Pietrach

Alamy removes street art images.

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

That's why it's still up!

 

 

No I wrote to Alamy and they agreed to restore it this morning.

 

I can't find it today in a search. Maybe it will reappear after the update.

Edited by fotoDogue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ah. I'd given up on mine. 

Either it's reassuring that they will listen, or it's discouraging that the initial cull is so random.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I suggest, a random process involving no more than a cursory glance at the images before condemning them. Alamy's capable of better and we deserve it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/03/2018 at 16:53, geogphotos said:

This was on BBC Radio 4 'Law in Action' programme yesterday. The crucial legal points seem to be that the artists had permission, their work was recognised as art, they did everything correctly. The landowner has been hit with a huge financial penalty for knocking down his own property and destroying these artworks.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0608m95

 

I00000SuEPlSjzBQ.jpg

 

HowHow a group of graffiti artists won $6.75 million in damages after their art was destroyedHow a group of graffiti artists won $6.75 million in damages after their art was destroyed

The 5 Pointz building in New York was a shrine to graffiti art, attracting some of the most renowned aerosol artists from around the world who would visit to create intricate murals on its walls. 

The building was a disused factory and for over a decade artists painted there with the permission of its owner. Then in 2013 the owner decided he wanted to develop the site - a decision which ultimately led to the destruction of much of the art in the space. 

However, while the building owner had the legal right to develop his property, the artwork which adorned its walls was protected under a federal law known as the Visual Artists Rights Act. 

Law in Action presenter Joshua Rozenberg speaks to the artist Meres One and lawyer Eric Baum about the recent court case which saw a group of 21 artists awarded a total of $6.75 million in damages following the destruction of their art at 5 Pointz.

a group of graffiti artists won $6.75 million in damages after their art was destroyed

The 5 Pointz building in New York was a shrine to graffiti art, attracting some of the most renowned aerosol artists from around the world who would visit to create intricate murals on its walls. 

The building was a disused factory and for over a decade artists painted there with the permission of its owner. Then in 2013 the owner decided he wanted to develop the site - a decision which ultimately led to the destruction of much of the art in the space. 

However, while the building owner had the legal right to develop his property, the artwork which adorned its walls was protected under a federal law known as the Visual Artists Rights Act. 

Law in Action presenter Joshua Rozenberg speaks to the artist Meres One and lawyer Eric Baum about the recent court case which saw a group of 21 artists awarded a total of $6.75 million in damages following the destruction of their art at 5 Pointz.

[PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES An artist makes a new creation in front of New York's iconic graffiti spot 5 Pointz]

a group of graffiti artists won $6.75 million in damages after their art was destroyed

The 5 Pointz building in New York was a shrine to graffiti art, attracting some of the most renowned aerosol artists from around the world who would visit to create intricate murals on its walls. 

The building was a disused factory and for over a decade artists painted there with the permission of its owner. Then in 2013 the owner decided he wanted to develop the site - a decision which ultimately led to the destruction of much of the art in the space. 

However, while the building owner had the legal right to develop his property, the artwork which adorned its walls was protected under a federal law known as the Visual Artists Rights Act. 

Law in Action presenter Joshua Rozenberg speaks to the artist Meres One and lawyer Eric Baum about the recent court case which saw a group of 21 artists awarded a total of $6.75 million in damages following the destruction of their art at 5 Pointz.

[PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES An artist makes a new creation in front of New York's iconic graffiti spot 5 Pointz]

I should think that no building owner who is aware of this case would give permission to any graffii artist to paint on their buildings now.
How do they reach the value of over $6 million if the artwork could not even have been re-located or used elsewhere,, and would have eventually been weathered away, painted over, or peeled off?

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, mickfly said:

I should think that no building owner who is aware of this case would give permission to any graffii artist to paint on their buildings now.
How do they reach the value of over $6 million if the artwork could not even have been re-located or used elsewhere,, and would have eventually been weathered away, painted over, or peeled off?

?

 

The mistake was not to go through the legal process properly, he just went ahead and knocked the buildings down knowing that they were of cultural importance. By contrast the artists had done erything according to the book in trying to conserve the artworks on  buildings. Nobody is disputing the rights of a landowner to their land.

 

The landowner had already made a lot of money from the graffiti because it had become so famous, used in films, TV shows, adverts etc 

 

The law is probably different in UK but there must be a difference between a commissioned piece of graffiti art and some kids spray painting an underpass - a difference of artistic value and legal permission. 

Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KCE7F6.jpg

 

Have been sent a big long list of Sri Lanka temple/palace images created hundreds of years ago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got another email today with a list of images, mostly billboard advertising, that have been set to "Editorial Only."

This is an ad for Camel Cigarettes, featuring Joe Camel, that was painted over sometime back in the 1990s.

 

joe-camel-on-a-camel-cigarettes-advertis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I had already placed Editorial Use restrictions on all of my "art" photos. I'm currently using Editorial and No Personal Usee as a default.

I wonder if Alamy checked to see what restrictions were in place before resetting them?

 

One of the problems I’ve found when Alamy resets restrictions on images is that the process seems to remove any restrictions that were already in place. Last year I asked Alamy to add Personal Use restrictions to all of my images but today I see some of them are now gone.

 

Unfortunately I don't have time this afternoon to go through them. I just hope they're not licensed for Personal Use until I can get to them.

 

fD

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody had a similar response from any other agencies - I just can't get my head around graffiti artists getting worried about copyright. 

 

Anybody seen anything anywhere about stock photography being targeted by street artists. Genuinely would like to read about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, fotoDogue said:

I thought I had already placed Editorial Use restrictions on all of my "art" photos. I'm currently using Editorial and No Personal Usee as a default.

I wonder if Alamy checked to see what restrictions were in place before resetting them?

 

One of the problems I’ve found when Alamy resets restrictions on images is that the process seems to remove any restrictions that were already in place. Last year I asked Alamy to add Personal Use restrictions to all of my images but today I see some of them are now gone.

 

Unfortunately I don't have time this afternoon to go through them. I just hope they're not licensed for Personal Use until I can get to them.

 

fD

 

 

 

Ah. You've also noticed that AIM restrictions aren't very sticky. See the other forum.

The other bugbear is that some images that might more legitimately justify restriction don't fall foul of the latest sweep because they don't have a "mural" tag.

So there are workarounds.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Ah. You've also noticed that AIM restrictions aren't very sticky. See the other forum.

The other bugbear is that some images that might more legitimately justify restriction don't fall foul of the latest sweep because they don't have a "mural" tag.

So there are workarounds.

 

 

???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

fotodogue and I are members of another forum. I don't know if you are but I can't really name it here. Martin runs it.

Edited by spacecadet

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