Jump to content

My Tate Modern Images Withdrawn


Recommended Posts

Just had a very polite email from Alamy to say that  the Images Manager for the Tate Galleries has complained about three of my images taken inside the Tate Modern.

 

I didn't see any notice stating that I couldn't take photos as I entered.  I only took a few in the main turbine room so it's no big deal.

 

I presumed it would have come under the same ruling as the National Trust that restrictions only applies to areas that you paid an entry fee.

 

They were on as RM and No Releases.

 

Alamy have done the right thing in withdrawing the images until clarification.

 

Anyone else had theirs withdrawn?

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes 5 of mine.

First all the Smithsonian Museums, now Tate Modern.

 

Not that they have been big earners.

However someone did a very nice book cover with one of those last year.

It has not been reported a year since publication. Just this week I asked Alamy to look into it.

 

Only three paid uses besides this one: an article about museum architecture in Architectural Digest (10 best museums); an article about a national (UK) tour of an art collection and a (UK) newspaper article about the best places to view the Queen sailing up the Thames. That was it.

 

Maybe Brexit is a virus?

 

wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alamy have removed three of my images too (all Tate Liverpool). Tates 'Policy' shown in my Alamy email only referred to photos taken inside galleries, but two of my images were of the buildings exterior, so will challenge the removal of these.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had perhaps a dozen of my images withdrawn from the Smithsonian. I asked at the door upon entering each venue, I again asked every guard on the premises and in each case was told I could photograph all but a couple special exhibits without restriction. I probably talked to a dozen employees in total. There were no signs posted anywhere restricting photography. I had all the images listed as RM with no releases. I didn't bother fighting it as they aren't big sellers and don't attract many zooms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had perhaps a dozen of my images withdrawn from the Smithsonian. I asked at the door upon entering each venue, I again asked every guard on the premises and in each case was told I could photograph all but a couple special exhibits without restriction. I probably talked to a dozen employees in total. There were no signs posted anywhere restricting photography. I had all the images listed as RM with no releases. I didn't bother fighting it as they aren't big sellers and don't attract many zooms.

 

The problem is many venues allow photography for personal use so you are able to take photographs, just not licence them. I got express written permission from the director of a photography museum in France when I needed some interior pictures for an article I was writing. I could have managed without them at a push. However I can only use them to illustrate my articles, Gamma has excusive rights to interior pics (and royalties no doubt contribute to the museums funding) so that seems fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few years back, I contacted both the Smithsonian and an institution in Baltimore about taking photos for stock.  At that time, neither seemed to know what stock photography was. I think they've all been catching on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few years back, I contacted both the Smithsonian and an institution in Baltimore about taking photos for stock.  At that time, neither seemed to know what stock photography was. I think they've all been catching on.

 

They have a special channel now on a certain big big agency.

NT has it's own stock library.

Tate Modern has it's own stock library.

'Nuff said.

 

wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting replies - I'm glad I'm not alone in this.  

 

I thought the Tate was publicly owned so surprised they can apply restrictions.   I can understand it if a special exhibition is on and you pay to enter but not for photographing large areas where anyone can just wander in free.   When entering a property, I always look round for any notices regarding photography.  I'm fairly sure there's no obvious notices at the Tate Modern.

 

There are still numerous interior images of the Tate on Alamy - many very similar to the ones I had withdrawn.  I can't believe they all had permissions.  A very difficult and time consuming job for Alamy staff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had 3 images withdrawn, though at least 2 certainly do not fall foul of their rules as stated, neither now or in 2006 when taken . The Tate clearly talks about "main galleries" I took 2 from the top floor restaurant - through the windows and of St Paul's and the London skyline opposite. So certainly not 'main galleries' and not including any exhibited art. Had a chat with he chap at the Tate who apparently made the blanket request and he seems to think the restaurant pics are OK, but the copyright team at Alamy have interpreted his request as any images taken on Tate property, whilst at the same time indicating the'main galleries' policy in their email. Expecting clarification soon. Best wishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just had a very polite email from Alamy to say that  the Images Manager for the Tate Galleries has complained about three of my images taken inside the Tate Modern.

 

I didn't see any notice stating that I couldn't take photos as I entered.  I only took a few in the main turbine room so it's no big deal.

 

I presumed it would have come under the same ruling as the National Trust that restrictions only applies to areas that you paid an entry fee.

 

They were on as RM and No Releases.

 

Alamy have done the right thing in withdrawing the images until clarification.

 

Anyone else had theirs withdrawn?

 

John

Yup, one so far but I'm waiting for an email to request that the others are removed as well. Shots not taken in the galleries but nonetheless on Tate Modern property. Annoying, because there were no signs indicating that it was not allowed and security guards did not challenge me but understandable, I guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While any organisation may, as a matter of contract, impose restrictions in relation to on-site photography (as opposed to images taken from a public place) provided it takes the necessary steps to incorporate the terms it requires which impose the restrictions in the contract which visitors enter into by paying for admission (which means making the terms apparent before the contract is entered into, not later after the contract has been concluded), it is not possible to do this retrospectively. 

 

If at the time a photograph was taken it was not in breach of the then applicable terms of the entry contract, no subsequent change of entry terms or policy can ever make illegal that which previously was legal, or impose new restrictions on use which were not applicable at the time the photograph was taken.  It concerns me that a number of organisations appear to be jumping on this bandwagon of restricting commercial use of photographs and then putting pressure on agencies such as Alamy, as a result of which there are blanket deletions as have been reported on this forum which are applied to all photographs, not just those which post-date the advertised change in policy.  If this is a new policy on the part of the organisation concerned (as it sounds may well be the case), there is no justification for taking down images which were taken before that change of policy, irrespective of when they were (or may in the future be) uploaded to the stock agency. 

 

Whether or not Alamy and other agencies look at the dates on which restrictions were imposed and compare these to the dates on which the photographs were taken I do not know, but I very much doubt it, because this would mean a lot of extra work for no gain, with the consequence that a blanket take-down may well include images which the photographer had a perfect right to post (even if the identical shot taken after the date of the policy change would not be permissible).  Alamy and other agencies of course have the separate right to determine what images they do or do not wish to host, and if they decide that for a quiet life they will bow to the pressure of these organisations even if this results in the take-down of images which were not taken in breach of any applicable contract terms, that is of course up to Alamy, but it would be disappointing to find that Alamy or other agencies were blocking or taking down perfectly legal photographs simply on the say-so of these organisations without further enquiry.

 

Graham

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Just had a very polite email from Alamy to say that  the Images Manager for the Tate Galleries has complained about three of my images taken inside the Tate Modern.

 

I didn't see any notice stating that I couldn't take photos as I entered.  I only took a few in the main turbine room so it's no big deal.

 

I presumed it would have come under the same ruling as the National Trust that restrictions only applies to areas that you paid an entry fee.

 

They were on as RM and No Releases.

 

Alamy have done the right thing in withdrawing the images until clarification.

 

Anyone else had theirs withdrawn?

 

John

Hi, I had the same request. Shame as some I had taken of the new extension were OK and might have sold eventually. Might get round to putting them somewhere else. :-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Smithsonian, their web page is quite clear that no commercial photography is allowed without permission. I read it after a visit to the Dulles airport museum and after Alamy took down several of those  :(

 

In the future, I'll read about the photography rules ahead of time ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is 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.