William Caram Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 I guess most stock photographers will have come up against the issue of restricted commercial use of images due to not having property releases...Well in this instance i had taken shots of the Shrine of Remembrance War Memorial in Melbourne Australia..The images were taken of the shrine buildings and monuments from the grounds of the shrine,these images have been on Alamy for quite a few years.. Well my images were deleted yesterday along with many other contributor images of the shrine,after a representative of the trustees of the shrine pointed out to Alamy that we did not have permissions or releases to use these images for commercial gain..Apparently there is an act dated 1978 that prohibits commercial use of photography...well if you pay for the permission you may or may not be granted a release...Alamy has done the right thing in deleting the images,ahh that`s the life of the stock shooter today..you win some...you lose some. PS..There are about 155 images still online,but are of activities at the shrine as these images are not close up images of the buildings or monuments...Images taken looking away from the shrine,say towards the city of Melbourne skyline are ok. Cheers Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 Sorry to hear that the fear of free publicity has drifted down to Australian, Bill. Edo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Caram Posted January 7, 2017 Author Share Posted January 7, 2017 Sorry to hear that the fear of free publicity has drifted down to Australian, Bill. Edo Thanks Ed,yes it is free publicity and we photographers may gain a few dollars but they see it as photographers taking a few dollars from their bottom line....Well for the moment there is still plenty to photograph...right LOL. PS..Well i was getting closer to my 3000 image mark and less the 35 culled images...but i have quite a few batches that i`ve been working on so i`d better get on with it..I sort of slowed up waiting for the new management tools to be implemented. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 Bill save those images. You may be able to resubmit them when the Shrine comes under more enlightened management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSnapper Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 The image restrictions relating to the shrine are written into Australian law..... Shrine of Remembrance Act 1978 km Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 Happened to me with images from the Smithsonian in Washington DC and the Tate Modern here in the UK... K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Happened to me with images from the Smithsonian in Washington DC and the Tate Modern here in the UK... K ....exxcept that's not written into law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Lloyd Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 I had a similar eve.t recently of images taken of people and shadows in a London gallery. I had been careful to avoid any art (which was not visible on any image) but fell foul of being in the building. They are 10 years old and formed some of my earlu submissions here. Now they are stock for me to experiment with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
screwbiedooo Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Happened to me with images from the Smithsonian in Washington DC and the Tate Modern here in the UK... K ....exxcept that's not written into law. Precisely. In this case, Alamy are making the law, as I guess they don't want to tread on toes, risk legal problems or garner a bad reputation from potential clients. I can kind of understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Caram Posted January 9, 2017 Author Share Posted January 9, 2017 Happened to me with images from the Smithsonian in Washington DC and the Tate Modern here in the UK... K ....exxcept that's not written into law. Precisely. In this case, Alamy are making the law, as I guess they don't want to tread on toes, risk legal problems or garner a bad reputation from potential clients. I can kind of understand. It has made me more mindful of potential copyright and intellectual copyright problems...I wanted to do some stock shots at a popular tourist attraction here in Ballarat,and i know that many photographers have just taken images and uploaded them to stock libraries...I do forsee a potential problem down the track,so i think that i will approach them and be upfront about it...maybe i can sell them some shots and or they may let me use some shots after they vet what i have taken...Maybe that way i can i can gain something rather than risk losing out down the track...What are your thoughts? Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Happened to me with images from the Smithsonian in Washington DC and the Tate Modern here in the UK... K ....exxcept that's not written into law. Precisely. In this case, Alamy are making the law, as I guess they don't want to tread on toes, risk legal problems or garner a bad reputation from potential clients. I can kind of understand. It has made me more mindful of potential copyright and intellectual copyright problems...I wanted to do some stock shots at a popular tourist attraction here in Ballarat,and i know that many photographers have just taken images and uploaded them to stock libraries...I do forsee a potential problem down the track,so i think that i will approach them and be upfront about it...maybe i can sell them some shots and or they may let me use some shots after they vet what i have taken...Maybe that way i can i can gain something rather than risk losing out down the track...What are your thoughts? Bill If you ask, you'll either be refused or asked for some huge fee. Just get on with it and take photographs lawfully. No-one vets my lawfully acquired images except me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Happened to me with images from the Smithsonian in Washington DC and the Tate Modern here in the UK... K ....exxcept that's not written into law. Precisely. In this case, Alamy are making the law, as I guess they don't want to tread on toes, risk legal problems or garner a bad reputation from potential clients. I can kind of understand. It's only law in Australia, of course. But Alamy is taking the line of least resistance as it usually does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djmorgan Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 I guess most stock photographers will have come up against the issue of restricted commercial use of images due to not having property releases...Well in this instance i had taken shots of the Shrine of Remembrance War Memorial in Melbourne Australia..The images were taken of the shrine buildings and monuments from the grounds of the shrine,these images have been on Alamy for quite a few years.. Well my images were deleted yesterday along with many other contributor images of the shrine,after a representative of the trustees of the shrine pointed out to Alamy that we did not have permissions or releases to use these images for commercial gain..Apparently there is an act dated 1978 that prohibits commercial use of photography...well if you pay for the permission you may or may not be granted a release...Alamy has done the right thing in deleting the images,ahh that`s the life of the stock shooter today..you win some...you lose some. PS..There are about 155 images still online,but are of activities at the shrine as these images are not close up images of the buildings or monuments...Images taken looking away from the shrine,say towards the city of Melbourne skyline are ok. Cheers Bill Hello Bill long time no talk, I'm getting back into it, and I too received the same email from Alamy about the shrine, had about 20 images deleted. It seems like a revenue grab by the Trustee unfortunately many quangos are going this way, pay up front no guarantee of a licence and worst still pay and hourly fee whilst taking images. It's not as though I made any money from the images I had so no loss moving on. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Lloyd Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Mine was also the Tate. I guess their man was checking "Tate" in Alamy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
screwbiedooo Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Happened to me with images from the Smithsonian in Washington DC and the Tate Modern here in the UK... K ....exxcept that's not written into law. Precisely. In this case, Alamy are making the law, as I guess they don't want to tread on toes, risk legal problems or garner a bad reputation from potential clients. I can kind of understand. It has made me more mindful of potential copyright and intellectual copyright problems...I wanted to do some stock shots at a popular tourist attraction here in Ballarat,and i know that many photographers have just taken images and uploaded them to stock libraries...I do forsee a potential problem down the track,so i think that i will approach them and be upfront about it...maybe i can sell them some shots and or they may let me use some shots after they vet what i have taken...Maybe that way i can i can gain something rather than risk losing out down the track...What are your thoughts? Bill You can try I suppose, everyone can try this once. The only response I have had to such approaches is to be escorted off the premises with angry verbal warnings. Or you could move to a country where no-one gives a toss. There are still a few about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Caram Posted January 10, 2017 Author Share Posted January 10, 2017 Thanks everyone for your replies and advice,much appreciated...I will just get on with it and try to shoot images that avoid these sorts of problems.. ATB out there.. Cheers Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarlMillerPhotos Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Happened to me with images from the Smithsonian in Washington DC and the Tate Modern here in the UK... K ....exxcept that's not written into law. I would think as long as they were taken from public property they should be okay for editorial use at least. The legal advice I have had is (here in the US at least), "If you can see it from a public place, you can shoot it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imageplotter Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 Yep, the Tate. Oh well, then now have lost two members, you give some you take some. Network Rail also tried this at the end of last year with all the London Rail Stations. May just have been some law firm gone a bit over the top somewhere, who knows.They reversed it a few weeks later and went for a more sensible 'editorial pics only' approach (which all these pics would be, anyway since private property, unless released). Wonder why the Tate don't manage to get round to that way of thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.