Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm sure others will have had this. Alamy is setting editorial restrictions.

I've asked MS whether they have had specific complaints otherwise it seems a bit selective. I've also asked to be referred to the contract term covering it and pointed out that the countries in which my images were taken (UK and Portugal) have freedom of panorama.

MS also doesn't appear to know what "passing off" is. It's certainly nothing we could be doing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had this email as well. All of my images are RM and in most cases, marked as "has property, no release" so are editorial only anyway. Add these to Olympic rings, Network Rail, National Trust etc....where does it end? Pretty well everything outside of clouds and blades of grass has either been designed by someone or is owned by someone.... all getting a bit silly now.....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had this. Germany has freedom of panorama too, German agencies have no problem accepting these images. Strange thing with the one they mailed me about though - it is this image A0KGNE 

Museum der Verbotenen Kunst, Berlin, Germany - Stock Image

 

Is this street art? When does graffiti become street art? Because Berlin has so many surfaces covered in what I would call graffiti, this will affect so many images.

I do have many images of 'street art'taken around Berlin, such as CE926A "Yellow Man - street art by Otavio and Gustavo Pandolfo (known as Os Gemeos), Kreuzberg, Berlin, Germany", this is what I would be expecting ALamy to refer to (although under Germany's Freedom of Panorama it is not a problem) - all are marked as containing property with no release.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what Alamy said in my email. "We’ve recently seen an increase in the number of complaints we have been receiving from street artists regarding copyright infringements of their work." I have no complaint about them being marked as editorial only though it did seem a bit redundant as I had marked them RM and no releases. If the clarity keeps the artist from bothering me that is all to the good. I used this as an opportunity to add to the supertags and put them in categories.

 

Paulette

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just had the same email with several of my images now made editorial only.  Some could be referred to as street art but one is most definitely graffiti - the vandalism sort.  All were taken from a public place and in context of the bigger picture.  All are very relevant to the overall subject.

 

It is all getting out of hand.

 

Pearl

Edited by Pearl
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I received the email also and am so confused. My images are all Rights Managed and I always check "No property release" if I don't have one, so wouldn't that mean they could only be used for editorial use anyway?

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

 Berlin Wall in 1984. Sign you are leaving the American sector. Iron Curtain during the Cold War Stock Photo

 

Berlin in 1984

Now editorial only  ;-)

 

wim

That confirms my suspicion, as does MS' reply to me- it's spectacularly random.

That sign gets about a bit, doesn't it? It was here in 1994. As was I.

FX43K8.jpg

Edited by spacecadet
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a number of graffiti/art images in my portfolio but Alamy's email to me quoted image numbers for specific art installations only, not random unauthorised graffiti. I can't see there being an issue with that type of vandalism unless anybody has received an email actually specifying such works?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"We’ve recently seen an increase in the number of complaints we have been receiving from street artists regarding copyright infringements of their work."

Surely if these "street artists" have been illegally graffiting buildings and other structures surely the correct response is to pass on their names and addresses to the property owners so that they can be prosecuted for causing criminal damage.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, 

We've added editorial restrictions to images that contain the keyword 'mural' or 'murals'. This has been done at the advice of our lawyer as this seems to be a hot issue at the moment. We are doing this to help protect both you and us from any third party issues. 

Our advice on our help pages about artwork in images is...Images of artwork/murals/graffiti must be taken with wider context to the image (i.e. as part of a street scene). They should also be marked as available for editorial use only. Images that are solely of artwork could be seen as a copyright or trademark infringement and shouldn’t be uploaded to Alamy as stock photography.

Thanks

Alamy

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Alamy locked this topic
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.