MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: PrincessFerf on December 21, 2018, 10:38
-
I have had a couple of my photos rejected (SS, Adobe, iStock) requiring a property release. I have had plenty of my photos accepted that are similar in nature.
Here's the situation. The buildings I have shot aren't well known or "famous", I am not trespassing on the property itself (taken from the road) and these aren't people's private homes. There are no names on these buildings or trademarks.
The agencies are super inconsistent in their review. What's the deal? What are your thoughts/suggestions?
-
Can you show some examples of the ones you said that were approved and other that weren't?
Enviado desde mi ALP-L29 mediante Tapatalk
-
I have had a couple of my photos rejected (SS, Adobe, iStock) requiring a property release. I have had plenty of my photos accepted that are similar in nature.
Here's the situation. The buildings I have shot aren't well known or "famous", I am not trespassing on the property itself (taken from the road) and these aren't people's private homes. There are no names on these buildings or trademarks.
The agencies are super inconsistent in their review. What's the deal? What are your thoughts/suggestions?
A building doesn't need to be famous to require a property release. If it is recognizable private property it will likely require a property release at Adobe Stock. You can review our property release requirements here: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html?topic=/stock/contributor/morehelp/legal-guidelines.ug.js
-Mat
-
... The buildings I have shot aren't well known or "famous", I am not trespassing on the property itself (taken from the road) and these aren't people's private homes. There are no names on these buildings or trademarks....
If you shoot a city street with multiple buildings, or a skyline (no logos, no protected designs), you will very likely not need a property release. If it's one building (or a very small number), regardless of where you were when you photographed it, regardless of whether it's a home or business, you probably will need a release. Years ago agencies were less strict but now they don't permit a main subject to be unreleased property.
For an interior - i.e. where a room is shown, versus just a flower vase or just a window frame - you'll almost always need a property release.
For some agencies - SS, for example - you need to show that the property release is signed by the owner or someone with the proper authority to make a release. I had to update my release for my own house to indicate I was the homeowner (and even so they still sometimes complain).
https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000011069 (https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000011069)
-
The agencies are super inconsistent in their review. What's the deal? What are your thoughts/suggestions?
Yes, they do, and it is what it is. I've never had to add a release for an interior of a home. I've never had to add a release for the exterior of a home. I only get them when it is a business.
https://www.danheller.com/biz-trademarks (https://www.danheller.com/biz-trademarks)
-
In my case, the buildings I have had rejected were either a church or a barn.
Many of my photos are rural, Midwestern USA.
-
I have had a couple of my photos rejected (SS, Adobe, iStock) requiring a property release. I have had plenty of my photos accepted that are similar in nature.
Here's the situation. The buildings I have shot aren't well known or "famous", I am not trespassing on the property itself (taken from the road) and these aren't people's private homes. There are no names on these buildings or trademarks.
The agencies are super inconsistent in their review. What's the deal? What are your thoughts/suggestions?
A building doesn't need to be famous to require a property release. If it is recognizable private property it will likely require a property release at Adobe Stock. You can review our property release requirements here: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html?topic=/stock/contributor/morehelp/legal-guidelines.ug.js
-Mat
That is helpful. Thank you, Mat.
-
I have had a couple of my photos rejected (SS, Adobe, iStock) requiring a property release. I have had plenty of my photos accepted that are similar in nature.
Here's the situation. The buildings I have shot aren't well known or "famous", I am not trespassing on the property itself (taken from the road) and these aren't people's private homes. There are no names on these buildings or trademarks.
The agencies are super inconsistent in their review. What's the deal? What are your thoughts/suggestions?
A building doesn't need to be famous to require a property release. If it is recognizable private property it will likely require a property release at Adobe Stock. You can review our property release requirements here: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html?topic=/stock/contributor/morehelp/legal-guidelines.ug.js
-Mat
I often get rejections for Swedish buildings (exteriors) because the release is missing. The houses are clean lack signs like names and other brand like symbols.
I'm confused and I don't understand why, because:
Swedish copyright law provides an exception to the building's copyright owner's (the architect) right to decide on his work and get financial compensation, in the case the reproduction of it are photos or paintings.
The owner of a house has no statutory right get compensation and can not decide if the house can be used on an image or not. It's the architect who is the copyright owner and the only one that can provide a release, which is not needed.
-
I have had a couple of my photos rejected (SS, Adobe, iStock) requiring a property release. I have had plenty of my photos accepted that are similar in nature.
Here's the situation. The buildings I have shot aren't well known or "famous", I am not trespassing on the property itself (taken from the road) and these aren't people's private homes. There are no names on these buildings or trademarks.
The agencies are super inconsistent in their review. What's the deal? What are your thoughts/suggestions?
A building doesn't need to be famous to require a property release. If it is recognizable private property it will likely require a property release at Adobe Stock. You can review our property release requirements here: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html?topic=/stock/contributor/morehelp/legal-guidelines.ug.js
-Mat
I often get rejections for Swedish buildings (exteriors) because the release is missing. The houses are clean lack signs like names and other brand like symbols.
I'm confused and I don't understand why, because:
Swedish copyright law provides an exception to the building's copyright owner's (the architect) right to decide on his work and get financial compensation, in the case the reproduction of it are photos or paintings.
The owner of a house has no statutory right get compensation and can not decide if the house can be used on an image or not. It's the architect who is the copyright owner and the only one that can provide a release, which is not needed.
How they know if the photo was taken in Sweden?
Enviado desde mi ALP-L29 mediante Tapatalk
-
I have had a couple of my photos rejected (SS, Adobe, iStock) requiring a property release. I have had plenty of my photos accepted that are similar in nature.
Here's the situation. The buildings I have shot aren't well known or "famous", I am not trespassing on the property itself (taken from the road) and these aren't people's private homes. There are no names on these buildings or trademarks.
The agencies are super inconsistent in their review. What's the deal? What are your thoughts/suggestions?
A building doesn't need to be famous to require a property release. If it is recognizable private property it will likely require a property release at Adobe Stock. You can review our property release requirements here: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html?topic=/stock/contributor/morehelp/legal-guidelines.ug.js
-Mat
I often get rejections for Swedish buildings (exteriors) because the release is missing. The houses are clean lack signs like names and other brand like symbols.
I'm confused and I don't understand why, because:
Swedish copyright law provides an exception to the building's copyright owner's (the architect) right to decide on his work and get financial compensation, in the case the reproduction of it are photos or paintings.
The owner of a house has no statutory right get compensation and can not decide if the house can be used on an image or not. It's the architect who is the copyright owner and the only one that can provide a release, which is not needed.
How they know if the photo was taken in Sweden?
And you can't expect reviewers know know all the detailled laws of every country in the world. With micro prices no doubt controlling their income, you can't even expect them to take the time to look up the info.
-
The agencies are super inconsistent in their review. What's the deal? What are your thoughts/suggestions?
Yes, they do, and it is what it is. I've never had to add a release for an interior of a home. I've never had to add a release for the exterior of a home.
How strange. The exterior of my home is exactly like the exterior of thousands of others the length and breadth of the country which were built by a major builder of his time. The interior is easily recogniseable, and I'd expect to need many releases for e.g. wallpaper, furnishings etc.
-
“'d expect to need many releases for e.g. wallpaper, furnishings etc.”
Ye gads, no.
-
...The interior is easily recogniseable, and I'd expect to need many releases for e.g. wallpaper, furnishings etc.
I have lots of pictures of homes & interiors in my portfolio, many of which are of my own house. I have never had to provide a release for furniture (but then I don't live high enough on the hog to have non-generic furniture or wallpaper!) but I have had to provide releases for my own photos hanging on walls, in addition to the release for the house. Anything that looks like "art" - and they don't judge the artistic merit of my photographs, just ask for the releases :)
I have one picture of a friend's home with their cat in it - the agencies (so far) have been happy with just one release for the home and no need to get one for the cat :)
I have had rejections where I forgot to attach a release, so I'm not just imagining the requirements for releases of home and interior.
-
I have lots of pictures of homes & interiors in my portfolio, many of which are of my own house. I have never had to provide a release for furniture (but then I don't live high enough on the hog to have non-generic furniture or wallpaper!)
My wallpaper and furniture aren't 'designer', but they're very distinctive. But maybe rules have slackened off since I last submitted to iS.