MicrostockGroup

It might be the unit number over the doors, I would clone those out.

do you mean they said you needed a property release ?

I got rejected for a shot of a tractor in a field due to copyright. I scoured the shot and removed all logos. But the tractor was a John Deere which features a very distinctive paint job with specific colours that have become part of their branding. That was what caused the rejection. It could be the distinctive paint and colour combo would make it easy for the owner to recognize and prove ownership. I've never submitted property photos  to know the in's and outs

The numbers seal the deal so removing them may be enough. Give it a try though.

Same thing with products accepted if only the logo is removed.
But I guess it would depend on the ad it was in.

so these photos got approved after removing the unit number. Funny enough istock approved these the first time around and they are usually very anal with these detail things.

I see TV commercial all the time where they have a Apple laptop but the apple logo covered by a round sticker. Still pretty obvious what the product is though.

like the john deere example earlier, here they're rejecting based on trademark, not copyright or individual ownership - each agency handles this differently, some approach the ridiculous; others have widely varying reviewers

i still get occ'l sales of airport pix of branniff's uniquely colored jets

Who are you responding to RP? The OP was about painted houses and my John Deere story was just an example, I was never upset about it and I understand the reason. It seems like your trying to console where no consoling is needed.

Two times in one thread someone brought up the John Deere colors. It was just background beyond the surface, for anyone new reading the thread and wondering what the heck it was all about.

Kind of like telling the punch line for a joke and all your friends know it and laugh, but someone new don't know what's going on. 

-=-=-

Sorry Jonathan, we don't need a property release for a house, shot from public property. Probably don't even need to remove the address numbers. Consider this, why do people put numbers on their home? So it can be found? And now it's suddenly some kind of secret? I don't think it would fly.

Anyway, not, public homes and buildings before 1990. After that it's only for protected registered works. (as always I'm referring to USA)  http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ41.pdf

But, if you are in Italy, there is no freedom of panorama. Here's a bit: Freedom of panorama, often abbreviated as FOP, is a provision in the copyright laws of various jurisdictions that permits taking photographs or video footage, or creating other images (such as paintings), of buildings and sometimes sculptures and other art which are permanently located in a public place, without infringing any copyright that may otherwise subsist in such works 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama

Before anyone makes a broad sweeping statement, you may want to consider, where are you, where are you standing.  What use is legal, as some allow non-commercial, some all anything, some allow nothing.

The answer is, the agencies make simple rules, based on the avoidance of complications and potential lawsuits, but they are not legal decisions and many times, not even infringing. As always, agency rules are not laws... they are agency policy and nothing more. That also answers why one place will take a specific picture of the side of a blue building that looks like plastic garbage barrels, and another will refuse it for possible copyright issue. And most of all, why someone refuses a stupid beach shack for having a number on it!

Don't assume that any agency rule is actually a law.

I don't think so Jonathan. Same as before, agency rules and real laws are not the same thing. Agencies make their own rules, sometimes based on fear, rather than law.

Architectural works are protected by copyright to some degree, but in most countries you may photograph a building, if the building is located in a public place or is visible from a public place. You may also publish and distribute the photo without permission. This exception generally applies only to buildings, a category which generally includes houses, office buildings, churches and garden pavilions. The exception does usually not apply to monuments (protectable as “sculptural works”). Also, artistic elements associated with buildings such as sculptural ornaments may receive independent copyright protection; a permission may be needed to photograph them.

And for the statue question, (sculptural works) which someone has brought in, if it's out of copyright, made before 1923 it's public domain. That doesn't mean any agency will or must accept them, just that they could, legally.

I should also point out the other side of this. Just because an agency sells and accepts some subjects, it doesn't mean they are to be assumed legal! People have pointed out that some IS Editorial, unreleased images are somehow leaking over to ThinkStock. I know that protected images are for sale on a number of sites. Just because they take them, that doesn't mean they are legal.

Just because they refuse them, doesn't mean they aren't legal.

That's the point.

and my smiley face and doll were selected by DT while SS rejected them... lol