Jump to content
Ed Rooney

Verboten or Tricky Subject Matter

Recommended Posts

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?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had one of those too. I've been selective in my limitations and I'll see how that's taken. I have images of WWII aircraft with those markings, as they should as it's historically correct. I also have them on banners on protest marches, and to limit those would be censorship in my eyes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 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 got that message too. I had a couple of photos of an actor in a show at the Edinburgh Fringe who did a one man play about Adolf Hitler and he is dressed as Hitler standing in front of a Swastika. So, now if the actor wanted to buy the photo he wouldn’t be able to. Doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

Edited by Sally
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so got same message about 3 murals, that they had to be marked as Editorial only.  Fine, however i'm curious, one of these i already noted as Having people with No release, having property with No release, so it should only have been sold as Editorial in the first place, would Alamy have sold them as commercial, just because i didn't click the box (never thought that was clear i had to do when i joined, since the info of the release, clearly stated that I need the release to sell commercially and i said i didn't have it. ) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

... would Alamy have sold them as commercial, just because i didn't click the box .....

It gives the customer the freedom to take the risk, and Alamy have assured contributors that it won't come back on us. One such example which I was asked to remove the limitations on was of one of the wealthiest sportsmen on the planet, someone who would be able to hire the world's best legal team - yet here we are bowing down to criminals that spray graffiti on walls and who probably don't have a penny

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Avpics said:

It gives the customer the freedom to take the risk, and Alamy have assured contributors that it won't come back on us. One such example which I was asked to remove the limitations on was of one of the wealthiest sportsmen on the planet, someone who would be able to hire the world's best legal team - yet here we are bowing down to criminals that spray graffiti on walls and who probably don't have a penny

Perhaps....but I took some photos of an alleged Banksy recently......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since Ed probably won’t be taking images on NT property, maybe murals and swatstikas are all he needs to be concerned about? Or did I miss something else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just two images with a swastika as part of a sticker (decal) on a give way sign. Its a local right wing group of youths. They are getting attention from their stickers but not much else. Got the email and made the change. I didn't see it as a big drama as they are only ever going to be editorial anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Avpics said:

I had one of those too. I've been selective in my limitations and I'll see how that's taken. I have images of WWII aircraft with those markings, as they should as it's historically correct. I also have them on banners on protest marches, and to limit those would be censorship in my eyes

 

Considering having to mark an image editorial as being "censorship" diminishes the cases of true censorship, IMO.

 

DD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2019 at 23:19, 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 had a similar e-mail, although mine very carefully and specifically refered to " Nazi Swastikas", and made the comment that " some images in your collection that contain both the keywords Nazi and Swastika that may (my emphasis) be affected by this" . After a very sensible conversation with the copyright team, that distinction was verified.

 

DD

Edited by dustydingo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a pic of a swastika in a garden taken in a Buddhist temple in Borneo. I didn't receive an e-mail. Yet.

 

M0KXFE.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2019 at 15:55, dustydingo said:

 

Considering having to mark an image editorial as being "censorship" diminishes the cases of true censorship, IMO.

 

DD

True censorship rarely starts with an authoritarian ban - it is (like most things) far more subtle, and constantly changing.  No having to mark a subject editorial is not censorship - but could be a step down that road.
Mind you right now there are plenty of ways that have taken us miles further down said road and they are far more concerning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had one removed under this ban. It may or may not be okay. I don't know, because I don't know what image it was. They sent a reference number, but since it's removed, I can't find it. Is there someplace to find removed images? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just had two graffiti images removed and the email gave me the ref number and my camera image ref number, which I can find with a search. Both images had greater context but rather than fight it I'll just upload them elsewhere.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. I tried both and they both came up empty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of mine I'd considered and tagged as 'everyday surrealism', a subject they were asking us to upload as it was 'trending'.

 

R7F07J.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

"This an email to inform you that we have removed some images in your collection.

This is in response to the continuing increase in the number of complaints we have been receiving from mural artists."

 

Screen-Shot-2019-03-08-at-15-57-39.png

 

..still don't get it..

 

Got a message form alamy:

"Apologies this image appears to have been picked up in error so we’ll get this reinstated to your collection."

 

Edited by Anton
updates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/09/2017 at 12:00, IanDavidson said:

Commercial photography is not allowed in any of the Royal Parks without an expensive permit

 

Is there a difference between going into a Royal Park to photograph, say, a celebrity, a new car, a fashion/Wedding shoot etc. as against simply taking pictures of the park for stock?

 

It seems rational and acceptable that the former would definitely need a permit but Alamy seems awash with general pictures of the parks, or people enjoying the parks and the ones I've looked at in detail (not many admittedly) don't seem to be marked as editorial only. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/09/2017 at 20:17, vpics said:

It's not City Hall that is the problem - and I've never had problems with them. It's a public building after all and they are aware of the problem.

The real problem is the area surrounding City Hall called More London Riverside

 

The last time I was there, some years ago, pre-Alamy but with a camera, I was aware of restrictions and could see security guards here and there. However my main fascination was the way a gang of 'Find-the-lady' scammers were able to carry on fleecing the public with abandon all through that area. They were heavy looking guys with lookouts but would surely have been plain to see on security cameras just as they were plain to see by me. I would think security had more to worry about than stock photographers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had one of mine taken down, wondered if it might be actually. Shows a mural of Jean-Paul Belmondo and Jean Gabin in the village of Villerville in Normandy. It's pretty small in the picture so I thought it might be OK. It's in France of course and they have different laws, it's never been used. I'd like to have credited the artist but I don't know who did it. I see by googling that another library has it, and a close-up too. I'll paste a dropbox link but as I've never done it before that may fall flat on its face.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e4sptfhpt9kcw36/_MG_0433.jpg?dl=0

 

Thing is that village makes great store of the fact that those artists were in the film Un Singe en Hiver in 1962 which was filmed in and around the village, there's a huge photo still from the film on the side of a building which you see from the main road. Presumably the mural is also there to attract people to the village so removing photos from libraries doesn't seem to make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Just had one of mine taken down, wondered if it might be actually. Shows a mural of Jean-Paul Belmondo and Jean Gabin in the village of Villerville in Normandy. It's pretty small in the picture so I thought it might be OK. It's in France of course and they have different laws, it's never been used. I'd like to have credited the artist but I don't know who did it. I see by googling that another library has it, and a close-up too. I'll paste a dropbox link but as I've never done it before that may fall flat on its face.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e4sptfhpt9kcw36/_MG_0433.jpg?dl=0

 

Thing is that village makes great store of the fact that those artists were in the film Un Singe en Hiver in 1962 which was filmed in and around the village, there's a huge photo still from the film on the side of a building which you see from the main road. Presumably the mural is also there to attract people to the village so removing photos from libraries doesn't seem to make sense.

 

The solution is to get a release.

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

The solution is to get a release.

 

Yes, not concerned about the image, wouldn't know where to get a release from anyway, wouldn't be worth spending time on. I guess I've fallen foul of Alamy considering it to be covered by "all images of murals that have little to no context".  When I took it I had no thoughts of Alamy anyway but when I uploaded it I thought that it was an artwork that occupied much less than 30% of the image and was in the context of a general scenic view of a cliff face in Villerville with an attractive staircase and a house at the top. Still, it's got to be a subjective decision on their part and so there we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

 

Yes, not concerned about the image, wouldn't know where to get a release from anyway, wouldn't be worth spending time on. I guess I've fallen foul of Alamy considering it to be covered by "all images of murals that have little to no context".  When I took it I had no thoughts of Alamy anyway but when I uploaded it I thought that it was an artwork that occupied much less than 30% of the image and was in the context of a general scenic view of a cliff face in Villerville with an attractive staircase and a house at the top. Still, it's got to be a subjective decision on their part and so there we are.

 

Did you have mural as a keyword?

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wiskerke said:

Did you have mural as a keyword?

 

Yes, good point, just looked in Lightroom and 'mural' was indeed a keyword.

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

×
×
  • 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.