MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock: Unreleased Private Homes  (Read 17163 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 13, 2013, 12:01 »
0
Just got this email.

What is changing?

Due to an increase in claims from homeowners, and to provide a better experience to our customers who license content from us, images/clips shot of private residences without property releases from the owners will no longer be accepted as creative content.

In the coming months, existing files without property releases will be deactivated from iStock and will no longer be offered from iStock or its partner sites.

What is not acceptable and what is?

If a single unreleased private home is the subject of a photo or video, it will be deactivated and will not be eligible for future submission without a property release.  Previously, we have accepted photos and videos of private homes that were shot from public locations. That will no longer be the case.  The new guidelines set out here will apply regardless of where the photo or video was shot.

Street scenes and vistas depicting three or more homes shot from a public place without a release are still acceptable.


This is gonna get ugly.  ::)


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2013, 12:10 »
+1
There's a thread about it over there.
I can't find a way to upload a PR for my own house already uploaded (not to lose best match position by deactivating and reuploading fresh), nor is it clear whether I can sign a PR or whether if should be the architect or his/her heirs or the company which incorporated the builder who built the estate. (1970s).

I have written to CR with these questions, but I've got another question pending since the 6th, so ...

« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2013, 12:20 »
+1
I guess you just need to shoot 3 at once and let the buyer crop...

Expect the removal of images to be slow and spotty. I wonder how many lawsuits they have had (for example is it a number larger than 0).

Who exactly does have permission to sign the PR - the bank, the resident, the architect, the builders, the painter, the company that built the windows, the landscaper...? They should at least have an easy way to do a PR for your own house.

« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2013, 12:35 »
-3
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:08 by tickstock »

« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2013, 13:56 »
+1
There's a lot of real estate images, FANTASTIC ONES, whose owners will be very upset if their images are deactivated.  Some of those shots are in very exclusive housing markets where I doubt they have property releases. I wonder what the process is if they are deactivated and then you are able to get a property release.....do you get to keep you states of that image....especially if it has placement privilege with all the down loads.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2013, 17:42 by Mantis »

« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2013, 14:03 »
+2
I can't find a way to upload a PR for my own house already uploaded (not to lose best match position by deactivating and reuploading fresh), nor is it clear whether I can sign a PR or whether if should be the architect or his/her heirs or the company which incorporated the builder who built the estate. (1970s).


Instructions are in the article (link is in the email and also in the first post of the forum thread):

Quote
Due to an increase in claims from homeowners, and to provide a better experience to our customers who license content from us, images/clips shot of private residences without property releases from the owners will no longer be accepted as creative content.


Quote
If you have a release for your image of a private home, please send contributor relations an email and include the following:

RE: PR File#XXXXXXX

Body of email: Link to file

Please ensure to attach the release.

NOTE: If there are any models included in your files please include the Model Releases and the required Property Release in one file as an attachment.

Send your releases to Contributor Relations via this link.

Please note inquiries or questions related to this policy should not be sent via the above link. Only Property release submissions will be addressed
« Last Edit: December 13, 2013, 14:08 by bunhill »

« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2013, 15:34 »
0
I think it must be bad enough for them to cut of a pretty big chunk of revenue!

lisafx

« Reply #7 on: December 13, 2013, 17:01 »
0
So if I'm reading correctly, it is only when the house is the main subject of the photo?  Not if it's in the background when you are shooting something else (people)?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #8 on: December 13, 2013, 19:01 »
+2
As always, the examples in the article are very obvious, and don't clarify the 'grey areas'. However, I think I'll just play safe and deactivate any single or two houses which aren't my own, even though some (not all) are pretty much 'generic', at least 'generic' enough so that thousands of houses built by the same builder look the same.

How does it work that a house owner can sign the PR and not the architect or commissioning builder (not a one-off design) but we can't sign a release for a car? I mean, lots of people fwould recognise that my house is an X builder's house from the 70s, just like anyone interested in cars would know my car is a Z model from Y manufacturer.

I wonder how much clout a 'new owner' would have if they complained that the previous owner, not they, had signed the release - I suppose that would 'depend' between legislations.

« Reply #9 on: December 13, 2013, 19:13 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:08 by tickstock »

B8

« Reply #10 on: December 14, 2013, 03:44 »
+2
I think the bigger question will be if exclusives will be permitted to take this content and sell it elsewhere once it has been deactivated. If not, then it could leave some people in a very bad situation who have already invested a lot of time and money to create these shots.

« Reply #11 on: December 14, 2013, 04:35 »
+5
I found a workaround in my neighborhood today.  8)

« Reply #12 on: December 14, 2013, 06:07 »
0
Does this apply to home interiors too or just exteriors?

« Reply #13 on: December 14, 2013, 06:07 »
+1
How does it work that a house owner can sign the PR and not the architect or commissioning builder (not a one-off design) but we can't sign a release for a car?

Same form - different case I think ...

Model releases for cars are about copyrights and trademarks. It's about e.g. - that's clearly a Porsche, not that's clearly my car.

I think this thing with houses is more about not intrusively upsetting homeowners (and therefore, importantly, stock photo clients) irrespective of the specific legal implications in any particular country. A home is a very personal thing.

Self service RF obviously needs to definitely be completely problem free. So in both cases it is about avoiding trouble - but my reading would be that it is for subtly different reasons.

(The design of modern houses (which I do not think this is about) is much less clear with respect to copyright since many today are put together from individually pre fabricated and often generic component features and floor-plans. Obviously the rights to well known building designs or interiors would be a completely different issue again.)

« Reply #14 on: December 14, 2013, 06:09 »
+1
Does this apply to home interiors too or just exteriors?

It's in the article.

Quote
Recognizable or unique interior requires a release.

« Reply #15 on: December 14, 2013, 07:00 »
0
Unique home interiors already needed release. So, files with home interiors aproved without release shouldn't be affected.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #16 on: December 14, 2013, 07:10 »
0
I think the bigger question will be if exclusives will be permitted to take this content and sell it elsewhere once it has been deactivated. If not, then it could leave some people in a very bad situation who have already invested a lot of time and money to create these shots.
If they feel that it is safe to sell these images, it would seem that they are permitted to sell them elsewhere, per the EASA:
"2 Provision of Exclusive Content
a    In this Agreement, "Exclusive Content" ... shall not include ...  (4) Content that is of a category not currently offered for sale by iStockphoto"

"Content that is of a category not currently offered for sale by iStockphoto" will  include, very shortly, unreleased house exteriors.

« Reply #17 on: December 14, 2013, 07:45 »
0
I think the bigger question will be if exclusives will be permitted to take this content and sell it elsewhere once it has been deactivated. If not, then it could leave some people in a very bad situation who have already invested a lot of time and money to create these shots.
If they feel that it is safe to sell these images, it would seem that they are permitted to sell them elsewhere, per the EASA:
"2 Provision of Exclusive Content
a    In this Agreement, "Exclusive Content" ... shall not include ...  (4) Content that is of a category not currently offered for sale by iStockphoto"

"Content that is of a category not currently offered for sale by iStockphoto" will  include, very shortly, unreleased house exteriors.
I'd always read that "category" to mean a type of content. ie logos, or editorial illustrations that aren't offered. Later on in the agreement there are other mentions of "category" which would tend to reinforce this view.  I could well be wrong, but it shows how all this is open to interpretation, and so (expensive) legal argument.
I didn't have any great selling house shots. Just one or two reasonable ones and a fair few less good. I've taken them down.
If iStock aren't happy about the risk then neither am I. Apart from any IP considerations, you have to wonder about the issue of privacy for people living in a particular house.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #18 on: December 14, 2013, 08:04 »
0
I've taken the down four which look nearest to the ones in the article and am considering a few others in the 'grey area' and will send a PR for my own house. It turned out I had fewer than I thought, and luckily the ones I deactivated either never sold or had few sales, so no problem for me; that won't be the same for others.
I also have  a very few 'architectural details' which don't look generic but which I changed in PS, and guess I'll have to root out the originals.

I'm not a lawyer, and it's certainly not worth it to me to check it out with an international lawyer, but certainly 'unreleased single houses without releases' will soon be a 'category' of images they don't accept, but agree their lawyers could twist that any which way. Their agreements are deliberately kept vague for exactly that purpose.

Anyway, a while back, there was another category of deactivations which would have affected me a bit more, so I wrote to the admin who had announced that change of policy, asking if I could submit them elsewhere and he said, in theory yes; but why would I want to risk legal action? I wrote back with specifics on my images showing why they were not a risk. Whether because of these details or whether they just haven't got round to it yet (after several years, at least two), these images are still on iStock.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 09:19 by ShadySue »

« Reply #19 on: December 14, 2013, 08:15 »
0
I've taken the down four which look nearest to the ones in the article and am considering a few others in the 'grey area' and will send a PR for my own house. It turned out I had fewer than I thought, and luckily the ones I deactivated either never sold or had few sales, so no problem for me; that won't be the same for others.
I also have  a very few 'architectural details' which don't look generic but which I changed in PS, and guess I'll have to root out the originals.

I'm not a lawyer, and it's certainly not worth it to me to check it out with an international lawyer, but certainly 'unreleased single houses without releases' will soon be a 'category' of images they don't accept, but agree their lawyers could twist that any which way. Their agreements are deliberately kept vague for exactly that purpose.

Anyway, a while back, there was another category of deactivations which would have affected me a bit more, so I wrote to the admin who had announced that change of policy, asking if I could submit them elsewhere and he said, in theory yes; but why would I want to risk legal action? I wrote back with specifics on my images showing why they were not a risk. Whether because of these details or whether they just haven't got round to it yet (after several years, at least two), these images are still on iStock.

As you did in the previous case, the only real way to know if something is allowed is to check with them. My images were either low/no sales, or had slowed right off, so I didn't see any great loss in deactivating.
I can see that this could be really bad news for some people though.

« Reply #20 on: December 14, 2013, 08:24 »
+8
I'd like to know what these claims are that they are doing this now.  You don't need a release for a house or building.  They don't have rights: http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html#8.2

However, if you agree that Mr. X is in the right to sue you for using an image of his house, and you get him to sign a release, and he sells it to Mr. Y, Mr Y. is not going to care what you signed with Mr. X.  The release is between you and Mr. X, not Mr. Y.  So, if a property sells, you're just as vulnerable as you were without the previous owner's release.

As we know of course, ownership doesn't entitle the owner to give you any rights at all, really.  I own a Porsche.  I can't sign the property rights to shoot it to you.  I own a Lebowitz print from Walmart, but I can't sign the rights to you.

If iStock had any sense, they would create a new form going forward stating an agreement between the owner of property and the photography that permission to be on the property and photograph the property was given.  Because that's what they really want to know - did this person ok you taking an image of their property.  That way, at least they can say "Well, you knew about it".  Like a model release.   But something that doesn't make the owner liable for what is in the image.

Oh, and houses don't need releases: http://propertyintangible.com/2010/08/houses-right-of-publicity.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+PropertyIntangible+Property,+intangible&utm_content=Bloglines

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #21 on: December 14, 2013, 08:39 »
+1
AFAICS, Mr Heller only refers to US Law.

We already know that Nazi swastikas aren't allowed on iStock (since 2007) because they might lead to problems under German Law only.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=57152&page=1
(It seems that they won't accept them for editorial use either, as a search for 'swastika' only has original Indian swastikas and lots of spam where there is no swastika in the image (mostly by one person) and one image of someone painting over swastika grafitti.)

So it may be that these photos may be legally problematic in one or more countries furth of the US. Or it may be that some disgruntled homeowners have engaged in some sabre rattling, and they're better safe than involved in litigation, even if it would eventually find in their favour.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 11:07 by ShadySue »

« Reply #22 on: December 14, 2013, 09:11 »
0
Exactly, Sean. I shot a house that a friend wanted to rent as a holiday home, all signed and sealed, no problems. But now he wants to sell it. One of the pictures is featured on the intro to a TV show, the owner spotted it and was quite excited. But I've wondered for some time what a buyer will think if he's watching telly one day and suddenly sees his house pop up on the screen. I really don't know.

« Reply #23 on: December 14, 2013, 10:29 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:07 by tickstock »

« Reply #24 on: December 14, 2013, 12:00 »
+1
A search for "house" in "Photos" gives more than 640.000 results. Someone has to go through this number, decide whether each photo fulfils the criteria (if interior: is it unique or recognizable, if exterior is it one house or more and is it only as background or the main part of the image), and act accordingly...

I don't see how they will deal with that amount of work? Ideally there would be a grace period to give everyone who has a property release a chance to upload/e-mail it to them before they start weeding out - but this of course would generate even more administrative work  :o

Also one has to wonder: What will be next? Dogs, cats, horses, or ducks, even?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 12:16 by Ploink »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
7221 Views
Last post August 20, 2008, 14:44
by Sean Locke Photography
51 Replies
18144 Views
Last post October 20, 2011, 18:40
by ShadySue
2 Replies
2723 Views
Last post February 10, 2015, 12:49
by Rinderart
4 Replies
3511 Views
Last post November 13, 2018, 06:59
by mamacita1001
1 Replies
294 Views
Last post March 26, 2024, 08:46
by Injustice for all

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors