MicrostockGroup

Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: steheap on March 22, 2011, 14:11

Title: Copyright on images of Grande Arche in Paris
Post by: steheap on March 22, 2011, 14:11

I received the following from VIP Brands in Paris:

"Dear Steve,

VIP manages the rights to the Grand Arche de la Défense. This structure is covered by a copyright and any  use of any images of this structure requires approval and must bear the copyright and incurs royalties.

Could you please contact us about your images of this structure.

We have seen several on the web and most notably those on Shutterstock.

With kind regards

Ivanka

Ivanka Hahnenberger
General Manager
VIP Brands
www.vip-licence.com (http://www.vip-licence.com)"

I only have one image on Shutterstock with this location although there are probably more on the other sites. Anyone else been contacted by the company? I guess I should just offer to take the image off the various stock sites?

Steve
http://www.BackyardSilver.com (http://www.BackyardSilver.com)

Title: Re: Copyright on images of Grande Arche in Paris
Post by: RT on March 22, 2011, 15:07

Quote from: steheap on March 22, 2011, 14:11

I guess I should just offer to take the image off the various stock sites?

Pleading ignorance and an apology would probably be a good start, then maybe change the license type to editorial on the sites that do it and remove the images from all others.

Title: Re: Copyright on images of Grande Arche in Paris
Post by: GL Reviewer on March 22, 2011, 23:00

Hi Steve

I told you stuff like this would be coming down the pike.  They may be trying to collect a commercial permit fee. I think we took all of yours down last year but will double check. If no income has been derived, they cannot collect "royalties" because royalties are in effect proceeds.

For entertainment for the rest of you, see the link about Stonehenge

http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/10/21/english-heritage-seeks-copyright-stonehenge/ (http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/10/21/english-heritage-seeks-copyright-stonehenge/)

Edit: Steve just found 3 more that were of the general office buildings at la Défense, not the arche itself and removed them.

Title: Re: Copyright on images of Grande Arche in Paris
Post by: jm on March 23, 2011, 03:15

If it will go on like this the only chance how to take photographs of architecture will be building of my own city.

Title: Re: Copyright on images of Grande Arche in Paris
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on March 23, 2011, 06:45

So I suppose everybody should remove every image of a cultural site in England because it may "belong" to English Heritage (which I thought was a public body). Preventing the use of any pictures of interesting bits of England is a brilliant way to boost the tourism industry.

Will English Heritage be distributing the royalties it collects to the English people if it is collecting them on our behalf?

Title: Re: Copyright on images of Grande Arche in Paris
Post by: Maui on March 23, 2011, 08:23

They probably have the right to do so.

See this image of the Grande Arche in Wikipedia and the comments concerning copyright:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grande_Arche_de_La_D%C3%A9fense_et_fontaine.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grande_Arche_de_La_D%C3%A9fense_et_fontaine.jpg)

And this article explains that there is no 'freedom of panorama' in France:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama#Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama#Europe)

Title: Re: Copyright on images of Grande Arche in Paris
Post by: steheap on March 23, 2011, 12:56

I've had some nice conversations with them. They want a licensing agreement for 50% of the royalties, but as my royalties on these images are pretty small, we decided it was better to just take down the images, rather than go to the trouble of setting up a licensing agreement. Something learned every day in this business!

Steve
http://www.backyardsilver.com (http://www.backyardsilver.com)

Title: Re: Copyright on images of Grande Arche in Paris
Post by: rubyroo on March 24, 2011, 02:04

I'm glad and relieved to know it all ended well, with a simple solution.  :)

Perhaps we should write our own disclaimer:  'Microstockers - too poor to sue'  :D