Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
William Caram

Ahh well it happens...Images deleted as no permission to sell.

Recommended Posts

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

Edited by William Caram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hear that the fear of free publicity has drifted down to Australian, Bill. 

 

Edo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

Edited by William Caram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill save those images. You may be able to resubmit them when the Shrine comes under more enlightened management.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happened to me with images from the Smithsonian in Washington DC and the Tate Modern here in the UK...

 

K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine was also the Tate. I guess their man was checking "Tate" in Alamy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • 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.