Author Topic: iStock: Unreleased Private Homes (Read 17425 times)

ShadySue · « **Reply #76 on:** December 14, 2013, 21:40 »

Actually, unless there is nothing person-made in the image, I almost always tick 'needs PR' and 'No', even if it would be acceptable on iStock. On Alamy, the buyer has the responsibility for deciding if their use would be risky.

ShadySue · « **Reply #77 on:** December 15, 2013, 08:26 »

So, as noted above, the current scenario in the US and in other countries where you don't need a release for property.

Homeowner to Advertiser: "I see you are using my house in your advert and I want $Xk or I will contact my lawyer"

Advertiser to designer: "Why is this homeowner mad with our ad?"

Designer to iStock: "I've got an irate client here, do you have a PR?"

Is to advertiser: "No, but none is needed"

filters back up the line, until:
Homeowner to Lawyer: "Sue, sue, sue"

Lawyer to homeowner: "You probably don't have a case"

Now is very similar, except a few years on (or 'now' in the case of some older photos):

Homeowner to Advertiser: "I see you are using my house in your advert and I want $Xk or I will contact my lawyer"

Advertiser to designer: "Why is this homeowner mad with our ad?"

Designer to iStock: "I've got an irate client here, do you have a PR?"

Is to advertiser: "Yes"

filters back up the line, until:
Homeowner to Lawyer: "I didn't sign any contract, a previous owner did. Sue, sue, sue"

Lawyer to homeowner: "You probably don't have a case"

NB: I'm not saying getting a release isn't the Right thing to do. However, in terms of counteracting
"We've seen a steady increase in image claims involving this content. When taken on private property, legal claims are warranted and this content has always been prohibited. However even when shot off the grounds of private property, this content is problematic. Where we face claims from homeowners, under the terms of our Artist Supply Agreement, you are responsible for any costs associated with those claims. This change is about managing your risk, our risk and customer risk. Also, keep in mind that people identify very strongly with their homes and have a gut level negative experience that they share with our licensees, which does results in costs to you, iStock, and to our customers."
it can only go so far. It will, of course, reduce the claims, as there will be a proportion of home owners who do not move.

oxman · « **Reply #78 on:** December 15, 2013, 23:52 »

Quote from: oxman on December 14, 2013, 04:35

I found a workaround in my neighborhood today.

Well, I thought it was a workaround. Just got a reject ++ Needs Property Release ++ from an almost identical image. All the others were accepted.

ShadySue · « **Reply #79 on:** December 16, 2013, 11:08 »

Interestingly, some posts over there point out another issue: when people made images of show homes (etc) with verbal permission to upload them as stock in return for supplying the images to the builders. I remember one of my CN, who doesn't frequent the forums, did that a lot.
Now people are contacting the builders for PRs, but I can foresee problems with the current or future owners of the homes in these cases (to the extent that there are currently problems, as indicated in the email).

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #80 on:** December 16, 2013, 14:38 »

Hi All,

Lots of different feedback on this topic. I run a stock agency that deals with property released locations. We send our content to 90 different distributors. From Getty, Corbis, Gallery Stock, Masterfile, just about every Macro agency that sells content sells our Spaces Images content. We have always been directed by all of our distributors that an image with a property release will sell much better than one without and our sales show this to be absolutely true.
Despite what everyone might think about the legal side of this topic the end is that resellers want a PR or they will put your content in Editorial. It will still sell in Editorial but from our experience the sales in Editorial are nothing compared to the Creative division. More and more agencies do not want the legal issues to deal with and if the agency that represents your content does not want to carry the risk and are asking for PR's then I guess that is the only answer that matters here. It can be debated to death as to what is legal and what isn't but if our resellers of imagery want PR's for their homes, businesses, schools, etc.
Bottom line properties that are accompanied by a PR make more money than those that aren't. I hope this helps a bit I appreciate the posters here it has been a good topic to bring to light.

Thanks,
Jonathan
[email protected]

ShadySue · « **Reply #81 on:** January 04, 2014, 20:47 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on December 14, 2013, 08:24

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

Sorry to revive this old thread, but reading this link that landbysea provided in a different thread, it seems that in the UK, "The Advertising Standards Authority has upheld complaints when photographs of private residences have been used in advertising without the owner’s permission."
http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2013/02/12/is-it-legal-to-take-pictures-of-buildings-photography-law-questions-answered-by-experts
So I'm taking that if there's an issue in the UK (and probably other countries) that's why iS is taking the cautious approach.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock: Unreleased Private Homes (Read 17425 times)

tickstock

ShadySue

ShadySue

oxman

ShadySue

Jonathan Ross

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors