MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock has "Known Image Restrictions". How about others sites?  (Read 1663 times)

1 Member and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 05, 2022, 14:44 »
0
I'm referring to Known Image Restrictions - Places and Landmarks - Europe and Africa https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/article/Known-Image-Restrictions-Places-and-Landmarks-Europe-and-Africa?language=en_US

It looks like other sites don't care about this? For example "Blenheim Palace" is restricted for SS, but plenty of images on Dreamstime?

Any experience?


« Reply #1 on: February 05, 2022, 14:58 »
+1
I'm referring to Known Image Restrictions - Places and Landmarks - Europe and Africa https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/article/Known-Image-Restrictions-Places-and-Landmarks-Europe-and-Africa?language=en_US

It looks like other sites don't care about this? For example "Blenheim Palace" is restricted for SS, but plenty of images on Dreamstime?

Any experience?

i just submit & let god sort 'em out...

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #2 on: February 05, 2022, 17:17 »
0
I'm referring to Known Image Restrictions - Places and Landmarks - Europe and Africa https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/article/Known-Image-Restrictions-Places-and-Landmarks-Europe-and-Africa?language=en_US

It looks like other sites don't care about this? For example "Blenheim Palace" is restricted for SS, but plenty of images on Dreamstime?

Any experience?

iS has a list, available to contributors, of sites and things it won't accept because of legal restrictions or perceived legal restrictions.
Historically, SS was laxer; perhaps they're catching up.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #3 on: February 06, 2022, 10:26 »
0
I'm referring to Known Image Restrictions - Places and Landmarks - Europe and Africa https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/article/Known-Image-Restrictions-Places-and-Landmarks-Europe-and-Africa?language=en_US

It looks like other sites don't care about this? For example "Blenheim Palace" is restricted for SS, but plenty of images on Dreamstime?

Any experience?

Yes, Sue said it "perceived legal restrictions" which means every site is different because they have different lawyers. Many sites are less restrictive, DT, DP, and on down. Some of the bigger sites are more restrictive: SS, IS and Adobe.

i just submit & let god sort 'em out...

 8)

« Reply #4 on: February 06, 2022, 13:19 »
0
Bu what if the property owner finds my photos, let say of Dreamstime? Will I be in trouble or Dreamstime?

« Reply #5 on: February 06, 2022, 13:51 »
+4
Every agency will pass on legal problems to the contributors.

Personally, I would never take the risk for the few dollars. When I see how many images are accepted for commercial use that should never have been accepted, I wonder a lot. Be it Apple, Harley Davidson, the Atomium in Brussels, the Sydney Opera, Gehry buildings or whatever.

« Reply #6 on: February 06, 2022, 20:32 »
0
It's still tempting. They have 100+ sales!

« Reply #7 on: February 07, 2022, 02:43 »
0
It's still tempting. They have 100+ sales!

But is it worth the possible trouble?
Carefully read the Agencies Terms of Service like a lawyer, and find who's head will be on the block if things go wrong. If there are no precise terms on that question, assume it will be your head in the pillory.

« Reply #8 on: February 07, 2022, 03:16 »
0
Every agency will pass on legal problems to the contributors.

Personally, I would never take the risk for the few dollars. When I see how many images are accepted for commercial use that should never have been accepted, I wonder a lot. Be it Apple, Harley Davidson, the Atomium in Brussels, the Sydney Opera, Gehry buildings or whatever.

Just FYI: the Atomium in Brussels should be suitable for Editorial content:
https://wiki.gettyimages.com/atomium/
The Belgian government lifted those restrictions some years ago if I'm not mistaken.

Still, interesting discussion, and sometimes also a bit puzzled about what is allowed and what not and what possible consequences could be.
 
I've sold airplane wingtips with brands as editorial content, but if I'm not mistaken, this is not really allowed too, as it was during a flight where I paid for the ticket, right?
I've sold images of a both commercially as editorially restricted landmark. I didn't realize at the time of uploading, and agencies accepted the images. I removed the images once I found out, but one sold for ~200$ with a print license on Alamy. It was years ago. It were detail shots of specific architecture specifications of the landmark, but still... the landmark was named in the description and I guess I should never have uploaded those images for sale as I didn't had press credentials. 
I've sold images of crowds during a rock festival, which I paid a ticket for. I kept description and keywords generic, without naming the festival, and avoided logo's or brand references of the festival in the frame, but a pixel peeper can probably trace back the location of the photo.

I see a lot of content like that. Images of museums, artwork, restricted landmarks and so forth. Maybe some of them have press credentials or releases, but hard to imagine that all of them have them. The content I uploaded accidentally went through on most agencies, and the only agency being very strict on that seems to be iStock/Getty. They are pretty much on par when it comes to rejecting content like that, or afterwards removing content that was accepted previously.

« Reply #9 on: February 07, 2022, 03:35 »
+2
There are A LOT of locations in Germany that are not on the Shutterstock restriction list where photography is not allowed without press credentials / paying a fee to the location of which you can find plenty of photos on Shutterstock and I am really sure that in 90% of these cases the people didn't have any permission to  sell the photos because you can see that these are low-quality cell phone snapshots. It's impossible for Shutterstock to know all restrictions of all locations over the world, especially the ones that aren't really famous. In Germany pretty much every tiny castle that belongs to the state has such restrictions and it's always written somewhere on the homepage - but you have to look for this information. I think a lot of people taking these photos honestly don't know. They just asume "It's a 'public place', I can just walk in here, so I can take photos and sell them".
 I would not risk it. Microstock isn't making me enough per photo to risk some 1000$+ fine for it. Even if the chance is really tiny, it's just not worth the risk. But, at least here in Germany, you are always allowed to photograph these locations/sell photos for editiorial purpose, as long as you take the photos outside of the property's ground and with the right zoom lens you can still get some good shots with the restrictions, just not of the inside of the location.

In the end it is really the photographer's responsibility to make sure that he is allowed to take photos and sell them. Just because an agency has no restriction list or, in case of Alamy, approves all photos, doesn't mean you can't be held accountable.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2022, 05:54 by Firn »

« Reply #10 on: February 07, 2022, 05:31 »
+1
I had uploaded a few photos from the "Nord Art" as editorials. They were accepted. On the same day I deleted them again. After a phone call, I learned that only certain photographers were allowed to take photos for editorial purposes there.

In Germany, the warning costs are usually $1700 to $2000. How often do I have to sell a picture to take the risk?

To stay with the Apple example: With Apple as with many other manufacturers it is not only about the logo, but also about the protected product design. Even vectors of it are prohibited.

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restrictions.html#design-ip

If you now enter "apple computer" as a search term and select "commercial" as a filter, you will receive thousands of images with clearly recognizable Apple products. As long as Apple tolerates this, because they are happy about this kind of product advertising, everything is fine. However, if Apple gets the idea to no longer tolerate this, it will hail warnings. And because the contributors even have the word Apple in the keywords, the search is particularly easy.

https://stock.adobe.com/de/search?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aaudio%5D=0&filters%5Binclude_stock_enterprise%5D=0&filters%5Bis_editorial%5D=0&filters%5Bfree_collection%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Billustrative%5D=exclude&k=apple+computer&order=relevance&safe_search=1&search_type=filter-select&get_facets=1

I once created a nearly photorealistic Apple keyboard as a vector file. But I never dared to upload it afterwards. It's just too risky from my point of view.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #11 on: February 07, 2022, 06:51 »
0
It's a funny thing altogether.
Say for example a model was using a recogniseable iPad in a general context in an advert for a different product.
That's product placement, and arguably Apple should be willing to pay for it. Yet they can legally object.

However, an editorial use of a photo of an iPad or someone using it could be used to illustrate an article condemning Apple or iPads, and that's perfectly fine.

« Reply #12 on: February 07, 2022, 08:33 »
+2
I agree with Firn and Wilm there, you should exercise some caution and know what you are doing. There are a few faux pas lurking here and you cant rely on the agencies.

I myself had once made pictures in an archaeological park of Roman ruins in Germany.
Actually, I assumed that you can at least use the pictures editorially and all pictures were accepted.
But I was a bit puzzled by the fact that the agencies had not yet received a single picture from this park.

After a search it came out that the operators claim the photo rights completely for themselves and prohibit even the editorial use. At least one photographer has already been warned by a lawyer.

« Last Edit: February 07, 2022, 08:40 by RalfLiebhold »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #13 on: February 07, 2022, 09:16 »
+1
^^ Oh absolutely, I'm very much on the over-cautious side.
I got an email from Alamy over the w/e asking me to release a particular image for a particular usage. The risk was very minimal, but not zero; so I said I'd release if I personally got an assurance from the buyer that they would accept any liability which might arise. I got the assurance ths morning and it sold at $39 net, which is more than I've netted there for a while.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2022, 09:44 by ShadySue »

« Reply #14 on: February 07, 2022, 13:11 »
0
It's still tempting. Look at this https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-eiffel-tower-night-light-paris-france-image20029204
192 downloads, but it's prohibited on SS and Adobe.

« Reply #15 on: February 07, 2022, 13:25 »
+1
It's still tempting. Look at this https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-eiffel-tower-night-light-paris-france-image20029204
192 downloads, but it's prohibited on SS and Adobe.

The person might have requested authorization and paid a fee to be allowed to sell these photos. You never know. According to her facebook profile she is a professional photographer, so she should know about such restrictions.

« Reply #16 on: February 07, 2022, 14:39 »
0
Its labelled as Editorial.

« Reply #17 on: February 08, 2022, 05:36 »
+1
Its labelled as Editorial.
That's not making a difference.  Images depicting the Towers lighting design are unacceptable for commercial or editorial use. It's  illegal sell photos and videos of the night-lit Eiffel Tower without prior permission from the Socit d'Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel. In this case editorial or commercial doesn't make a difference.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
3431 Views
Last post June 26, 2006, 09:51
by GeoPappas
2 Replies
3934 Views
Last post December 30, 2010, 15:19
by Alatriste
1 Replies
1897 Views
Last post December 13, 2011, 03:28
by Karimala
4 Replies
3861 Views
Last post July 31, 2012, 16:50
by chromaco
26 Replies
10120 Views
Last post March 28, 2014, 23:14
by lisafx

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle