Author Topic: US Capitol and Supreme Court Require Property Release? (Read 7275 times)

ChasingMoments · « **on:** July 27, 2008, 18:12 »

A bunch of images rejected at 123rf for "no or incomplete property release". Never had one with either the Capitol or SC rejected for THAT! Everywhere else accepted.

123rf needs a release... huh?

Anybody? If this is true, then there are endless images across all stock sites, including 123rf, that need to be removed, if not - well...no comment there.

vonkara · « **Reply #1 on:** July 27, 2008, 18:27 »

No it don't need one, look here... Send them a mail or resubmit, it must be a newbie reviewer?
http://www.123rf.com/search.php?word=capitol&match=and&itemsperpage=100&exclude=&cko=&imgtype=0&colorrange=0&colorhex=FF6600&exppl=0&orderby=&clcount=

Sorry it's a bit long

ChasingMoments · « **Reply #2 on:** July 27, 2008, 18:36 »

Quote from: Vonkara on July 27, 2008, 18:27

No it don't need one, look here... Send them a mail or resubmit, it must be a newbie reviewer?
http://www.123rf.com/search.php?word=capitol&match=and&itemsperpage=100&exclude=&cko=&imgtype=0&colorrange=0&colorhex=FF6600&exppl=0&orderby=&clcount=

Sorry it's a bit long

Oh, thank you!!! Yay!!!! But I can't find anywhere the actual statement that would say that there's no release required... I'm going to send them a site mail, yes.

lbarn · « **Reply #3 on:** July 27, 2008, 20:01 »

I have had rejections in the past couple of weeks of the same type of images that have been accepted before residential and commercial/retail construction, and they have been rejected for the property release required reason. I questioned 123rd via email on why their own listed policy on their website differed from their rejection reason.

They replied that they were currently in the process of re-aligning their practices to be more like their parent company, and once this re-alignment was complete, they would change their written policy. It appears to have gone the same way that Stockexpert has gone, all architectural style shots require a property release.

Karimala · « **Reply #4 on:** July 28, 2008, 01:08 »

All government buildings are considered public property, so you don't need a release.

http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/releases/

Quote

A property release says that the owner of a certain property, such as a pet or a building, has given you consent to take and use images of the property. You don’t need one for public property, such as government buildings (although you may run into problems just from photographing them, for security reasons). But for images of private property — and particularly of objects that are closely identified with specific people — you are safer if you get a release.

ChasingMoments · « **Reply #5 on:** July 28, 2008, 07:29 »

Quote from: Karimala on July 28, 2008, 01:08

All government buildings are considered public property, so you don't need a release.

http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/releases/

Quote
A property release says that the owner of a certain property, such as a pet or a building, has given you consent to take and use images of the property. You don’t need one for public property, such as government buildings (although you may run into problems just from photographing them, for security reasons). But for images of private property — and particularly of objects that are closely identified with specific people — you are safer if you get a release.

Thank you, That's exactly what I was looking for.

Just fyi, after I submitted a request via their "contact" option, I received a follow-up email and the images in question were all approved. That's one thing I really like about 123rf - they respond very fast, wow!

Roadrunner · « **Reply #6 on:** July 28, 2008, 10:29 »

If all Architectural images need property releases there won't be much to shoot without some kind of release.

I just had an image rejected on a site that consisted of a swimming hole in Florida that was a natural spring. All swimmers and the lifeguard had their back to the camera - no visible faces and all were adults. I was told that since the main subject was bathers that I needed a release from each adult? Doesn't seem right to me.

Seem all of a sudden everyon is getting upended over releases. If it gets any tackier, I'm going to stick to shooting events and personal service. It's relly getting to be a pain between releases and overemphesis on quality. I understand the need for quality, but reviewers seem to be able to see things I can't see on a 24" LCD monitor at 100%. Could be some reviewers are checking at 200%. Can't say for sure, but it's amazing how they can see an artifact that I can't see no matter how much time I spend on looking at things.

vonkara · « **Reply #7 on:** July 28, 2008, 10:43 »

All people taken from back showing the back head need a model release. If the people in the picture can easily recognise themself you need one. If you crop your composition to show only the 1/3 of the body it can pass, but at the discretion of the reviewer anyway

For monitor, the 24 inches are great, but only If it's achieving at least 1:2500 of contrast and be calibrated whit the software of the monitor or whit a good monitor calibrator. Also make sure it's a popular brand like Samsung, Acer, HP and the list goes...

Karimala · « **Reply #8 on:** July 28, 2008, 14:10 »

Quote from: Roadrunner on July 28, 2008, 10:29

If all Architectural images need property releases there won't be much to shoot without some kind of release.

I just had an image rejected on a site that consisted of a swimming hole in Florida that was a natural spring. All swimmers and the lifeguard had their back to the camera - no visible faces and all were adults. I was told that since the main subject was bathers that I needed a release from each adult? Doesn't seem right to me.

Think of it from the perspective of the swimmers, and it's easy to understand why we need a release.

Imagine driving down the road and seeing a huge billboard advertising light beer with a pic your flabby backside posted and a slogan making fun of your big butt. You immediately recognize it as your backside, because you wear pink and green spotted Speedos and have a huge mole on your left butt cheek. If that ever happened to me, I'd be hunting down the photographer for selling a photo of my body without my permission.

"Drive-by" photos are only good as editorial or art.

Roadrunner · « **Reply #9 on:** July 29, 2008, 12:26 »

Vonkara - Thanks for the view and information. I'll keep that in mind. I do have a good monitor (Samsung; dynamic range 3000:1), and I calibrate it every two weeks. I now view all isolations at 300% fo look for stray pixels; however it is difficult for me to find thos artifacts some of the reviewers see. As for determining the sharpness after upsizing for Alamy, nothing looks shapr to me at 200 or 300%. At 100 % it looks sharp to me, but nthe reviewers see it quite differently. I already failed twice at Alamy, so I'm gun shy now that they are freezing accounts for those who fail. Perhaps it is three strikes and I'll be killed.

So it may not be worth the time to try again. With the other sites I'm doing fairly well. I would never submit an image unless I felt it was acceptable by that sites standards. Once I find the method to meet the standards of a particular site, I do my best to comply.

Karimala - you maake a very good point; however I never submit any image that could be embarrassing to anyone. If anyone was obese or dressed strangely, I wouldn't photograph them from the rear or any other way without their consent. Since I don't like trying to get strangers to sign legal documents, I do tend to avoid people.

I do thank you for your input!
Roadrunner

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: US Capitol and Supreme Court Require Property Release? (Read 7275 times)

ChasingMoments

vonkara

ChasingMoments

lbarn

Karimala

ChasingMoments

Roadrunner

vonkara

Karimala

Roadrunner

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors