traveller, that happens to be in the station, and the other is specifically of the station.

 

In both cases the pictures were on Alamy as having Property in the photograph which would require a property release to sell commercially, but I have also stated that I do not have a Property Release. I cannot check now as they are deleted, but I would think I put them on Alamy with restrictions, so that they would be for Editorial Use Only.

 

I have other pictures on Alamy showing stations, and I am wondering if I need to remove them from Alamy as well.

 

As an individual, I am not going to contest the removal of the pictures from Alamy, but I do wonder what Alamy's view is, on this overall issue. From other posts it is clear that there are many thousands of pictures showing stations, which I presume do not have Property Releases from Network Rail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if there's another angle to this, at least for the various station sculptures. Mine are of Ken Dodd, there's the OP's of Betjeman. I'm sure there are others.

I wonder if the sculptors would appreciate NR claiming it owned their copyright in the sculptures, because that's what Alamy is implying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Section 62 is quite clear

 

"62 Representation of certain artistic works on public display.

 

(1)This section applies to—

(a)buildings, and

(b)sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.

(2)The copyright in such a work is not infringed by— (a)making a graphic work representing it, (b)making a photograph or film of it, or ©[F130making a broadcast of] a visual image of it.

(3)Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the [F131communication to the public], of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright."

 

 

So what ip they deem are being infringed I don’t know.

 

getty have images listed as RF, i doubt they will be taking them down as do corbis

Edited by i4images
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Letter sent to my MP and Patrick McLoughlin

 

Thanks for the initial template. I've done a bit of customisation!

 

Begin ========

 

 

Dear Mr Djanogoly

 

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

 

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. As a photographer I contribute regularly to Alamy, a stock and News Agency based in Abingdon, Oxfordshire, and my work has featured in the national and local press.

 

Network Rail has contacted Alamy, requiring them to remove from sale any images taken in the railway stations that Network Rail manage. Their requirement applies to both current images, and those taken before Network Rail came into existence. As an example I include below one of my images that was on sale at Alamy, showing the impressive roof above the platforms at Kings Cross Station.

 

 

This restriction, from what is a publicly owned organisation, is oppressive, restrictive, and entirely unacceptable. Taken to its logical extreme photographs of the Queen, members of the Government or celebrities at many mainline stations could no longer be offered for sale by photographers. Similarly, photographs  of famous locomotives such as the Flying Scotsman, Mallard and Sir Nigel Gresley, all of which have passed through our constituency in recent years, could no longer be sold. Photographs relating to important news items would no longer be available to the press or other media.

 

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. It is not something that is covered in the Railway byelaws so it is difficult to see what underpins this action from a legal standpoint.

 

I would be pleased if you would investigate this matter with some urgency and find out why Network Rail have recently taken this action and whether their actions can be reversed.

 

 

As a public organisation, Network Rail ultimately answers to Parliament. I am sure that they have far more important matters to focus on than preventing photographers making a living from their creative talents.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Keith Douglas

 

cc: Rt Hon. Patrick McLoughlin, Transport Secretary

 

 

======= End

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a response from a national magazine publisher....

 

Most alarming - and you're not the first to bring this to my attention.  I'll look in to it as it is both serious and totally ridiculous..!

 

It could indeed have serious ramifications, so expect a strong response not just from xxxxx, but also the rest of the railways press.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that Alamy is like a trained dog (pun intended) rolling over and playing dead on this issue, so why not send your Alamy culls to a different stock photo library that will accept them?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that Alamy is like a trained dog (pun intended) rolling over and playing dead on this issue, so why not send your Alamy culls to a different stock photo library that will accept them?

 

From a commercial perspective that may well be the best option for my 7 images, but I, and probably many others, want to try to get this reversed as it is just plain wrong and may not end here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm starting to get the bit between my teeth about it as well. Unjustified claims of IP ownership, claiming that I'm violating IP they don't even own- it's stacking up.

The next step may be to ask the sculptor whether he assigned his copyright. I know the answer already, but an email from him confirming it would be very handy.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that Alamy is like a trained dog (pun intended) rolling over and playing dead on this issue, so why not send your Alamy culls to a different stock photo library that will accept them?

 

 

That may be a bit presumptuous at this point….I would imagine Alamy is very busy behind the scenes looking into this and taking legal advice, after all, it would not be in Alamy's interest, or ours, to permanently delete these images, especially if it has no legal standing, not to mention the enormous task of deleting them all….Birmingham New Street station, for instance, has 1,284 alone !

I cannot see how Network Rail can claim IP on many of these images….in many cases, the images of mine contain stations that have changed beyond all recognition and have locomotives in them that were cut up 40+ years ago !

I have also Emailed the minister for transport and my local MP….and it will probably only be a matter of time until the papers get hold of it as well….Epic Fail Network Rail….

 
 
Edited by Martyn
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It seems to me that Alamy is like a trained dog (pun intended) rolling over and playing dead on this issue, so why not send your Alamy culls to a different stock photo library that will accept them?

 

 

That may be a bit presumptuous at this point….I would imagine Alamy is very busy behind the scenes looking into this and taking legal advice, after all, it would not be in Alamy's interest, or ours, to permanently delete these images, especially if it has no legal standing, not to mention the enormous task of deleting them all….Birmingham New Street station, for instance, has 1,284 alone !

I cannot see how Network Rail can claim IP on many of these images….in many cases, the images of mine contain stations that have changed beyond all recognition and have locomotives in them that were cut up 40+ years ago !

I have also Emailed the minister for transport and my local MP….and it will probably only be a matter of time until the papers get hold of it as well….Epic Fail National Rail….

 
 

 

 

I am afraid experience tends to confirm Bill's view. As well as Network Rail, National Trust, Olympics, London Underground are just three others that spring to mind.

 

edited to correct a senior moment!

Edited by Martin P Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alamy have to act promptly to protect themselves from costs in the remote event it went to court, which is fair enough, but it's going to cost them a huge effort to have to comb through the emails with evidence for reinstatement. Assuming they change their minds, which they did with Barclays.

They must have been lining up the deletions for days, and even now, it's spotty- it looks like they've only deleted what was complained about, and NR have missed quite a few.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

.Epic Fail National Rail….
 
 

 

Network Rail. Not the same organisation. One must be fair.......

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

.Epic Fail National Rail….
 
 

 

Network Rail. Not the same organisation. One must be fair.......

 

 

Oops…well spotted Mark - corrected !

The point is, Alamy will have to make a stand at some point as they did with Barclays, if not, any company could chance their luck….what if manufacturers start ordering take downs of everyday objects used in our photos ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evening all

 

Had 20 or so of mine removed as well. I have been in touch with a couple of the railway press editors and it seems there has been no guidance or instruction from network rail to refrain from publishing any pictures.

 

My concern is that this could slowly escalate if the decision is not reversed, or at least clarified.

 

Every station is owned by someone along with the trains that use them. Could we see the complete eradication of free and independent photography of the British Railway network?

 

In this copycat world we live in, will other businesses jump on the bandwagon and use this case as precedence to ban, or at least heavily restrict, editorial photography per se?

 

Anyway off to email my MP and appropriate ministers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of mine up for deletion is of a car park, under a disused railway station roof (I wonder what the great Brunel would say ? the roof design was his).

 

Another deleted image was only licenced just two days ago. Not by NR I hope !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your voices are being heard.

While I, living in the U.S., don't have a dog in the hunt, I am outraged by what has happened.

 

Carry on, protest, insist.

Hopefully all of your images will be quickly restored.

Betty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've lifted this update from Julie's link here at https://phnat.org/20...-photo-removal/ . Thanks Julie :)

 
Network Rail have released this statement after being contacted by PHNAT:
 
“As a public company funded by fare payers and taxpayers part of our responsibility is to maximise revenue from railway property, of which we are custodian.
“That means that filming and photographs taken for commercial reasons will attract a fee, whereas the content gathered for news and editorial reasons will not.
“Permission must be sought for all such activity so we can work to reduce the cost of running the railway and thus lighten the burden to both fare payers and taxpayers.
“We understand that a photograph agency with both a commercial and editorial branch were contacted by Network Rail and asked to take down photographs taken in train stations if they were to be sold on for commercial purposes. We have since gone back to the agency to clarify that the pictures may remain on the site as long as they are licenced for news and current affairs purposes only.  There has been no change in our policy.”
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've lifted this update from Julie's link here at https://phnat.org/20...-photo-removal/ . Thanks Julie :)

 
Network Rail have released this statement after being contacted by PHNAT:
 
“As a public company funded by fare payers and taxpayers part of our responsibility is to maximise revenue from railway property, of which we are custodian.
“That means that filming and photographs taken for commercial reasons will attract a fee, whereas the content gathered for news and editorial reasons will not.
“Permission must be sought for all such activity so we can work to reduce the cost of running the railway and thus lighten the burden to both fare payers and taxpayers.
“We understand that a photograph agency with both a commercial and editorial branch were contacted by Network Rail and asked to take down photographs taken in train stations if they were to be sold on for commercial purposes. We have since gone back to the agency to clarify that the pictures may remain on the site as long as they are licenced for news and current affairs purposes only.  There has been no change in our policy.”

 

So, basically, Alamy should make sure that all images in question should be set at "editorial use only" and not be deleted outright ... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've lifted this update from Julie's link here at https://phnat.org/20...-photo-removal/ . Thanks Julie :)

 
Network Rail have released this statement after being contacted by PHNAT:
 
“As a public company funded by fare payers and taxpayers part of our responsibility is to maximise revenue from railway property, of which we are custodian.
“That means that filming and photographs taken for commercial reasons will attract a fee, whereas the content gathered for news and editorial reasons will not.
“Permission must be sought for all such activity so we can work to reduce the cost of running the railway and thus lighten the burden to both fare payers and taxpayers.
“We understand that a photograph agency with both a commercial and editorial branch were contacted by Network Rail and asked to take down photographs taken in train stations if they were to be sold on for commercial purposes. We have since gone back to the agency to clarify that the pictures may remain on the site as long as they are licenced for news and current affairs purposes only.  There has been no change in our policy.”

 

 

Sounds like back tracking to me. What's needed though is clarification of the term 'commercial'. I suspect that in the writers mind that means stock. Would use in textbooks or travel articles fall under "news and current affairs"?

Edited by Keith Douglas

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.