MicrostockGroup

Filtration is cool but generally detracts from sales. But this has never stopped me from doing it. However a shot like that is better off at someplace like Alamy.

That's the thing, you wouldn't need a release for Alamy if you submit as an L image with no release indicated. It can still be used for editorial which although not a huge market, can still place value on such images.

That doesn't look like a drawing.  It looks like an image that somebody applied a bunch of filters to.

You wouldn't need a PR for an old farm building, anywhere.

Perhaps that is true. I would submit without all the filtration. I have tried all kinds of filtration and although I love it, it never sells.

The more "I" look at the more "I" don't like it....lol
Actually it would proubably need a property release because it is a operating feed mill. I doubt any one would want to buy an image like that as editoral. Oh well it was fun creating it, but your proubably right it wouldn't sell.

Are you saying because it was digitally altered it wouldn't need a PR or would no PR required apply to the original photo also. I never upload these because I don't have PR"s on them. I have alot of these type photos...power plants...ect ect.

I understand...i would assume that the PR would have to go with the well known landmarks..of which I doubt anyone could get unless you were related to the Queen of England...and of course that would be site specific...I just have never tryed uploading anything like these...meaning the actual pictures.

Yeah, we went back and forth on this over a year ago, and you we're right back then. Nothing has changed. 

The agencies will refuse all kinds of things for needing a property release, an old grain silo in a field with a farm house for example, but they don't really need one.

Here's one link that I came up with in a quick, short search.

American Society of Media Photographers
http://asmp.org/tutorials/using-property-releases.html

ASMP has never seen a statute or a legal case that requires a release for property.

Then they go on to link to the form and explain why you might want one anyway. 

Here's one with some information on monuments and architecture.

http://www.patentcopyrighttrademarkblog.com/2008/08/do-you-need-permission-to-publ.html

As for the copyright in the buildings, it's true that architecture created after 1990 is protected under copyright law, but that's not an issue for you because there is an exception that permits you to photograph and publish constructed buildings that are publicly viewable.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'll leave it with that.

I just had a scenic hand colored postcard, clearly marked 1907, refused at one agency, for Copyright. I wrote and appealed on the grounds that the copyright expired in 1992, but I don't expect that to make any points. Seems some places make up the rules as they go along. Another was a real photo card from the same era (postmarked 1907) same deal.

No, it would likely not require a release. Only a few buildings with copyrighted designs require releases. Very few.

The OP was asking about ANY agency. That is kind of who I was addressing. Yes, Alamy may be different. In fact, all the sites ALL have different criteria. But I think it is safe to say if you are going to upload a building shot, you should have a property release. Good practice for someone new coming into microstock to get into.  Just my humble opinion.

Not exactly sure if you're talking to me, Sean and if you are, not exactly sure what fire you think is being fed but here is some info, for anyone who hasn't looked it up themselves.

From StockXpert:

Property Release Requirements

Stockxpert requires you to upload a validly signed property release for all images or footage clips taken of private property such as homes and buildings (interiors and exteriors).

You may or may not need a property release for interior or exterior shots of public property, churches or government buildings, depending upon the specific property. For example, any images of famous fast food restaurants, LAX Airport, the New Orleans Superdome, or the Empire State Building alone (and not part of a skyline), just to name a few, may not normally be used for commercial purposes without a release. You will need to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a property release is needed for these types of properties.

For images or footage clips taken of private homes from public property — such as the street, you still need a property release. The house belongs to someone and without a validly signed property release the owner has not granted permission for you to use an image or footage clip of their property for commercial gain. If you do get permission from the owner, please remove all identifiable location information such as house number or street address. We do not require an additional property release in the event the private property changes ownership as permission was granted at the time the image or footage clip was taken.

From Big Stock Photo:

Property Releases Are Preferred

Photos of private property or businesses showing the interior or taken from on the owners property must normally have an accompanying Property Release signed by the owner. Legally, this is a confusing area, so we will often approve images without property releases, and the buyer will be able to see that the image is not released. But if you can get the release, it's helpful and your images are more protected this way.

Taking photos of buildings or homes from outside in a public place such as the sidewalk or the street is generally OK, as long as they don't show anything private such as people on or within the premises or other details that the property owner may wish to keep private.

But if you take a photo of a home in your neighborhood for instance, or the coffee shop downtown from INSIDE the building, or on the owners property, you will need a release from the property owner.

Generally it's better to take photo of a group of buildings or homes, rather than singling out just one anyway. :-)

From Istock:


iStockphoto - Stock Photographer Training Manual
9.1 - Property Release:

    * The requirement for a property release isn't as clear-cut as for a model release, because there is no specific right of privacy that attaches to property, as it does to people. Having said that, there are at least two reasons for obtaining property releases: (i) on the theory that a person's identity might be connected to the property in question (such as where a person's property is used in a manner that might defame the person as owner); and (ii) on the basis that to use someone's property for commercial gain without their consent may amount to an offense called "conversion". Also, if you go on someone's private property to take a picture of them or their property, it could amount to trespass.
    * iStock recommends that a Property Release be obtained when the image contains identifiable property wherever possible (this isn't just for houses, it could apply to pets, cars and other personal property. The more recognizable and unique the property (and the more the owner's identity might be connected to or determined from the property) the greater the need for a property release.
    * The Property Release needs to signed by the legal and beneficial owner(s) of the property or their authorized agent. Many of the same formalities apply as for Model Releases.

Again, I say, it is safe to say if you are going to upload a building shot, you should have a property release. Good practice for someone new coming into microstock to get into.  Just my humble opinion.

Agreed.