Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Cannot find info relating to street art/murals but i’ve heard it mentioned as a hot potato. Could someone please clarify on where we stand on photos of Street art and how we classify them, ie Editorial. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jay D said:

Cannot find info relating to street art/murals but i’ve heard it mentioned as a hot potato. Could someone please clarify on where we stand on photos of Street art and how we classify them, ie Editorial. 

 

 

https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/8087-street-art-images/

 

- if you think your images fall into that category just tick the image to be editorial only in the AIM.

 

Niels

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alamy has been removing them at random lately. A "risk area" for their lawyers apparently.

Omitting the tag "mural" seems to work but I don't bother much with them anymore. Even putting them in context doesn't guarantee you won't lose them. Not worth the effort.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had one removed that was painted by friends who would be very happy for their work to be seen and publicised, as would the owner of the pub in which it was painted.

 

I couldn't be bothered to argue - got more important things to do.

 

Alan

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had one removed which was a painting on the side of one of the only three brick-built buildings in a remote riverside jungle village several hours down a tributary of the River Amazon in deepest darkest Ecuador (I would have loved to have claimed it was in Darkest Peru, but although close, it wasn't).  I did not feel that the risk of complaint was significant, although I did not bother to argue about it :D

 

Graham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep getting sales reported long after the deletion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think i’ll submit a few this week and test the water, can only fail eh. 

Share this post


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

Think i’ll submit a few this week and test the water, can only fail eh. 

You won't be refused on upload. It may be deleted when Alamy does one of its periodic sweeps.

If it's in the context of a street scene and not in closeup it may be safe, but you never can tell. Certainly if it is you can complain and it may go back- the deletions are quite random at times and it's very tedious to have to defend lawfully and properly taken images, which is why some of us don't bother anymore.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably murals by an artist who has been dead over 70 years are OK.

 

Share this post


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

You won't be refused on upload. It may be deleted when Alamy does one of its periodic sweeps.

If it's in the context of a street scene and not in closeup it may be safe, but you never can tell. Certainly if it is you can complain and it may go back- the deletions are quite random at times and it's very tedious to have to defend lawfully and properly taken images, which is why some of us don't bother anymore.

 

Yeh after reading the other links it seems very hazy however i’ll try and stick within the realms of Alamy and litigation hassles. Shame if only i knew before taking 100’s of the them but nai bother, i took them because i appreciate them. Thanks for the advice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sally said:

Presumably murals by an artist who has been dead over 70 years are OK.

 

 

mural is any piece of artwork painted or applied directly on a wall, ceiling or other permanent surface says Wikipedia, although agree when murals mentioned i think Cistine Chaple rather than Brick Lane.

 

Although definitely prefer the latter 😊

Edited by Jay D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could affect your upload rating.

 

I take them for my own personal pleasure but I don't upload them. I wouldn't feel comfortable making money off someone else's artistic creation.

Edited by John Rodgers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, John Rodgers said:

It could affect your upload rating.

 

I take them for my own personal pleasure but I don't upload them. I wouldn't feel comfortable making money off someone else's artistic creation.

You're no more doing that than you are when you sell an image of a church. It's part of the scenery just the same.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Sally said:

Presumably murals by an artist who has been dead over 70 years are OK.

 

Any mural is OK in law, but one artist gets judgment in the US where litigation is a participant sport, Alamy just follows the line of least resistance, and we lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jay D said:

 

Yeh after reading the other links it seems very hazy however i’ll try and stick within the realms of Alamy and litigation hassles. Shame if only i knew before taking 100’s of the them but nai bother, i took them because i appreciate them. Thanks for the advice. 

I have sales of street murals and they're still up. But there's not much point doing all the work on images that might fall victim to the latest whim, I agree. The policy is too random.

Share this post


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

You're no more doing that than you are when you sell an image of a church. It's part of the scenery just the same.

 

What if the artist is selling prints or he is selling images of his artwork online?

 

you can put a lot of your own creativity into photographing a building , but when you walk up to a mureal and shoot it straight on. Well your just a button pressing monkey....

Share this post


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

 

 you walk up to a mureal and shoot it straight on. Well your just a button pressing monkey....

Then don't. Make it part of its surroundings. That's what I do.

 Street painting of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry on underpass, Avenue Saint-Exupéry,Toulouse, Haute-Garonne, Midi- Pyréneés, Stock Photo

Anyway there's no separate copyright in a slavish copy. You'd be in breach of contract putting such an image up on Alamy.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some confusion over copyright here. A 2D depiction (i.e. head on photo) of a 2D work of fine art (e.g. painting) is potentially a copyright breach, depending what use is made of the photo. Use in an article of artistic criticism, for example, is fine. But putting the photo on a website or selling it may not be ok. Taking it at an angle with a view of the surroundings is more of a grey area, but still potentially in breach, as the legislation is unclear. If a small element in a scene rather than the main interest, it's unlikely to be in breach. The test is the purpose of the photo - does it use the artwork to make money, which the artist could conceivably be entitled to? Sculptures, buildings and works of "artistic craftsmanship" in publicly accessible places are exempt from this - not from copyright altogether (e.g. you could not sell a copy of the sculpture), but from copyright infringement through photography. As someone noted above, copyright lasts 70 years from the death of the artist, so beyond that it's fine. Within that, you would need a property release. Proviso - I'm not a lawyer, I just read the law - and this is UK law - French law for example, gives copyright entitlement in photos of buildings to their architects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did say that there was no separate copyright in a slavish copy, but I've given my opinion, you've given yours. That's as far as it can go really. We have to make our own decisions.

AFAICS there's nothing in the CDPA about commercial use as such, as you say there are some exceptions about criticism but only if they don't damage the market for the image.

Anyway the thread isn't really about infringement, it's about Alamy's attitude to street art, which is much more restrictive than the law.

 

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2018 at 08:02, geogphotos said:

That's not altogether helpful, especially the suggestion that an editorial restriction gets you a fair dealing exemption, for which the legal term is "bunk", I believe.

I've certainly had images removed which that article says should be acceptable.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a case recently which decided that a slavish copy does not have its own copyright as a photo, but it can still infringe the copyright of the original work. Agreed, Alamy goes further than the law suggests, but that's because there are so many untested grey areas that they don't want to pay the lawyers' fees to test them in court when threatened by artists' lawyers (DACS being particularly aggressive).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Robert said:

a slavish copy does not have its own copyright as a photo, but it can still infringe the copyright of the original work.

I didn't say it couldn't, that was my point, but could you quote the case? I seem to have missed it.

Good to have case law on it beyond Bridgeman v Corel, although that was a US case.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


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

I have sales of street murals and they're still up. But there's not much point doing all the work on images that might fall victim to the latest whim, I agree. The policy is too random.

Agree, on both points. Random. I had several removed that had 50+% context and were of graffiti long since over-painted. Some may have been the only pics available of those particular graffitis. Others are still up, without the dreaded 'm' word. Won't upload more, upset me too much.

Share this post


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

I didn't say it couldn't, that was my point, but could you quote the case? I seem to have missed it.

Good to have case law on it beyond Bridgeman v Corel, although that was a US case.

 

I had a vague recollection of a recent case where a museum lost its claim to copyright over its photos of out-of-copyright paintings it owned on that basis. I can't find it now, but there is lots online supporting this argument on the basis of the UK legislation.

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.