KWheal Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 I received an e mail today. Now Blue Flag Director (Foundation for Environmental Education (FEE)) have contacted alamy to insist on editorial use only. 2 things 1. How many more will be jumping on this bandwagon 2. Alamy.... please make an editorial button to make it easier to place a restriction for editorial use only with just 1 click What are others opinions Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 2 here. Bournemouth or Poole beach. It's getting a bit pathetic, isn't it? Somebody must be making money out of all this stirring and it's not us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Ashmore Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 2 here. Bournemouth or Poole beach. It's getting a bit pathetic, isn't it? Somebody must be making money out of all this stirring and it's not us. Really.. ? You can't sell pictures of the beach? I was fairly sure that Bournemouth Pier counted as property which would require a property release... but the beach... ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 2 here. Bournemouth or Poole beach. It's getting a bit pathetic, isn't it? Somebody must be making money out of all this stirring and it's not us. Really.. ? You can't sell pictures of the beach? I was fairly sure that Bournemouth Pier counted as property which would require a property release... but the beach... ??? No, just the flag on its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Ashmore Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 2 here. Bournemouth or Poole beach. It's getting a bit pathetic, isn't it? Somebody must be making money out of all this stirring and it's not us. Really.. ? You can't sell pictures of the beach? I was fairly sure that Bournemouth Pier counted as property which would require a property release... but the beach... ??? No, just the flag on its own. Aggh.. I follow now. I guess the blue flag is maybe like a trademark in the same way as an 'Apple' logo or a 'Cisco' logo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Words fail me. Well they don't really, I just do not wish to express them on an open forum. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhandol Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Next time anyone is at a Blue Flag beach, try and get a shot of a fresh pile of pooh with the Blue Flag in the background eh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Lewis Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Hi All Same here only can't remember if they were on an NT beach near a station. This is getting silly now . Regards Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 According to wikipedia (so it must be right ) The Blue Flag is a trademark so insisting on editorial only is not exactly surprising....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 It's not a trademark in the EU according to the registry. https://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmtext/ Nothing for 'blue flag'. Alamy is being a bit supine about this. IMHO. Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Douglas Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 It's not clear to me why flagging an image as Editorial Only is necessary. It's down to the user of the image to understand the law as it applies to their proposed use. I take the view that I make my images for sale and it us up to the buyer to decide whether the image is suitable for their intended use. While I am happy to provide accurate information about what is available in the way of releases, I don't want anything to do with the buyer's decision about the image's suitability in their particular application. I fear that once we move away from providing the facts and providing opinions, however well intended, we open ourselves up to someone coming back later and using that opinion against us. If a legal claim did ever happen, it wouldn't be long before a lawyer was claiming that the photographer had said that the image could be used for Editorial Use, not that it might be suitable for Editorial Use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoM1ke Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Hang on... doesn't the blue flag belong to Blue Flag? As per: http://www.blueflag.org/menu/awarded-sites/2015/northern-hemisphere/england/southwest/bournemouth-southbourne-beach If so, how can Bournemouth give permission to photograph it? I would have thought that the whole point was for advertising the beach as a "Blue Flag beach"... am I missing something here? Edit: Also, wouldn't it be up to the advertiser to get the permission, not the photographer? I mean, you have no idea what kind of advertising it would be used for when you take the photograph... big difference between "Clean Blue Flag Bournemouth Beach" and "Sunbathing beside this Blue Flag is horrible because it blocks the sun!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 It is not a bandwagon, it has been going on for a very long time. Anytime you incorporate any intellectual property in your image you run the risk of a lawsuite. If Alamy is taking down your images containing intellectual property, they are doing you a favour by keeping you out of harm’s way. Here is a classic case over the shape of an air freshener. http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/2011/10/getty-images-facing-upwards-to-80-million-trademark-claims.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Anytime you incorporate any intellectual property in your image you run the risk of a lawsuite. No you don't, the publisher does. He decides. We're not in harm's way if we represent the facts as to releases correctly. That case is the sort of American absurdity which would not see the light of day here, and it's against the agent, not the photographer- the claim of vicarious liability was denied because stock photographers don't place images into commerce, the agent does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 You do run the risk. Any fool can sue and Alamy is not an Agent. Alamy is a stock photo library. Agreed the publisher is ultimately responsible. However if your actions caused the publisher’s problems, then the publisher can sue you. The IP owner can sue you to the ends of the earth in order to soften you up, so that you will provide evidence against the real targets in the case. In the meantime you have had to pay to seek legal advice, and maybe pay to negotiate a deal for yourself, sometimes in a foreign land. You ignore a foreign default judgement against you at your peril. As to it never happening in the UK, Alamy is an international business. Do you never have Alamy sales in the USA? The blue flag people have to protect their IP. If anyone can buy a image of the blue flag and then misuse it for their polluted beach, then what does a blue flag beach mean? By insisting on only editorial, the Blue Flag organization is being reasonable. Taking an image of a logo only, and then profiting by selling that image for commercial purposes, is no different than profiting from a copy photograph of a photograph owned by another photographer. A, only editorial, button in manage images would be a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 The blue flag people have to protect their IP. If anyone can buy a image of the blue flag and then misuse it for their polluted beach, then what does a blue flag beach mean? By insisting on only editorial, the Blue Flag organization is being reasonable. Taking an image of a logo only, and then profiting by selling that image for commercial purposes, is no different than profiting from a copy photograph of a photograph owned by another photographer. We're in different worlds, evidently. Then Blue Flag go after the misuse. Nothing to do with me. I lawfully took a photograph and did not misrepresent its status. The rest is fantasy outside the US. As to reasonable, I beg to differ. Someone is throwing their weight about because they think they can. Another shrinking of public space. WHat is the point of a blue flag if it isn't publicity? Selling a lawfully taken image including IP is nowhere near infringement- as the judgment you cited states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.