Ed Rooney

Do You Shoot Street Art and Murals?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I too have murals from centuries past (i.e. historical murals) on the list of restricted images that was sent out today. Alamy apparently just searched for the tag "mural" without actually checking the content. However, I can't see most of these images being used for anything else but editorial, so perhaps having them designated as "editorial only" is not really such a big deal. Or is it? Are we likely going to miss out on sales?

 

e.g. this 16th century "street artist" is no doubt long gone B)

 

B27P20.jpg

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, phomme said:

I'm not sure if graffiti counts as street art or murals, but just in case I tag mine for editorial use only.

If the 'artist' comes forward they'll have to weigh up the benefits between copyright or police evidence!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Jill Morgan said:

I think they are restricting these now due to the Personal Use and Prints they now offer.  Can't have people printing out copies of other people's artwork.  When restricted to editorial, there is not personal use option.

 

Jill

 

However Personal use is usually still an option when the  Editorial use only box is selected.     I got the email yesterday about a mural photograph , I just have one.  Sure enough, Personal use is still an option for that image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of my PU sales have been for $19.99. I'm happy with that. Sure, some buyers are gaming the system, but I don't concern myself with sales or price or usage. 

 

Because Alamy did not delete the 35 images I first posted about, my collection has finally poked its nose above 5,000. That's a small amount by today's standards, but it was hard work getting to 5K . . . and I'm pleased.

 

(No good news on my returning to my apartment yet.)

 

Edo

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Auto-response from Copyright@alamy.com includes:

 

3. You’ve seen a photograph of your artwork or company logo

If the image is taken from a public place, has been shot in context and captioned as such then we’ll be taking no further action and the image will be fine to use for editorial use. Neither the contributor nor Alamy are trying to pass off your work as our own or claim any copyright in the work itself. 

 

Can anyone elucidate "shot in context and captioned as such...."

Has anyone re-captioned with "context" & resubmitted...?

(eliminating "mural" = losing most-likely-to-be-searched tag, no???)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JeffGreenberg said:

Auto-response from Copyright@alamy.com includes:

 

3. You’ve seen a photograph of your artwork or company logo

If the image is taken from a public place, has been shot in context and captioned as such then we’ll be taking no further action and the image will be fine to use for editorial use. Neither the contributor nor Alamy are trying to pass off your work as our own or claim any copyright in the work itself. 

 

Can anyone elucidate "shot in context and captioned as such...."

Has anyone re-captioned with "context" & resubmitted...?

(eliminating "mural" = losing most-likely-to-be-searched tag, no???)

Basically means you took the image with the sole purpose of offering it for editorial use only, and captioned it as so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, spacecadet said:

I'll see your 300 years and raise you 600.

Yes, they're really helping us, protecting us from claims from artists who probably died in the Black Death. Unbelievable.

Omitting the word "mural" might be effective.

GPX87C.jpg

 

I can raise you 600 years as well.... Taken in my village church.

wall-paintings-in-st-peters-church-hook-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2018 at 12:51, fotoDogue said:

Ed, ironically many of the murals you and I have shot in the Noho, East Village, Little Italy area were done in conjunction with the L.I.S.A. project  - http://www.lisaprojectnyc.org/

It's a not-for-profit whose mission is to create a mural district, attract tourists and encourage people to photograph the many murals. I don't know what their agreement in terms of copyright might be with the artists, but restrictions would seem contrary to L.I.S.A.'s mission. The artists themselves have seemed flattered and quite happy to pose for photos and sign autographs when I came across them.

 

Yes, most every mural in Little Italy was done for L.I.S.A. The artist that did the Audrey Hepburn piece on the wall of Caffe Roma, Tristan Eaton, is the guy who has been most active in warning Alamy. That Calvin giant mural you captured is really out there -- it could scare the horses. :blink: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I e-mailed Alamy yesterday about this, and they have already removed the editorial only restrictions on most of the historical "murals" on the list that they sent me. In retrospect, I probably should have used the keyword "painting" instead of "mural" for some of them. My takeaway: use the m-word judiciously.

 

However, Alamy did leave editorial restrictions on some of the more recent images, even if they do IMO have enough context. Best to play it safe, I guess.

 

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Some of mine don't have the work "mural" in them nor any actual artwork such as:

spray-paint-cans-used-in-painting-graffi

 

so it does seem a bit over the top.

Edited by Charles Stirling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alamy certainy uses an automated tool to scan and remove street art and graffiti, hence the questionable results for specific images.  Many lawsuits were launched in recent months and this is the reason why they do this.   I started shooting street art, graffiti and murales a decade ago and have about 10 000 and I started to follow a series of walls.  Its very difficult to sell via agencies. I gave up but will eventually use the collection for an exhibit   If you do try to sell via agencies, to avoid frustration and rejection,  stick to murals - those are commissioned and you may be able to get a property release.  Graffiti are made by free-spirit artists and they do not do it for the money and their work is quickly destroyed. Photos of their work are ideal for sharing on platforms like Flickr. I like to think that photographers give street art a second life.  The legislation regarding copyrights on street art and graffiti is neither fair or clear for anyone and needs revision. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/03/2018 at 16:12, klod said:

.  Many lawsuits were launched in recent months and this is the reason why they do this.   I

Since you mention this, can you give some details? I'm not aware of any in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a few set to editorial already, as Alamy did that also some time last year, I believe? 

One additionally set to editorial by Alamy now and one by myself, two I am not sure about. 

 

This I set myself: 

half-pipe-with-crying-boy-cologne-german

 

And these two I am not certain if they really classify as a mural in that context: 

goddam-hippies-graffiti-on-wall-cologne-

standarterror-graffiti-on-brick-wall-kj0

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes! Photographed in the past and some nice ones last friday!

 

I have uploaded previous ones on Alamy and recently got a mail that Alamy will set as Editotorial. I’m ok with this.

 

The artists that did this graffitis got an authorisation of the city and owners of the properties... They were made during events, in which artists where invited... here I can perfectly undertand the rights of the artists!

 

For illegal graffitis - vandalisme - I don’t really understand how an individual can claim he has intellectual rights???

 

Obviously, it’s not always clear if it’s vandalisme or not...

 

Anyway, if Alamy thinks its better to set them as editorial, no problem here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2018 at 12:44, spacecadet said:

Since you mention this, can you give some details? I'm not aware of any in the UK.

 Last month, in New York, a group of graffiti artists obtained 6.7 millions dollars after the owner of a building they painted got it teared down. A lawsuit was launched a few weeks ago by the estate of a tagger against fast food giant McDonald for using a photo that includes his tag.  I read about another one last week involving yet another Italian designer using a sketch that looks a bit like the work of a graffiti artist. I forget the name. Hope the legislation is changed to at least remove artists rights to graffits on illegitimate walls. And also clarifies for murals, which technically belong to the owner of the wall.     Many street artists do not sign their work, paint illegal walls and magically, at least in some cases, seem to acquire intellectual property rights.  I appreciate their work and hope the legislator finds ways to make it possible to use photographs of their work.  Visual artists need to be able to do what musicians ca do. 

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