Difference in the requirement of property release from different sites

[mcklui]

I have tried uploading a photo of several commercial buildings in it to IS and SS. The photo was taken on the street. One of site requires property release but the other doesn't. Do you have similar experience and do you know why ?

[Jo Ann Snover]

You can find lots of information online about model and property releases, but from the point of view of the agencies, they get to set their own policies as they see fit, largely to minimize any risk of a lawsuit or other trouble.

Many agencies differentiate between a wide shot of a city street (which typically will not require a release) and a shot of one building (which often will require a release). You don't want legal hassles any more than the agencies do, so erring on the side of caution has a lot of appeal.

https://asmp.org/tutorials/property-and-model-releases.html#.Vk32UmSrQ18

https://asmp.org/tutorials/using-property-releases.html#.Vk33UmSrQ18

http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/contributor-resources/legal/stock-image-releases/

http://www.alamy.com/help/what-is-model-release-property-release.asp

http://www.agefotostock.com/phroad/ingles/phroad03d.asp

[etudiante_rapide]

definitely go along with jo ann,  best to get a PR if you can. this will minimize the risk of future problems.
i find that the site that sells the most are the more likely to err on the side of caution, as jo ann
said.

[Dave]

Just my two cents worth.
Some of the NEWER sites seem to be allowing images that are obviously NOT RF into the RF section, saw this great pic of a melbourne alleyway full of coffee shops, people looking at the camera, logos everywhere and they were licensing it as RF and this site originates in Melbourne, you'd think they would know better.
So you should also be doubly careful submitting images to sites that just accept images as RF when the obviously are not.

Remember it is your responsibility, you took the shot!!

[ShadySue]

Just my two cents worth.
Some of the NEWER sites seem to be allowing images that are obviously NOT RF into the RF section, saw this great pic of a melbourne alleyway full of coffee shops, people looking at the camera, logos everywhere and they were licensing it as RF and this site originates in Melbourne, you'd think they would know better.
So you should also be doubly careful submitting images to sites that just accept images as RF when the obviously are not.

Remember it is your responsibility, you took the shot!!

I don't think you understand the distinction between the RF/RM models of selling and editorial/commercial licensing.
Several of the micros have RF editorial licences. Just as some of the macros/midstock sites have RM commercial licences.

[Microstockphoto]

http://wiki.gettyimages.com/