MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Having a hard time understanding the logic in rejections due to missing proporty  (Read 5116 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 31, 2010, 16:30 »
0
Hi all,

I have just recieved 5 rejections due to missing property releases...

The full rejection mail is here:

---------------------------------------------
We regret to inform you that photo 24654917 the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican has not been accepted, due to the photograph containing elements protected by Intellectual or Industrial property laws. Please understand that we made this decision purely for legal reasons.

Perhaps you could view our bog 'Rights: Trademark Representation', which discusses trademark laws: following Fidelia article>http://bog.Fidelia.com/UK/legal/brand.HTML

To discuss any legal issues/concerns, feel free to visit to the Legal board of the Fidelia forum.

Additionally, your photo shall not be reviewed for the free section, due to the legal, technical, or offensive issues mentioned above.

We know that it can be difficult to have an image rejected but please bear with us and continue to upload your images.

Kind Regards,

Fidelia Team EU


-----------------------------------------

Basically I really do accept and understand the occasionally rejections and normally I wouldn't give it another thought.  In this case it really seems to be anything but consistant with Thai normal policy... 


This is one of the images, showing the interior of the Vatican Museum:

http://www.mostphotos.com/1258140/

When I do a search on Fidelia or any other microstock site, I get huge numbers of hits, basically showing the same motifs, so why can they sell that "same" images from other photographers when they claim that mine are in conflict with the laws of protecting laments of Intellectual or Industrial property?


« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2010, 17:35 »
0
... and to complete the confusion, dreamstime has just accepted several of the very same images that fotolia just rejected...

Guess that the laws of property rights are subject to interpretation ...?   ???

« Reply #2 on: July 31, 2010, 18:01 »
0
Sistine Chapel is  a property that currently exercises its rights to impose photographic restrictions. End of story.

DT takes a lot of things that they shouldn't and what they take shouldn't be used as a guideline.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2010, 18:04 by stormchaser »

« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2010, 18:06 »
0
Thanks....

BUT!
out of 5 rejections, only ONE of them were from the sistine chapel...  The rest is from the vatican museum and fotolia has quite a lot of the "same" views already for sale.. so why does the same rules not apply to every image of "same" motif?

And by the way...  dreamstime had no objections about the ONE image from the sistine chapel... 

« Reply #4 on: July 31, 2010, 18:28 »
0
Reviewers should take the time and check these things before they accept or reject photos. I know they don't do it every time, or at least not all reviewers. Also, it's photographers obligation to check it the property is protected when they take images. When we upload the image, we actually claim that our image doesn't need property release if we don't submit property release with the image. Reviewers are here just as a control, but they can't check if every single image they review needs property release. (In theory they probably should do it, but they don't do it always)
That's why I erased my image of a star from Palm Springs on all sites where it was accepted.

So, if you are sure your image doesn't need property release, find the info about it on internet, and resubmit images with a note to reviewer.

« Reply #5 on: July 31, 2010, 22:52 »
0
Thanks....

BUT!
out of 5 rejections, only ONE of them were from the sistine chapel...  The rest is from the vatican museum and fotolia has quite a lot of the "same" views already for sale.. so why does the same rules not apply to every image of "same" motif?

And by the way...  dreamstime had no objections about the ONE image from the sistine chapel... 


Dreamframer had the best reply. But here are some additional comments. I know for a fact that Sistine has restrictions. I am not sure about Vatican City.

Restrictions change from day to day because of the changing landscape of intellectual property law. A whole lot of museums here in the USA has restrictions printed right on the admission ticket. Those with free admission may post a sign at a common point. Some may allow photography for personal use, some may restrict all photography period. It's really your job to know the rules and possible restrictions of each venue you decide to shoot.

Review methods differ at each of the stocks. Dreamstime is certainly in error if accepting Sistine Chapel images. But then they are in arror for tons of other stuff too for sale under a creative RF license. Thousands of images.

For a primer on what is not acceptable, go here

http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_copyright_list.php

The list evolves and there are updates as new issues evolve.

ShadySue

« Reply #6 on: August 01, 2010, 05:04 »
0

Dreamframer had the best reply. But here are some additional comments.


There are signs posted all over the Sistine Chapel forbidding even private photography. And, when I was there, guards making people put away even their mobile phones lest they would take a picture.
I'm no expert on Vatican City law to know whether this would, in fact, be enforceable.
There is a lot to suggest that statements in the UK that photos may not be used commercially have no basis in law, particularly when the image is taken from a public place. But who wants to be the guinea pig? Certainly, none of the agencies.

« Reply #7 on: August 01, 2010, 05:47 »
0
Thanks all,

I fully agree about the laws and especially the photography in the sistine chapel.

However, the main issue for me is that all agencies, including fotolia are in fact selling a large variety of images from the Vatican museum. Images that are in fact, showing the exact same ceilings as mine are... Mine were rejected for the same reason - and NOT due to any technical issues...

So my main issue is really that fotolia seems to be very inconsistant, since they have accepted the "same" images from others without property releases... And rejected mine for not having property releases... 

And yes, basically it really doesn't matter with these few rejections - to me it's just a matter of trying to understand the reason for rejection.

When I'm in doubt wether or not to upload "grey area" inages without property releases, I generally do a search to determine if they generally does accept such images..  If there are lots of them present, then I generally just upload, expecting that property release is not necessary... 

But now...  To me, all logic seems to be missing  ;D

« Reply #8 on: August 01, 2010, 06:15 »
0
You can still write to Fotolia support and ask them about this. You could also provide links to images of the sistine chapel they sell. Then you could tell us what they said. It could be interesting to hear their opinion on this.

« Reply #9 on: August 01, 2010, 10:52 »
0
But now...  To me, all logic seems to be missing  ;D

You have pretty much summed up microstock.

« Reply #10 on: August 01, 2010, 15:03 »
0
If I were the Vatican, I would forbid any photo except for personal use.   ;D

« Reply #11 on: August 01, 2010, 22:47 »
0
Sistine Chapel is  a property that currently exercises its rights to impose photographic restrictions. End of story.
They can impose rules as to photography but they do it not out of IP considerations but out of concerns for the artwork that surely will fade away after a million flashes of tiny on-cam flashes by mindless snapshooters.
DT takes a lot of things that they shouldn't and what they take shouldn't be used as a guideline.
The ultimate responsibility of the usage of a photo is with the buyer.

« Reply #12 on: August 02, 2010, 14:01 »
0
Thank you for all your insight in this matter...

I have asked fotolia why they think that my images needs a property release, when they actually are selling these exact same motif's as royalty free without property release..

If I have luck and they actually do decide to answer, naturally I'll paste the answer in this thread  ;D

Thanks again all

« Reply #13 on: August 02, 2010, 17:57 »
0
You could look at this the opposite way around - when one of those other photographers with a Sistine Chapel photo ends up on the wrong end of a lawsuit, you won't have to worry because your images were not for sale.

You're the one who bears the responsibility for the inappropriate sale of protected content - why do you want to push yourself into trouble just because some other people are already in a legally risky situation?

« Reply #14 on: August 02, 2010, 21:33 »
0
Fljac,

I don't see why you're beating the dead horse.

http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/z-Info/MV_Info_Consigli.html

Photography rights withing the Sistine are owned by the company who was involved in the  restoration according to a fellow shooter who is also an attorney.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
18 Replies
10269 Views
Last post July 28, 2010, 02:56
by thaimacky
25 Replies
3959 Views
Last post October 31, 2011, 14:39
by gostwyck
2 Replies
1506 Views
Last post December 23, 2011, 20:44
by w7lwi
40 Replies
8330 Views
Last post June 05, 2012, 14:37
by leaf
7 Replies
3124 Views
Last post October 24, 2016, 22:41
by SpaceStockFootage

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results