I'll be honest, I never knew there were so many IP laws protecting just everyday buildings you see on the street.

My question is if I take a cityscape photo and alot of the building have company logo or advertisement boards on their rooftop, am I still able to sell these for stock?

If I take interior/exterior photos of a public building, eg: library, and on their website it says photography is allowed, do I still need to seek property release?

I submitted the same lots of photos to 2 microstock agencies, fotolia and bigstockphoto, one approved and the other turned it down due to IP infringement? Aren't these both fairly large agencies? Should't they have similar guidelines?

Each stock company has their own policies (frequently self-contradictory) about what they will or will not accept and they generally have little to do with the law since other micros will accept what one refuses for IP concerns.

I would generally discourage trying to game the system with resubmissions. If you resubmit - at SS and DT there's a field where you can put a note for the reviewer; I wish all sites did this - make sure the file is different or there's some type of note explaining why you want the file looked at again.

Sites are not always consistent month to month (or weekday to weekend) - inspection systems may have guidelines, but there's a lot of judgment calls made by people as well. I've found 123rf and Stockfresh to be the most conservative about requiring property releases for things shot from a street or other public place. Not talking about famous buildings with famous architects, but things which a few years ago would have been accepted by all agencies without question.

As they make more money, the agencies get more risk averse. For the most part I don't mind as long as I can get a clear picture of each agency's foibles so I can work around them. I don't remember hearing about any legal action taken against any microstock agency or photographer  over a property release issue, but I wouldn't want to be the first