please empty your brain below
Like a dog/child running out into traffic, the sound of someone in Zulu shouting 'Daffodils - hundreds of them' ran across my mind.

| 18.12.15 - 7:16 a.m. | #

Apologies again about my off topic comments on Tuesday. I guess you were about to going to write about the lost public art anyway.

I think my comments on the photo of Moore's Reclining Figure were deleted then - would it be appropriate to add them here? (I emailed Historic England and they switched the photo yesterday, but the Daily Mail is still showing the wrong one, of course.)

Andrew | 18.12.15 - 8:24 a.m. | #

Congratulations, you could be a press photographer yet.

Or you could be part of the drive to remove the Paparazzi completely and replace them with Readers' photos.

Hmmm, no Paparazzi? What planet am I on?

I suspect they have to melt down stolen metal sculptures, they're too big and obvious to sell on to collectors.

Bronchitikat | Homepage | 18.12.15 - 8:58 a.m. | #

I obviously don't understand how these things work, but why don't you get a fee for the use of your pictures and their worldwide distribution? Or is it, as with so much interweb-based technology, that the organisation hosting the content makes the money while the person producing it makes nothing?

ActonMan | 18.12.15 - 9:06 a.m. | #

It's extremely depressing when public art & sculptures are stolen. They were put up in an age which was enlightened enough to believe that works of art should be on display in public places rather than hidden away in art galleries. Now all that is in jeopardy by people too dim to understand their proper value..

Adrian | 18.12.15 - 9:51 a.m. | #

@ActionMan
(Veering off topic but answering a question)
If it's your picture, you control the copyright. You could ask for a fee - they should then either pay up or stop using it. (Although the cost of suing them if they refuse to do either is likely to be excessive, and it is difficult to prove any damages unless you make your living from photography).
If the publisher asked permission and you gave it (for free) that's end of story, at least as far as that publisher is concerned.
There is no infringement if they only publish a hyperlink to a post you made yourself.

timbo | 18.12.15 - 10:42 a.m. | #

Thanks Timbo for the informative reply, which I'd say was well within the designated topic of DG's pix being used by commercial news outlets. Another factor that makes a picture 'newsworthy' might be that it's free.

ActonMan | 18.12.15 - 11:08 a.m. | #

The technology now exists to make all public sculptures traceable when stolen, I.E micro chip them. It is done for valuable pets, so why not valuable works of art? Yes it would be harder to implement, and there is the cost factor, but why on earth not? Then anyone caught in possession could receive appropriate punishment which should deter others from stealing and destroying artwork, perhaps...

Doug Robinson | 18.12.15 - 11:09 a.m. | #

There is a perception that any photo on the internet - particularly on social media - is free for anyone to reuse. Most of the time, for private use, it is not a problem, but the possibility of a fee will depend on the licence under which the image was made available.

Both of DG's photos are on flickr as "CC BY-NC-ND 2.0" - see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/ - so the images have been made available for anyone to reuse provided they give an attribution credit to the creator ("BY"), they are not used for commercial purposes ("NC"), and derivatives versions are not created ("ND").

The Hepworth sculpture is itself still in copyright (she made it in 1969, and died in 1975) but it is (or rather was) on public display in the UK and we have freedom of panorama; similarly, the Orbit at the Olympic Park would in principle be protected by copyright. The situation can be different elsewhere: photos of the Atomium in Brussels for example are tightly controlled by the foundation that holds the copyright of the building.

Perhaps DG gave Historic England a wider licence for his Hepworth photo, allowing them to permit other publishers to reprint it? If not, he is at liberty to contact the republishers and demand a fee for commercial use. Similarly, regarding the Guardian website's commercial use of his daffodils photo (again, assuming no special arrangement has been made already).

Freelance rates would be from £50 to £200 for a small photo, possibly more depending on its size, length of use and prominence. See http://www.londonfreelance.org/feesguide/index.php?§ion=Photography&subsect=Online+use+of+photos Just send them an invoice!

Andrew | 18.12.15 - 11:30 a.m. | #

Here was another piece which sadly went missing, with the common belief being that it was stolen for scrap.
It isn't on the list but that's possibly because a replica was made to replace it.
As I say in the description, I was so glad to have been able to see the original.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/32293736@N04/12442860535/in/photolist-jXwUWc-jXxB7v

RogerW | 18.12.15 - 11:31 a.m. | #

More recently I took this at the ORNC, Greenwich, and soon afterwards ORNC saw it and contacted me to ask if they could use it in a forthcoming events pamphlet. I was flattered enough to be asked and was quite happy that the question of money never came up.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/32293736@N04/23104589216/in/dateposted-public/

RogerW | 18.12.15 - 11:42 a.m. | #

Just want to point out that it was me, yesterday, who first pointed out, on this blog, that DG's photo was in th Guardian. Just saying.

Antipodean | 18.12.15 - 11:42 a.m. | #

Nearly a year ago to the day, at Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park... daffodils *and* snowdrops.
(And no, I'm not just posting these links just to raise my views count, honest!)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/32293736@N04/15886619057/in/album-72157619003439845/

RogerW | 18.12.15 - 11:55 a.m. | #

Sue them DG, sue them!

g | 18.12.15 - 10:12 p.m. | #

And today - 24/12/15 - I found the primroses in my garden just about to open into flower. Now that is early!

RogerW | 24.12.15 - 5:02 p.m. | #

Just spotted a couple of your pics in this buzzfeed piece on Hackney:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/floperry/reasons-no-one-should-ever-live-in-hackney#.yfw70wJRV

s | 30.12.15 - 11:01 p.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy