Author Topic: New property release policy? (Read 6762 times)

pancaketom · « **on:** October 25, 2011, 10:39 »

Is there a new property release policy? I recently had an image of a power plant rejected for no property release - (this is an exterior view from across a major highway). I looked on the 123 site and in a brief search could not find a power plant image with a property release. On the blog they had some PR guidelines...

" Any Interior of properties that is individually owned or by an Organization.

Places that require an entrance fee (eg ; Museums, War Memorial Sites, Theaters, Music Halls, Performing Art Centers, Amusement Park Rides)

Any Building Exterior that is famous for its architectural design and is a Main Focus of the Image

Any property that is governed by its local law or UNESCO World Heritage Committee (exceptions: Statue of Liberty, Big Ben Clock Tower, The Eiffel Tower in the Daytime)

Statues below 70 years ( built AFTER 1950s)

Cruise and Cargo Ships with visible logo, initials or numbers

Paintings, Murals or any kind of artwork (Hand-drawn/painted) by other person(s) and yourself
"

It seems like the power plant isn't included in this list, but I could be wrong. Pretty much everything that isn't natural or before 1923 but not famous now requires a PR?

This seems like a major policy change if it is in fact true and pretty much limits us to nature pics and nudes.

Phillip Minnis · « **Reply #1 on:** October 29, 2011, 16:06 »

A few days ago, I uploaded 42 photos to the site. Today, 38 of these images were rejected, mainly due to the fact that the inspector believes the images require a property release.

All of these images were captured from a public waterway.....none of them were captured from private property.

All of these images were accepted on Shutterstock, Dreamstime, Bigstockphoto, Canstockphoto, Depositphotos, Featurepics, Panthermedia, Pixmac and Yamicro. A number of them were also accepted on Fotolia and Zoonar, and any that were rejected, weren't rejected for this reason.

Is 123RF doing the right thing in rejecting these images, or have all the other sites done the wrong thing in accepting them?

If 123RF believes they've done the right think in rejecting these images on the basis or requiring a property release, they'd better go right through my portfolio and delete many, many of my images that they've previously accepted.

Mantis · « **Reply #2 on:** October 29, 2011, 18:41 »

Quote from: Phillip Minnis on October 29, 2011, 16:06

A few days ago, I uploaded 42 photos to the site. Today, 38 of these images were rejected, mainly due to the fact that the inspector believes the images require a property release.

All of these images were captured from a public waterway.....none of them were captured from private property.

All of these images were accepted on Shutterstock, Dreamstime, Bigstockphoto, Canstockphoto, Depositphotos, Featurepics, Panthermedia, Pixmac and Yamicro. A number of them were also accepted on Fotolia and Zoonar, and any that were rejected, weren't rejected for this reason.

Is 123RF doing the right thing in rejecting these images, or have all the other sites done the wrong thing in accepting them?

If 123RF believes they've done the right think in rejecting these images on the basis or requiring a property release, they'd better go right through my portfolio and delete many, many of my images that they've previously accepted.

I had a rejection for property release on 123 when the image was a staged prop set up, and it was a tight shot too. The rejection was so comical that I didn't bother to re-submit.

Phillip Minnis · « **Reply #4 on:** October 30, 2011, 21:46 »

Hi Anglee

Thank you for your reply, and thanks for arranging to have my rejected images re-inspected.

I note that out of the 42 uploaded, 21 were accepted into the Royalty Free section, whilst the balance was transferred by your inspector into the Editorial section.

iStock, which is regarded by many as being the most strictest when it comes to releases, accepted all of these images into the general Royalty Free category earlier today. This means that out of the 15 sites that I upload to, 123RF were the only ones to reject 21 images into the Royalty Free category and place them into Editorial.

Why is that?

Phillip Minnis · « **Reply #6 on:** October 30, 2011, 22:32 »

Thanks for your explanation, Anglee. I appreciate the promptness of your reply.

Cheers

Phil

cascoly · « **Reply #7 on:** October 31, 2011, 18:21 »

Quote from: Anglee on October 30, 2011, 22:25

Hey Phillip,

Our reviewers have decided to shift the images to the Editorial section for the reason of "Any Building Exterior that is famous for its architectural design and is a Main Focus of the Image" as the building that you snapped is the 'Main Focus'. Not only that, we would also wish to protect our contributors from any legal issue that may arise in the future.

i've noticed this lately and i think it's an excellent system - let the agency decide whether they want to label it editorial, rather than playing guessing games, and having to then guess whether to resubmit

JoeClemson · « **Reply #8 on:** November 23, 2011, 19:05 »

I've just uploaded my first set of pictures for assessment by 123RF. Three of them have been rejected for lacking a property release. Two were architectural photos of terraced houses (multiple houses, multiple owners, cloned out house numbers and other ID and copyright marks). The third was of a single bow window with no identification as to the property to which it belonged (it could be almost anywhere in the world). All the images were taken from public roads.

I was astonished that 123RF regards these as requiring a property release at all.

I was more perturbed to find that multitudes of similar phtos already in the library had no property release anyway.

I'm now deeply worried about submitting to an agency which imposes a draconian policy which goes far beyond the policies of almost all other, presumably responsible and well advised, agencies. It even goes beyond 123RF's own stated policy. If this is what I encounter on the first go What other surprises await when I submit in future?

Perhaps more to the point, do I want to submit to a site where I am not competing on a level playing field? If new submissions are being rejected under this draconian policy, they must surely delete exisitng non-compliant images too in the interest of both fairness and avoiding potential legal pitfalls.

I'm waiting for an official response to my query to Support on this matter but I suspect it's just a matter of time before I delete my few submissions and leave 123RF to whatever fate has in store

cascoly · « **Reply #9 on:** November 23, 2011, 19:38 »

123 has one of the most stringent property release reviews - many exteriors and almost all interiors require property releases - it's explained somewhere on their site

however, with their new automatic submission as editorial, a lot of my buildings gett accepted as editorial

just make sure you check the box on the ftp submission form:

and, unlike some other sites, they recognize that editorial means more than just newsworthy

JoeClemson · « **Reply #10 on:** November 23, 2011, 19:57 »

Quote from: cascoly on November 23, 2011, 19:38

123 has one of the most stringent property release reviews - many exteriors and almost all interiors require property releases - it's explained somewhere on their site

however, with their new automatic submission as editorial, a lot of my buildings gett accepted as editorial

just make sure you check the box on the ftp submission form:

and, unlike some other sites, they recognize that editorial means more than just newsworthy

Your are right about the policy being stringent. What I am doubtful about is whether that stringency is justified. Also, there is no sign that stringency is going to be applied across existing images.

I can't find anywhere in their stated policy which says or even hints that images of the kind I have described and submitted will require a property release.

Shunting images which are perceived as requiring a releases by 123RF into editorial stock is something of a cop-out. I wouldn't expect any of the images which I have submitted as RF, and 123rf have rejected, to sell terribly well as editorial stock. I'd rather take my chances and sell them as RF elsewhere.

Thanks for your response but it still leaves a lot of questions unanswered.

pancaketom · « **Reply #11 on:** November 23, 2011, 21:28 »

"Any Building Exterior that is famous for its architectural design and is a Main Focus of the Image"

I'm not so sure that the power plant is famous for its architectural design, but fair enough to put it in editorial.

JoeClemson · « **Reply #13 on:** November 24, 2011, 01:59 »

Quote from: Anglee on November 23, 2011, 21:35

Quote from: JoeClemson on November 23, 2011, 19:05
I've just uploaded my first set of pictures for assessment by 123RF. Three of them have been rejected for lacking a property release. Two were architectural photos of terraced houses (multiple houses, multiple owners, cloned out house numbers and other ID and copyright marks). The third was of a single bow window with no identification as to the property to which it belonged (it could be almost anywhere in the world). All the images were taken from public roads.

I was astonished that 123RF regards these as requiring a property release at all.

I was more perturbed to find that multitudes of similar phtos already in the library had no property release anyway.

I'm now deeply worried about submitting to an agency which imposes a draconian policy which goes far beyond the policies of almost all other, presumably responsible and well advised, agencies. It even goes beyond 123RF's own stated policy. If this is what I encounter on the first go What other surprises await when I submit in future?

Perhaps more to the point, do I want to submit to a site where I am not competing on a level playing field? If new submissions are being rejected under this draconian policy, they must surely delete exisitng non-compliant images too in the interest of both fairness and avoiding potential legal pitfalls.

I'm waiting for an official response to my query to Support on this matter but I suspect it's just a matter of time before I delete my few submissions and leave 123RF to whatever fate has in store

Hey JoeClemson,

Our reviewer has re-evaluated the rejected images. It's advisable to attach a Property Release on the rejected images. Based on our New Property Release Guidelines, a Property Release is required if any building exterior is the "Main Focus" of the Image.

We have made our Policy more stringent to avoid any legal issue that may arise in the future to safeguard our contributors. It's always better to be safe than sorry.

Thanks for your understanding.

Cheers,
Anglee

Hello Anglee,

Sorry but you needn't thank me for my understanding as you don't have it.

Taking just one example I still can't see how a row of stone cottages (each individually owned) in Yorkshire comes under any ofthe categories you have linked to. Yourpolicy is going beyond your guidelines. This is your perogative but if I am to join you as a contributor I need to know that I can rely on the submission guidelines I see before me.

Also, you haven't addressed at all the issue of the level playing field, given that you have numerous images already which contravne your new policy.

I also find myself puzzled by how you can routinely offer failed RF submissions a movement to Editorial. The two types of image require completely different approaches to processing with minimal editing allowed to Editorial images, compared with images prepared for RF which are often edited to remove copyright and identifying marks of all kinds, as well as allowing more leeway on adjustments to lighting etc., thus disqualifying them as Editoral images.

Regards.

Joe

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: New property release policy? (Read 6762 times)

pancaketom

Phillip Minnis

Mantis

Angel

Phillip Minnis

Angel

Phillip Minnis

cascoly

JoeClemson

cascoly

JoeClemson

pancaketom

Angel

JoeClemson

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors