Without Prejudice - why all the Royal Opera House posts have disappeared - UPDATED (2)

****UPDATE 12/09****

The Royal Opera House have explained that the only images they want taken down are photos of two set designs I used in a recent post. The rights over these may rest with the set designers themselves. I have reinstated the original post, but replaced the photos themselves with a link to their location on the ROH site, where the eagle-eyed will notice that no photographer is credited.

I have also been given official access to their treasure trove of press images.

Result!

I do hope the Royal Opera House's next move will be to reduce any further confusion by formulating a clear, publicly displayed policy on the use of their copyright images. Social media are here to stay and the ROH need to work out how to handle them. I don't know of any other UK arts organisation with such a policy, so the ROH has the opportunity to set the standard and become a pioneer. Will they take it?

 

***UPDATE 11/09****

The Royal Opera House have issued a press release (copy below) to apologise for the way in which this matter was handled. This in itself is a big step forward. But read carefully - they haven't retracted the their original complaint, nor explained exactly what they wanted in the first place. So I have asked them for more details. I have told them that if I hear nothing, I will restore all the original posts without amendment. 

I also note that despite what is said in the press release, they have provided me with no 'imagery' for either Così fan tutte, which opened last night, or Don Pasquale, which opens tomorrow.

Papering over the cracks? Let's wait and see. In the interests of reaching a speedy conclusion, I won't offer my full opinion on the whole sorry affair until it's finally resolved..............

(If you're wondering what I'm banging on about, flip the page for the original post).

The original post:

You may be wondering where all the Royal Opera House posts have gone.

The answer lies in the correspondence below.

The ROH head of legal & business affairs has written me a couple of emails (below), culminating in a demand to "Remove all images referenced to performances at the Royal Opera House" - whatever that means. If he had threatened only litigation I would fight it. The grounds are weak; he can't even spell 'counsel'; I can smell victory from where I'm sitting. 

However he has also made the threat of "future exclusion from future Royal Opera House membership and performances". This obviously hits where it hurts. The ROH can bar entry to anyone, for any or no reason, right or wrong, whether they''ve used "images referenced to performances at the Royal Opera House" or not. So in the interests of my continued attendance at Covent Garden, I have reluctantly removed all Royal Opera House-related posts, as it was the quickest way to comply with the demand made.

Naturally I very much regret this, but what's the alternative?

I have made not a penny from "images referenced to performances at the Royal Opera House". The ROH have not, I suspect, incurred any losses as a result of my use. In fact, I believe that this blog has actually enhanced ROH finances by encouraging people to buy tickets, and particularly by familiarising new visitors with what goes on there and what performances are really like. On a day when the ROH's Chief Executive Tony Hall is boasting of bringing "new audiences into the opera house", it is sad that they will have one less resource to help them.

===============================================

Here are the emails. They are untouched apart from some cheapshot mockery in red, which it gave me great pleasure to add:

===============================================

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 18:30:27 +0100
Subject: RE: Royal Opera House Copyright

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

As you have decided to ignore my previous communication and continue to infringe Royal Opera House copyright, we will therefore instruct external consul (sic) to commence proceedings immediately for full damages and associated legal costs caused by the unauthorised reproduction by you of Royal Opera House property.

Yours sincerely

George Avory

Head of Legal & Business Affairs

Royal Opera House

Covent Garden

London WC2E 9DD

Phone +44 (0)20 7212 9664

Fax +44 (0)20 7212 9499

Email [email protected]

From:George Avory
Sent: 07 September 2010 17:24
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Royal Opera House Copyright

To whom it may concern,

It has been brought to the attention of the Royal Opera House that the website with the url

http://intermezzo.typepad.com/intermezzo/ is currently displaying various images without permission and whose copyright belongs to the Royal Opera House.

In the section titled "USING MATERIAL FROM THIS SITE" it is stated that "You are entitled to use material from this site for non-commercial purposes. You don't need to ask me first - but it would be nice. As would a credit - intermezzo.typepad.com. Please assume that, unless stated otherwise, I hold the copyright to all content on this site. And if I don’t, someone else (name stated where I know it) does."

May I remind you that you do not own the copyright in the Royal Opera House images and by encouraging visitors to your website to "use material from this site for non-commercial purposes" is (sic) an infringement of Royal Opera House copyright; therefore unless these images are not removed from the website

http://intermezzo.typepad.com/intermezzo/ within the next twenty four hours from the date/time of this email, the Royal Opera House will inform your website hosting company of this situation and will consider appropriate action to protect our valuable copyright.

I attach two screen grabs (nothing was attached) detailing the use of some of the unauthorised Royal Opera House images to be found on your website.

Yours sincerely

George Avory

Head of Legal & Business Affairs

Royal Opera House

Covent Garden

London WC2E 9DD

Phone +44 (0)20 7212 9664

Fax +44 (0)20 7212 9499

Email [email protected]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　

From:

inter mezzo [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 09 September 2010 01:52
To: George Avory
Subject: RE: Royal Opera House Copyright

Dear Mr Avory

I did not receive your previous email, nor the screen grabs that are said to be attached, and so I am not clear which images you are referring to.

However, any images on the site that I am aware were sourced from the Royal Opera House are annotated (generally below) with 'Photos: Royal Opera House' or similar. If I have failed to do this in any particular case, it is due either to uncertainty over ownership or simple oversight, and I would be happy to correct the omission on request. I would also be happy to place a statement on the front page that the Royal Opera House holds the copyright to all images so marked, or any other wording to this effect you may prefer. It is not my intention to claim copyright where I am not entitled to do so.

I would point out that the wording

"You are entitled to use material from this site for non-commercial purposes" is not a grant of permission or an encouragement to breach anyone's copyright. It is simply an encapsulation of the doctrine of 'fair use' under the protection of which I am using the images in the first place. To be more specific, employment of the images in articles of a critical, educational or news reporting nature constitutes fair use of the images.

Finally, may I clarify that I receive no financial benefit from the use of the images. It is my understanding that the Royal Opera House in most cases do not either, as there is no charge to the press for their use. So, if my understanding is correct, there is no financial gain or loss for either party from my usage. This makes it hard to see how a claim for damages might be effectively pursued. On the other hand, my website receives over 100,000 visits per month, not to mention many comments from visitors to the Royal Opera House, both regular and occasional. It is fair to assume that at least a few of these are encouraged by what they read to patronise the Royal Opera House, or find their experience enhanced by the provision of relevant information and opinion. It follows that the use of Royal Opera House images on the site does not damage the Royal Opera House but actually assists it in achieving its financial and charitable objectives - in essence, 'free advertising'. Paying external lawyers from public funding to pursue a lone blogger would undoubtedly have the opposite effect, with the additional risk of reputational damage.

I will do my best to accede to any reasonable and specific request you may put forward.


http://intermezzo.typepad.com/

=====================================================

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

In reply, remove the three images of the set designs of ADRIANA LECOUVREUR and TANNHAUSER.

Remove all images referenced to performances at the Royal Opera House. An indicative but not exhaustive list of Royal Opera Hose (sic) images are located on your website at: http://intermezzo.typepad.com/intermezzo/angela_gheorghiu

http://intermezzo.typepad.com/intermezzo/2010/06/manon-le-retour-%C3%A0-covent-garden.html#more, http://intermezzo.typepad.com/intermezzo/2009/06/un-ballo-in-maschera-royal-opera-house.html#more

May I remind you that you do not (sic) the right to reproduce or distribute any Royal Opera House copyrighted work including any images taken within the Royal Opera House.

If all Royal Opera House images are removed by 6pm Friday 10th September 2010 then this matter will be closed, however if you do not comply then we will pursue this matter further which will include litigation and future exclusion from future Royal Opera House membership and performances.

Yours sincerely

George Avory

Head of Legal & Business Affairs

Royal Opera House

Covent Garden

London WC2E 9DD

Phone +44 (0)20 7212 9664

Fax +44 (0)20 7212 9499

Email [email protected]

 

**********************

UPDATE 10/9 - Comments on this post now extend over several pages - please use the small arrows   >>   beneath the last comment to move to the next page

**********************

Comments

[David Anthony]

A sad day...

[Paul King]

OMG that's outrageous. I for one have attended numerous performances as a direct result of your reviews, comments and images. The ROH have gone mad. If you need any of your loyal readers to do anything to support you, please ask. You really don't deserve or need this harsh treatment.

[Howard]

Takes futility beyond the reach of the most daring imagination. Firstly, they would be hard-pressed to prove any loss; secondly, it's highly unlikely they are competent enough to have secured the ownership of images they believe they own; thirdly, I rather doubt that a publicly-funded organisation *can* just ban anyone they please; fourthly Quid est, Catulle? quid moraris emori? fifthly...infinitely...

[y2k]

Yikes! I'm speechless.

[Opera Cake]

ROH was benefiting enormously from your nicely illustrated posts. You were either correcting the sloppiness of their website or providing us with complementary information...

Instead of one big thanks to all you've been doing so far, he's threatening you! How low is that! :(

Hugs...

[Lisa Hirsch]

Not all publicity is good publicity, contrary to the old saw. This is rather...heavy-handed.

[Lisa Hirsch]

And while we're at it, I've blogged this: http://irontongue.blogspot.com/2010/09/not-all-publicity-is-good.html

[Samuel]

Please, what a fuss, has the man not got anything better to do. If the ROH website was easier to navigate and find the information you need, but your service brings this to the reader, where in general it's all clean fun and not a slur on the ROH.

I could understand if like another blog in Milan, where she stamps everything with her logo, but this is not the case here.

[rootlesscosmo]

I'm glad you called attention to Avory's many illiteracies. I'm sure he's far past the point of being embarrassed to have these pointed out, but maybe someone in ROH management will wonder why they are paying a nitwit to make bogus threats of litigation.

[inter mezzo]

thank you everyone for your kind messages.

[Howard]

Poor Intermezzo, you must feel so sick!

This affair would be an outrage if it wasn't so relentlessly stupid and futile (and illiterate); in fact, 'outrage' would be too kind a term.

We *could* all write to the ROH and tell them not to be so stupid/boycott their overpriced crap of various kinds/have a coordinated posting of their precious images on the Internet/have a coordinated photography session on their premises (not fair to the performers I suppose)/do whatever else it takes...

Just give the word!

[AlisonC]

:-( What a shame, and how ungrateful considering the amount of interest in their productions that your blog must generate.

Perhaps it's sour grapes since some "official" opera blogs can be terribly dull compared with this one!

[davsgril]

Is this Avery person obsessed with litigation to the exclusion of opera?

[teresa59]

incredible! Has my full support...Can we do something?

[Maggy]

This is very mean and not flattering for the ROH. They should be pleased to see how much you contribute to their fame. Could they really stop you from attending performances? You are not making any money with this kind of 'journalism' on the net...You are the focus of passionate opera goers around the world, very pleased to be able to read you in English from GB!

[RestrictedView]

This is a very sorry mess indeed, and must be very unpleasant for you to have received. And for what? I'm at a loss to understand what this insufferable prig is trying to 'protect'.

I can't quite believe the extent to which it has severely eroded the goodwill that I had for the Royal Opera House. My fuller thoughts: http://wp.me/pAV2H-75

Hope there is a satisfactory resolution. Ideally it would involve some grovelling, a season in the Royal Box, and a large bunch of flowers from Lord Hall.

[Peter West]

Big sister is watching you.

[Laurent]

Dear Intermezzo — I don’t always like the tone of your posts, but you are providing an invaluable resource to the community of music lovers. It was a post of yours that moved me to attend a performance of Parsifal in Bayreuth a few weeks ago, and for that only I will eternally be grateful to you. The ROH’s behaviour is preposterous and it’s a shame you had to submit to such ridiculous demands. I’m not sure I want to keep patronising an institution that behaves in such a retrograde way. At the very least I will abstain from renewing my Friends of Covent Garden membership when it expires. By the way, Mr. Avory’s Facebook Wall is viewable by the general public…http://www.facebook.com/georgeavory

[Jim]

Unlike in the US where suing for things like this is not easy, in the UK people sue at the drop of a hat. It definitely damages people's right to know and the flow of information.

[Grazyna Kopij]

They have gone completely mad! You are the free advertisement for them and the source of information about them for people who live outside UK, like me.

[manxmaid]

Dear Intermezzo, just how would this illiterate jobsworth (or jobsworth who can't be bothered checking his incompetent typist's copy before sending) find out your true identity ? Would your host sneak on you ? (because I'm sure your friends wouldn't).Really rich when they are supposedly trying to broaden their audience (although as the front Amphi creeps toward £100 you do wonder). So, unless you're already a paid-up member of the club you're not allowed to have any idea what the new productions partly funded by your taxes look like ? Ridiculous. Another candidate for a certain "little list", I think. . .You provide a FAR more valuable function in the opera-loving community. And in fairness to O.C. , I think she only stamps her OWN photos.

[Satisfied]

"Please, what a fuss, has the man not got anything better to do."

He's in-house counsel...I can guarantee that he does not.

That said...here here for your *fine* blogging, Intermezzo! As an aside, I have changed my plans to be in London for Tannhauser based mostly upon your reporting!

[Sheri]

Maybe you could do what I've seen done on at least one other blog: watermark (faintly) the images from ROH you include. It would seem possible to negotiate (with someone other than this legal counsel idiot) some kind of understanding whereby you could continue to use images so long as you either watermark them, or caption each of them in very obvious fashion with "Edited from ROH copyrighted image with permission" below, wherever they appear. Surely that would satisfy Mr. Legal Eagle's fervent desire to clarify the copyright issue for all to see, while still allowing you to derive use of the image which in turn benefits the ROH profit margin. I should think there must be some other pooh-bah who would be open to a meeting who would prove amenable to such a solution.

[Henry Holland]

"If the ROH website was easier to navigate and find the information you need"

This can't be reiterated enough times. I'm going to Europe in February for some opera going, it was a nightmare to find out what was playing at Covent Garden at that time. What's with breaking up the season in to four parts and making any subsequent parts really difficult to find?

Well, there's always ENO Intermezzo, right? :-)

[Steve Taylor]

So relentlessly pigheadedly stupid. I've thought before that all organisations which send out legal threats of any sort should have an extra step in their procedures:

Any communications like the ones quoted here should have to pass before a person senior enough in the organisation to have veto powers and who is *not part of the legal department*. Their job should be to ask themselves the simple question "Will this make us a laughing stock or put us at the center of a firestorm of hatred and scorn?". Bonus points if they also ask themselves the question "Are we threatening someone who is actively helping us?"

[Petra]

This is unbelievable. Your posts certainly have encouraged me to buy tickets for ROH. They should've sent you a thank you message and included some free tix.

[Michael]

You missed the double negative at "therefore unless these images are not removed from the website ...........within the next twenty four hours from the date/time of this email, the Royal Opera House will........." He doesn't need a consul, he needs an English teacher. Lawyers among your followers may take comfort from the fact that George Avory is unknown to the Law Society's website (which lists all currently practising solicitors, including those working in house). It seems the ROH does not have an in house solicitor, or at least not an English or Welsh one.

[Richard Carter]

Oh dear, I'd only recently commented privately to you on your excellent photos from Covent Garden (and elsewhere) - and then this happens, worse by far than I could have imagined! Like everyone else here, I'm just appalled at the combination of unpleasantness and stupidity in the stuff from the disgusting and pig-ignorant Avory (perhaps, in deference to his own illiteracy we should only refer to him as 'Avery').

I've had my own issues with ROH in the past, particularly over their useless online booking system (I've just given up my Friends' membership over this after years of fighting with it and them), but I had thought that incompetence and arrogance were their only problems - but now we can add vicious unpleasantness to the list.

My profound sympathies - and, like others, I'll be more than happy to help in any way I can: just let us know! Your website is one of the most consistently interesting sites covering music, particularly opera, and I'm outraged and appalled that this idiot (in case you're reading this, Avery, I mean YOU) is able to threaten it in this foul way.

[Andrew Powell]

You're not American enough! Defy the guy. Continue your work freely. Get sued and excluded. Go in drag or a wig, and ask friends and readers to support and document what you are doing.

[Inara Kanela]

ROH was benefiting enormously from your nicely illustrated posts, providing us with complementary information...

Instead of one big thanks to all you've been doing so far, he's threatening you! How low is that! :(

Thank you very much!!!!

[david de rome]

Heavy-handed authoritarianism at its worst, and a serious error of judgement on ROH's part. Utterly counter-intuitive.

It would be interesting to see a written statement from the ROH as to:

- in what measure ROH copyright is infringed by referenced "fair use" of their images;

- exactly what "damage" ROH believes it has sustained on account of such;

- and an even clearer statement as to what use of its images by the tax-payer and the opera-going public in general, an organisation so heavily publically-funded as the ROH may consider (or otherwise !) to be acceptable.

A similar statement from the Arts Council would also be of interest.

In any case, as has been stated repeatedly above but cannot be repeated often enough, a huge "thank you" to Intermezzo for the valuable service provided to so many.

[Hariclea]

I can't believe given the amount of photos from the ROH shows and scans of publications that circulate all over the internet (blogs and webpages alike) that they picked on you! As if you were the sole offender (with it still being rather unclear what exactly the breach was…) or the particularly frequent one. Are they trying to set an example of some kind????

If so, it is just an example of particularly bad PR and of the way how not to deal with the public, which you and your readers are part of.

It’s hard to imagine that the legal department at the ROH doesn’t have more important things to take care of like contracts, etc and wastes time on this. Does anyone there really believe with this action they will prevent everyone from taking any more pictures of curtain calls or spread images from shows over the net??? Hard to believe anyone can be so naïve!

Not to mention the fact that they are the only opera house I know who hasn’t yet realised the potential commercial value of selling images from shows. But if they don’t have an income stream from this, how can they possibly claim damages from other people using images also with no commercial purpose?

I hope somebody in that otherwise respectable institution realises soon what a blunder this was and that they have an employee who doesn’t seem to understand how to represent this institution publicly. In any case, it is already too late to undo the damage he has done to its public image by his aggressive actions. And the way it has been done gives the impression of personal dislike and retaliation, rather than desire to apply a legal or other type of principle.

Sorry for the unexpected stress this has created to you and I hope somebody with more common sense at the ROH will get in touch soon to mend this mess and find a way out of it, as I am sure it exists :-)

[mamascarlatti]

The first thing I did on reading your post was email the legal blockhead who is obviously acting for an institution which obviously doesn't understand a good thing when it sees it.
Their attitude is typical of a hidebound insitution ehich doesn't understand how things have changed in terms of PR and advertising.

[Tobias]

Your blog is the best and the Royal Opera House Covent Garden should be glad, that you give pieces of information about this house every day. Their behaviour is stupid. Okay, with houses in Munich or Vienna - I would not have been surprised. But in London???
Don´t get frustrated and keep on!
Best regards,
Tobias
Berlin, Germany

[Rafael García]

Embarrassing and outrageous

[Another opera lover]

Here's one more expression of support for you Intermezzo. I have always enjoyed your reports and pictures, which don't do anyone any harm that I can see. Doesn't this idiot realise how much damage his actions will do ROH among the opera-loving community? You do far more for them with your information and comments than he ever will. I'll write to them, of course, though how much good it will do is debatable. He is, after all, a lawyer. We have to try to make them see sense though.

[inter mezzo]

Thank you again everyone for all your support. If you want to express your feelings to the Royal Opera House, the best suggestion I have had so far is to use the Contact Us page on the ROH website (http://www.roh.org.uk/contact/index.aspx) and address your comment for the attention of Tony Hall, Chief Executive.

By the way, my email is playing up at the moment, and I don't have access to it. If you would like to send me a private message, please send it via Comments here, and mark it as private so that I don't publish it.

[Freddie]

This is so obviously counterproductive for the ROH. I dread to think how many of our Friends subscriptions it takes to pay for the "Legal and Business Affairs" department. I have emailed the ROH to express my unhappiness and I encourage everyone else to do so.

[Kit Gill]

Completely behind you IM - this is unbelievably crass on the ROH's part. I will marshal whatever press contacts I have immediately to heap as much shame on them as possible. Unfortunately it is all of a piece with their attitude to the public generally. If only there were an alternative ...! But we are all in a hideous polygamous marriage of convenience with the old lady of Floral Street.
Wishing you strength and good fortune.
Kit

[Steve W]

I'm no lawyer but would be surprised if any copyright could be upheld on images taken by you within their premises. We all know they technically forbid it and last time I went (Eugene Onegin in July) I created a stink because the Russian woman next to me was viewing/videoing the whole performance through a camera, with attendant whirings and distractions.

Most of your own pictures however are at curtain call and no reasonable and non-litigious person could have any objection to these. They celebrate the artists and the performance.

If I was a mediator, I'd be suggesting you agree not to publish pictures plucked from their website (links instead?) or take pictures mid-performance, and that they turn a benign blind eye to the rest.

Mr Avory... are you listening? You risk your organisations reputation for being so heavy handed.

[Marietta Ford]

The stupidity of some people! I am one of your non-GB readers. I am planning a trip to London this winter -in order to see an ROH production if I can get the tickets- as a direct result of your interesting, amusing and informative blog. Reading about different productions on your site gave me the desire to rediscover the ROH after a 25-year absence. Talk about free publicity! If I have to try to navigate on the ROH site I'll probably just abandon future visits, online or otherwise. What can we do to help?

[Manou]

Oh for heaven's sake - dear Royal Opera House online mole, please stop this silliness and withdraw your threats. The damage you have wrought here is much greater than any you imagine is being inflicted by Intermezzo.

Is there a PR department at Covent Garden alongside the legal department?

[James]

As a fellow blogger (theatre, not opera though) have had a similar (though less threatening) problem with one theatre who demanded I remove a low res picture from my blog as they only give permission for use to 'recognised media'.

Perhaps it is about time that the ROH caught up with the 21st century and realise that nowadays a quick google search will turn up production shots of virtually any opera, theatre or dance production.

[Gareth James]

It is yet another example that the ROH exists for itself and its rich friends. Real opera lovers have been priced out of the building. Tax-payers of modest mean can't afford to attend the performances their subsidy pays for. Cheap stunts like tickets for Sun readers are used patronisingly as illustrations of accessibilty when in reality it's the least accessible opera house for opera lovers ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. You can get top price seats at WNO (one quarter of the subsidy) and see world class opera (Terfel in Meistersingers, Keenlyside in Rigoletto) for 20% to 30% of equivalent seats at Covent Garden. It's time for opera-loving tax-payers to say 'enough is enough' and demand a fair return for their £28m

[Mike]

Mr Avory's action is short sighted to say the least. I'm sure the marketing and press teams at ROH will be having kittens at this boorish behaviour by their legal dept.

Threatening legal action against someone who provides a free platform to advertise your business to your customers...fool Avory, fool.

[Halldor]

Silly, silly people...they really don't get it, do they?

[antmusique]

I'm sorry to read about this, IM.

I'm hoping against all hope for some gesture of conciliation on their part, because this is just stupid. It has really damaged my view of the ROH.

[Nat Bocking]

I have been banging on for years how managers of arts organisations need to know a lot more than they do about photography and copyright. A great example for my argument, thanks.

http://watertowerproject.blogspot.com/2009/10/moving-target.html

[Jane Ennis]

Did these threatening letters just appear one day, without warning or preamble or anything? It is really bizarre....you have my full support, and, I am sure,that of the majority of opera-lovers, who love reading your blog. I fail to understand the purpose of this...why does he object to you gaining further publicity for the ROH?? As you say, no-one is making any money from the images, you always acknowledge the source, so what is his problem??

[inter mezzo]

Thank you also Jessica Duchen at Standpoint Magazine (http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/3373) and Mark Tyson at Recitative blog (http://recitative.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/royal-opera-house-loses-the-plot-and-some-grammar-and-spelling/) and Lisa Hirsch at Iron Tongue of Midnight blog (http://irontongue.blogspot.com/2010/09/not-all-publicity-is-good.html) for some eloquently expressed support.