pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Amcient object photographed in museum - editorial or not?  (Read 414 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 04, 2017, 08:09 »
0
I have a large number of photos fron museums exhibits. Mainly it is ancient archaeological artefact, pottery, statue, figurines from ancient rome, egypt, greece.. It is famous object, world heritage...
So i planing to upload thats photos on shutter and istock.
Are this photo editorial or not?


« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2017, 08:17 »
+1
my opinion (but who am I to tell?): not editorial, museum owns them but can't copyright ancient objects

museum's opinion: they don't know but if you ask they say you can't sell photos at all, just to be sure; don't ask

shutterstock's opinion: none; may random reject/accept them; slightly more likely to accept as editorial

conclusion: choose editorial; less risky should someone complain

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #2 on: December 04, 2017, 08:17 »
0
Quote
Are this photo editorial or not?

Yes, editorial in my opinion, although if you use general keywords you may get away with it as commercial. Don't put the name of the museum, for example.

Some images aren't allowed, even as editorial. SS consider them "non-licensible content", for example Michelangelo's David. 

« Reply #3 on: December 04, 2017, 09:07 »
+3
If you took the photos on private property, you need a property release for the location, which I assume you don't have. And for places with entrance fees, they set rules (often) about use of photographs taken on their premises. Especially when the objects are recognizable, you can't expect the location to stay unknown even if SS were to let them through inspection as commercial - which I'd expect they wouldn't.

I think these would have to be editorial and it has nothing to do with the copyright on the objects themselves.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2017, 09:12 »
0
Quote
If you took the photos on private property, you need a property release for the location, which I assume you don't have. And for places with entrance fees, they set rules (often) about use of photographs taken on their premises. Especially when the objects are recognizable, you can't expect the location to stay unknown even if SS were to let them through inspection as commercial - which I'd expect they wouldn't.

I think these would have to be editorial and it has nothing to do with the copyright on the objects themselves.

Yes, I agree - this is nothing about the age or copyright status of the objects. You can take pictures of people in "public places" and submit them without releases as editorial, but you cannot go into a private house or office and do the same thing. In this case, the museum is a private place and it is their rules that apply to whether you can legally license the image at all. If it is something generic, then you can "get away with it", but you are still potentially at risk.

Steve

« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2017, 09:17 »
+1
My rule of thumb on things is museums is this:  If they sell pictures of it in the gift shop, they probably don't want you selling pictures of it as commercial stock. 

It's just business sense.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2141 Views
Last post June 19, 2007, 16:40
by Whiz
5 Replies
1366 Views
Last post January 03, 2013, 21:47
by luissantos84
7 Replies
1902 Views
Last post August 14, 2013, 17:34
by KB
21 Replies
20469 Views
Last post December 31, 2013, 12:10
by Uncle Pete
0 Replies
585 Views
Last post June 21, 2016, 15:11
by skyfish

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors