Agency Based Discussion > General - Top Sites
Shutterstock has "Known Image Restrictions". How about others sites?
Wilm:
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.
Unamas:
It's still tempting. They have 100+ sales!
KimC:
--- Quote from: Unamas on February 06, 2022, 20:32 ---It's still tempting. They have 100+ sales!
--- End quote ---
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.
Roscoe:
--- Quote from: Wilm on February 06, 2022, 13:51 ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Firn:
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version