Jump to content

Verboten or Tricky Subject Matter


Recommended Posts

Buchanan Street Bus Station in Glasgow seems very neurotic about photography. They've got signs up at the main entrances, and at every stance forbidding any photography.

 

Also in the UK a lot of what appear to be public streets, even main city thoroughfares, are actually privately owned,: especially in London, but I know of some in Glasgow and even a random little obscure road near here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
On 10/09/2017 at 10:34, imageplotter said:

 

 

There's little that can be done about it I guess, and the bottom line as it stands, is that they can sue. With so many law firms eager to represent on a "no win no fee" basis and hunting for clients that they can find copyright infringements for, I can understand why alamy are wary, even though it still makes me mad. :D Many firms fire off copyright infringement claims  left right and centre after doing online searches for images, in the hope that just some of them will be successful. So I'm going to photograph less street art, which is a real shame as I love it.

 

 

Can you share your experience of this in the UK,specifically for street art  because there's no mileage in it for an ambulance-chasing lawyer now we have small claims for copyright- their fees will never be awarded by the court. That's assuming an infringement would be established, which is very unlikely as we have freedom of panorama in the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding street art and graffiti. Is it possible for people to paint (etc.) on a surface that doesn't belong to them – I assume that, technically, this would classify as vandalism – in a publicly accessible place, and then forbid others to take photos of what they've painted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Thomas Kyhn said:

Regarding street art and graffiti. Is it possible for people to paint (etc.) on a surface that doesn't belong to them – I assume that, technically, this would classify as vandalism – in a publicly accessible place, and then forbid others to take photos of what they've painted?

It's a separate issue, I'd say. You can still own the copyright without owning the surface. You could sue for infringement and still yourself be open to a charge of criminal damage.

Anyway this isn't so much a matter of infringement as of Alamy caving in to threats, or taking the line of least resistance, according to  your preference. After all some of these removals are being instigated by Alamy's own lawyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't understand this whole property release issue and I really want to understand.

 

Lately some of my images where refused (not by Alamy) for not having a property release. The reason was that they where unsellable without PR. Subjects where in Paris, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem... both free and payed entrance... the same kind of images, same venues etc where accepted by them btw.

 

I argued that:

- for some subjects there was no way to get a PR, the Church of the holly sepulchre in Jerusalem for example... 5-6 Churches are in charge of the place and there is a ladder on the facade that can't be moved and wasn't for the past few hundred years (read it on wiki if you're interested) + nothing mentioned on their website and no contact at all to ask about their policies

- for some places they didn't own any copyright on the design since the place was built a few hundred years ago...

- on the websites of the 5 places I took photos, nothing mentioned

- nothing mentioned on the tickets either

- I wasn't told anything when entering... and I sure you will all agree that a D700 and D750 with battery packs, 24mm PC-E and 24-70 are not the most discrete...

- and in some places it was free entry and no security, reception whatsoever...

etc...

 

Then I looked for similar photos in articles on the web and found plenty. Some of them I recognised and traced back to the agency that rejected my pix as ell as Alamy. And what would do you think, NO PROPERTY RELEASE WHATSOEVER. Most (I didn't check them all) of the images by well known architecture photographers Hufton + Crow and Iwan Baan have NO PROPERTY RELEASE. They where, I suppose, appointed by the architect to take exterior and interior shots... and after while threw them onto stock sites...

 

If they don't succeed to get PR who would?

 

Next question is WHY WOULD ANYBODY GIVE YOU A PR? You can basically sell a picture ad vitam eternam to whatever end: mugs, posters, postcards... or maybe sell the image of a museum, somebody's house  to sell KKK flags? Background of a porn video cover?

 

Even more trickier is there is no one person/organisation that can give you a PR... in the case of the Tate Modern as an example you will need the PR from the architects Herzog and De Meuron + The Tate, maybe some other firm involved in the design, probably the ones responsible for the exhibition and layout... and in some cases artists... any photographer has the time to deal with all those people???

 

And lastly what about freedom of press? Can't a journalist write an article even a review about a place and add a picture that he seems reflecting the space, building, exhibition??? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if this is slightly off-topic, but I think it's an interesting question. I have a couple of "street art" mural images on Alamy that were uploaded some time ago. The buildings they were painted on have since been demolished to make way for shiny new condo towers, which is par for the course (unfortunately) here in booming Vancouver. Does this situation change anything now that the original works are gone? Do the artists still retain copyright now that their works have been reduced to dust, and how are stock images of their murals affected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael_Jacobs said:

I still don't understand this whole property release issue and I really want to understand...

 

In the shell of a nut, you don't NEED a PR to sell editorial. You'd need it for commercial uses and RF that isn't RF editorial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, JeffGreenberg said:

.., PR not needed EVER

unless trademarked subject involved or if illegal trespass was involved...

 

Quote

And lastly what about freedom of press? Can't a journalist write an article even a review about a place and add a picture that he seems reflecting the space, building, exhibition???

If I'm reading Michael's complex post correctly he, like a number of new contributors, seems to believe he needs a release to sell the images with any licence, the 'Church of the holly sepulchre in Jerusalem for example'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The National Trust attempts to misuse a bylaw which prohibits use of their properties for commercial photography (to paraphrase).  But take my own case as an example. I have been a photography nut for decades.  I bought my first SLR film camera out of the proceeds of an evening class tuition job in the 1970s, there was no other way I could afford it. Ever since, I have taken as many photos as I can, and upgraded my cameras many times.  For years I have photographed everything photographable to death (and continue to do so), for no purpose other than my own personal enjoyment.  The idea of selling my photos never even occurred to me until I was approaching retirement, by which time I had literally many hundreds of thousands of photographs from my travels, near and far: visiting historic properties has always been high on the agenda for my wife and me wherever we go.  As I approached retirement, I eventually thought that it might be interesting during my declining years to try to sell some of my huge cache of photos as a retirement project and I tried to sign up for Alamy. I failed my initial QC submissions, then Alamy's systems would not for some reason even process images edited with the version of Photoshop I was using, so I gave up the idea for another few years.  Eventually I came back to the idea, passed QC and have not looked back since.  The photos I upload are a mixture of old and new: there is no way I will ever have time to process even my historic photos, so I just put up whatever I feel like looking at for the time being, new or old.

 

I have a huge bank of NT images taken at a time when I had no intention whatever to sell them: I had not even conceived the idea that I might sell them one day.  At the time I took those photographs, I could not possibly be taken to have been undertaking commercial photography, because it had not even occurred to me that I might sell them: I was just an enthusiastic (over-enthusiastic?) amateur.  I could not, therefore, conceivably have been in breach of the NT's bylaws when I took those photographs. The NT's bylaws are designed to govern behaviour at their properties.  If a non-commercial photographer takes photographs and then later decides to commence selling photos taken sometimes long ago, I cannot see any way in which this can possibly amount to some kind of retrospective breach of the NT's byelaws. The byelaws govern conduct at the properties, not ownership of images or restriction on uses which at the time of entry did not violate the NT byelaws.  If the photographs were taken not for commercial purposes at the time, but for personal reasons, a subsequent decision to use them for commercial purposes cannot breach a bylaw designed to govern conduct during a visit to the relevant property. 

 

Maybe this is why we have not seen any reported action by the NT, because they realise that proof of the fact of a photograph having been taken on one of their properties is not of itself sufficient to prove that a breach of its bylaws occurred, even if that photograph is subsequently used for stock photography.  Even now, I take photographs of whatever interests me, only a small fraction of which I would ever consider submitting as stock.  I would still say that, at National Trust properties or otherwise, I take my photographs for my own pleasure and if I later decide to use some of them for stock, so be it: I did not go to the property for a commercial purpose, and deciding to use some of my photos resulting from my non-commercial visit for commercial purposes afterwards is not a retrospective infringement of the NT's bylaws.

 

I used to be a keen supporter of the National Trust, but its aggressive and unwarranted attitude towards photographers has resulted in my wife and I deleting what could have been substantial legacies for the NT in our wills: their loss, and there are much more deserving and pleasant organisations deserving of our bequests.

 

Graham

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Graham said:

The National Trust attempts to misuse a bylaw which prohibits use of their properties for commercial photography (to paraphrase).  But take my own case as an example. I have been a photography nut for decades.  I bought my first SLR film camera out of the proceeds of an evening class tuition job in the 1970s, there was no other way I could afford it. Ever since, I have taken as many photos as I can, and upgraded my cameras many times.  For years I have photographed everything photographable to death (and continue to do so), for no purpose other than my own personal enjoyment.  The idea of selling my photos never even occurred to me until I was approaching retirement, by which time I had literally many hundreds of thousands of photographs from my travels, near and far: visiting historic properties has always been high on the agenda for my wife and me wherever we go.  As I approached retirement, I eventually thought that it might be interesting during my declining years to try to sell some of my huge cache of photos as a retirement project and I tried to sign up for Alamy. I failed my initial QC submissions, then Alamy's systems would not for some reason even process images edited with the version of Photoshop I was using, so I gave up the idea for another few years.  Eventually I came back to the idea, passed QC and have not looked back since.  The photos I upload are a mixture of old and new: there is no way I will ever have time to process even my historic photos, so I just put up whatever I feel like looking at for the time being, new or old.

 

I have a huge bank of NT images taken at a time when I had no intention whatever to sell them: I had not even conceived the idea that I might sell them one day.  At the time I took those photographs, I could not possibly be taken to have been undertaking commercial photography, because it had not even occurred to me that I might sell them: I was just an enthusiastic (over-enthusiastic?) amateur.  I could not, therefore, conceivably have been in breach of the NT's bylaws when I took those photographs. The NT's bylaws are designed to govern behaviour at their properties.  If a non-commercial photographer takes photographs and then later decides to commence selling photos taken sometimes long ago, I cannot see any way in which this can possibly amount to some kind of retrospective breach of the NT's byelaws. The byelaws govern conduct at the properties, not ownership of images or restriction on uses which at the time of entry did not violate the NT byelaws.  If the photographs were taken not for commercial purposes at the time, but for personal reasons, a subsequent decision to use them for commercial purposes cannot breach a bylaw designed to govern conduct during a visit to the relevant property. 

 

Maybe this is why we have not seen any reported action by the NT, because they realise that proof of the fact of a photograph having been taken on one of their properties is not of itself sufficient to prove that a breach of its bylaws occurred, even if that photograph is subsequently used for stock photography.  Even now, I take photographs of whatever interests me, only a small fraction of which I would ever consider submitting as stock.  I would still say that, at National Trust properties or otherwise, I take my photographs for my own pleasure and if I later decide to use some of them for stock, so be it: I did not go to the property for a commercial purpose, and deciding to use some of my photos resulting from my non-commercial visit for commercial purposes afterwards is not a retrospective infringement of the NT's bylaws.

 

I used to be a keen supporter of the National Trust, but its aggressive and unwarranted attitude towards photographers has resulted in my wife and I deleting what could have been substantial legacies for the NT in our wills: their loss, and there are much more deserving and pleasant organisations deserving of our bequests.

 

Graham

I live in an area surrounded by NT properties - I am not a member and never have been a member, but was considering membership until I came across their attitude towards photography.  Like yourself, I shoot for pleasure first, money considerations second, but I have no time for an organisation that tries to control what people do with visions of their property.  I can understand theatres, concerts, sports events putting restrictions on commercial photography because they are one-off unique events (yes even a play done 100 times before in the same place by the same actors will have unique moments)  but the NT with its "no commercial photography of this building/lake/path which is a constant thing" is just out of order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand - to a small degree - the desire to prevent rampant commercial exploitation without compensation by organisations like the National Trust and Museums.  They do, after all, make money from their own exploitation of their properties and anything which drives out competitors is, in their eyes, a good thing.  However, they also risk alienating their customers by a heavy handed approach to editorial stock photography.  Advertising and promotion to drive visitor numbers costs money.  Quality stock photography would help with that promotion at zero cost to the organisation.

 

I'm a volunteer at The Garden House, Buckland Monachorum, Devon.  We're a small charitable trust that depends on visitor income to  maintain the  renowned 10 acre garden and its extensive plant collection.  We recognise that visitor photography, including stock photography, is essential for promotion of the garden. Not only do we encourage garden photographers to visit, we impose no restrictions in our terms of entry on the use of the resulting photographs.  I even run out of hours guided tours (usually on summer evenings) for photo groups.  Again, no restrictions on the use of the resulting images - just don't ask for property releases.  All we ask in return is that the garden is, if possible, cited in captions and keywords if the images are offered for editorial use.  For us it's free advertising, both locally, nationally and even internationally.  Would that others had the same philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, JeffGreenberg said:

 

 

Natural History Museum in London had no photo usage restrictions posted at their entrance nor can I find any online.

If someone knows otherwise, please post evidence !!!

Never had a problem with the NHM.   Tate museums, on the other hand have been an issue. I can understand this for artworks that are in copyright,  but for the interior that contains no artwork it is a bit annoying as these are public museums sustained partly from UK taxes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, John Richmond said:

I can understand - to a small degree - the desire to prevent rampant commercial exploitation without compensation by organisations like the National Trust and Museums.  They do, after all, make money from their own exploitation of their properties and anything which drives out competitors is, in their eyes, a good thing.  However, they also risk alienating their customers by a heavy handed approach to editorial stock photography.  Advertising and promotion to drive visitor numbers costs money.  Quality stock photography would help with that promotion at zero cost to the organisation.

 

I'm a volunteer at The Garden House, Buckland Monachorum, Devon.  We're a small charitable trust that depends on visitor income to  maintain the  renowned 10 acre garden and its extensive plant collection.  We recognise that visitor photography, including stock photography, is essential for promotion of the garden. Not only do we encourage garden photographers to visit, we impose no restrictions in our terms of entry on the use of the resulting photographs.  I even run out of hours guided tours (usually on summer evenings) for photo groups.  Again, no restrictions on the use of the resulting images - just don't ask for property releases.  All we ask in return is that the garden is, if possible, cited in captions and keywords if the images are offered for editorial use.  For us it's free advertising, both locally, nationally and even internationally.  Would that others had the same philosophy.

If the NT operated a policy like this they would have at least one new regular customer/visitor  - ME!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, JeffGreenberg said:

Museums blocking commercial usage understandable.

Museums blocking editorial usage & the free "broadcasting"

of their attractions it offers, baffling...bloody baffling...

 

And several of these blocking editorial usage clamour for visitors to post on social media (for free advertising).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2018 at 01:41, losdemas said:

 

Just seen this - great shot!

Thank you!

Yes I loved that cover. Shift lens hence the world at their feet.

Tate Modern rules at that time were editorial only of everything except designated areas that had a no camera sign. Like the Andy Warhol show. The Gauguin show still allowed photography with some paintings having a no camera sign. Later they have restricted that to: only general photography of the building is allowed, no rooms containing artworks.

My shot from the restaurant was allowed in all and every of their photo policies. Still removed.

While I loved the shot and it came up very high in searches for London Skyline, it has only sold 3 times I think (I'm not near my stats).

 

wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I've just had an email from Alamy to let me know that they've restricted to editorial one of my graffiti images taken with context. It would appear now that any graffiti is being restricted irrespective of situation.

 

MANMAR.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Avpics said:

I've just had an email from Alamy to let me know that they've restricted to editorial one of my graffiti images taken with context. It would appear now that any graffiti is being restricted irrespective of situation.

 

MANMAR.jpg

 

That is a bit odd. Have you asked Alamy for a reason?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to the forum playing up I can't see the question which has been asked of me! Thankfully I've seen it via email and the answer is as given by Alamy:

"Our lawyer has advised us that images containing murals shot with wider context to the image, should have “editorial use only” restrictions applied."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Avpics said:

Thanks to the forum playing up I can't see the question which has been asked of me! Thankfully I've seen it via email and the answer is as given by Alamy:

"Our lawyer has advised us that images containing murals shot with wider context to the image, should have “editorial use only” restrictions applied."

 

 

 

I tried updating my latest response and gave up due to the forum issues. Now that I think back, Alamy already stated this awhile ago. I changed all of my street murals (but not random graffiti) to editorial only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think society, after Facebook Data Mining, is giving pushback on privacy issues.

 

Here is a case that reached the supreme court in Canada where the debate was around how much privacy should one expect in a public or semi public place.

Privacy attitudes are changing and they will have an effect on Stock Photography.

 

"We do not surrender our privacy interests and our right not to be surveilled merely by walking out our front door each morning."

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-supreme-courts-jarvis-ruling-delivers-a-win-for-privacy-but-its/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Bill Brooks said:

I think society, after Facebook Data Mining, is giving pushback on privacy issues.

 

Here is a case that reached the supreme court in Canada where the debate was around how much privacy should one expect in a public or semi public place.

Privacy attitudes are changing and they will have an effect on Stock Photography.

 

"We do not surrender our privacy interests and our right not to be surveilled merely by walking out our front door each morning."

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-supreme-courts-jarvis-ruling-delivers-a-win-for-privacy-but-its/

To be honest this sort of thing is what makes me think people are idiots.

Of course we are surveilled when we walk out the front door each morning - or do we expect everyone to close their eyes?  Has anyone yet invented a recording device equal to the human eye and brain?  If I take a picture of someone scratching their butt and share it is that worse than the person next to me watching them scratch their butt and then describing it verbally to all their friends - who repeat that description to their friends?

The only real difference social media has made to the world is now we can tell when people are sharing what we did outside the front door.  Its always happened - its just people were unaware of it happening - and people who avoid social media still remain unaware of its happening.  

 

If people do not want other people to know they scratch their butts then they should avoid scratching their butt where another person can see them regardless of whether other people have a camera or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Ventura said:

Did get a note from Alamy the other day that any image that contains a swastika, must be marked as editorial use only. I suppose that makes sense.

 

I do not see how it can make sense to make an ancient symbol that up until 80 years ago had positive meanings editorial only.  Making it editorial only simply reinforces the reinterpretation of it.
Are they going to make the cross, pentangle, and crescent moon editorial only as well?

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.