MicrostockGroup

there are two issues with modern buildings: property and copyright

since they usually accept ancient buildings, I believe it's more (or also) a question of copyright than property

which shouldn't actually be an issue in most cases: e.g., in Germany it's quite clear that a building shoot from a public point of view is acceptable; it is my understanding that it's the same in UK, although a bit less clear; and it's probably the same in many countries

this makes sense to me, since the copyright is on architectural drawings (I can't use someone else's project to design a new building) and not on views of built architecture

but SS seems to take the easy way and refuse everything in case of doubt, instead of complying to local regulations - it's their choice and they have the right to be safe

a solution could be "editorial", but one more issue is that SS requires pictures to be "newsworthy" to be editorial; newsworthy in their opinion of course, because in my opinion a masterpiece of modern architecture *is* newsworthy in itself

PS: please note I am neither an expert nor a lawyer, and I am just expressing my personal point of view based on years of internet searches on this subject - and I still haven't found a definite answer

Building acceptance will vary from site to site. Regarding cars and motorcycles, most are recognizable even with the logos removed, so most refuse by everyone. Bummer. 

SS used to sell modern buildings like hot cakes when I started in 2008. The rules have changed, but the old images remain in the database. From the major sites DT and IS still accept them but they usually do not sell in such volume as they did at SS.

The agencies should lobby for clearer and more photographer-friendly laws, as in Germany or Austria.

Very funny, as if the agencies will lobby for anything, ever?

Here's the way it works. There is no law except protecting new buildings and the plans. But the agencies are so afraid of their own shadow that they wilt at the thought of litigation. Cars and cycles and the same, yes, these designs are protected, way beyond the logos. The shapes of the fenders, grills, lights and more are distinctive. That's everywhere in the world. Ford gets the credit but I know for a fact that BMW is extremely protective of that little propeller logo.

If someone wants to do the search, there is no such thing as a property release for a building like a two story duplex, an old bungalow or a common factory. A designed individual building, they might have a claim, as art does. The agencies just don't care enough to make the distinction. As people have pointed out many times, just about everything that's manufactured has a design and can be recognized. Cell phone, headset, chair, knife, tools, keyboards... Using the same logic as building, we can't shoot anything without a property release. It's stupid.

Someone link to the law and decision that supports the "common wisdom" that we can't shoot the Eiffel Tower at night or the Sydney Opera House. Not rules on stock sites, not common knowledge, the actual court ruling. (good luck!)

Latest to be rejected and now being removed from IS is "famous people" because the estate may have a claim. Not that they do, especially if the person has been dead for over 87 years, but that they might make a claim. The idea is that the agencies would rather run and hide, than spend any time or money defending their rights. It costs money to go to court, even if you are right.

So lobby for laws, that's a real laugh. Go to court to protect our rights and theirs? It's not going to happen. That's why things are the way they are. Not by law of for logical reasons, but for chicken s4it.

I stand corrected, for the most part.

"Thus, SNTE could not claim copyright on photographs of panoramas of Paris incorporating the lit tower."

"In a recent decision, the Court of Cassation ruled that copyright could not be claimed over images including a copyrighted building if the photograph encompassed a larger area. This seems to indicate that SNTE cannot claim copyright on photographs of Paris incorporating the lit tower."

Interesting that another source says the prohibition has never been challenged. I wonder what their argument is. Have to find it now, or it's just hot air from and old man. That would be that SNTE claims the right and a court has ruled that they can claim the right, but no one has been taken to court and tried for infringing, which would be a nice test case for the claim of ownership for all photos, because of the light show. Pretty interesting?

"It is really just a way to manage commercial use of the image, so that it isn't used in ways we don't approve,"

Here's an interesting link with multiple photos of the Eiffel Tower at Night, plus they aren't the property of the author but he has them posted from Flickr. (one more reason why I refuse to post anything worthwhile on Flickr!) But please go look and read it, very funny. One of the owners calls him on the use, and nothing happens?

http://designbeep.com/2009/12/07/incredible-eiffel-tower-photos-at-night/

SS or other agency changes daily.. I say this because one day got rejections for property, other day they approve.. could be the reviewer dont understand and never will unless they (agencies) have the same policies