Author Topic: How do you find out if a statue needs a property release (Read 7392 times)

steheap · « **on:** June 05, 2011, 13:18 »

I'm often confused about the need for property releases for statues (especially those in publicly owned national parks). I have uploaded this image:

, and have tried to do a lot of research to find out about it. It is in the Smithsonian Museum catalog http://siris-artinventories.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=G1I98048Q3397.39158&menu=search&aspect=Keyword&npp=50&ipp=20&spp=20&profile=ariall&ri=&term=&index=.GW&aspect=Keyword&term=&index=.AW&term=&index=.TW&term=&index=.SW&term=&index=.FW&term=&index=.OW&term=VA000419&index=.NW&x=9&y=10#focus, which gives a lot of details, but not copyright information. It was commissioned and bought by the State of Virginia in 1938.

It is not the end of the world if it gets rejected, but I was trying to use it as a test case to see if I could provide information that would help a reviewer.

Steve

PS - the thumbnail is from the rejected files at Canstockphoto - hence it is very small!

click_click · « **Reply #1 on:** June 05, 2011, 14:15 »

On a side note:
This is a very specific image/subject. I wouldn't even bother uploading this to the micros.

Just toss it over to Alamy as RM and don't worry about it.

Just the research alone probably won't get you enough money for the time invested doing all the research, not to mention the hassle to get it past the reviewers by writing convincing notes to them. I'd just get a headache.

Of course assuming that this is not a super high in demand statue, that gets lots of downloads maybe like Lady Liberty (which has been photographed to death anyway...).

Just my 2 cents.

ShadySue · « **Reply #2 on:** June 05, 2011, 15:42 »

I'm with click_click in general on this. Put up on Alamy and wait. But first check it out: I've sometimes found that even very obscure and localised subjects are well-represented on Alamy.
As for micros, I can only speak for iStock, but it's seems to be really hit and miss. I've had things rejected for editorial and told to 'submit them to the main collection', when I know that would be wrong, and things rejected for the main collection, even though I researched very carefully and gave all the relevant dates, the most important of which is the death of the artist - in the UK, a public artwork is always in the public domain 70 years after the death of the artist.
Once I scouted a carving above a door (the carving just happened to be above the door of a building, it wasn't a photo of the carving, but I researched it anyway) which had been rejected and got the obscure reply from Scout that 'it's not always only the date of the artist's death which is relevant', but as that wasn't explained, I'm none the wiser.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #3 on:** June 05, 2011, 15:53 »

this is a very good topic and like other things in stock we never have the answer to it which pisses me off a lot..

I have a lot of pictures that I don´t know if I should place it as Editorial or not.. there is one statue in Marbella (Spain) that every agency approved as non Editorial.. then IS asked me for property, ok now I can place it as Editorial..

there the famous IS list with all buildings, objects, etc.. with property/trademark.. and all the other that aren´t there?

I know that we take risk of getting them online and agencies place that on our side..

ShadySue · « **Reply #4 on:** June 05, 2011, 16:19 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 05, 2011, 15:53

I know that we take risk of getting them online and agencies place that on our side..

The good thing about Alamy is that the agencies place the risk with the buyers, so long as we have honestly said that a PR is needed and we don't have one. (Trouble is, there's not an"almost certainly not" option, so I tend to err of the side of safety).
There are some 'commercial' uses which would almost certainly be OK, but wouldn't be allowed by e.g. iStock's editorial rules. E.g. take a general view of some tourist site - could be used in a guide book or travel article in a magazine, but technically not by a tourist board,, as that would be 'advertising' - but the chances of e.g. a shop objecting to being featured in a travel ad for a city are virtually nil.

steheap · « **Reply #5 on:** June 05, 2011, 16:27 »

Well, the sculptor died in 1954, which means that I'm not yet at the 60 years point! I will put it on Alamy as well, and fill in the pieces about not having a property release, but this year is the 150th anniversary of the battle that took place at this site and so I was hoping for some more general interest in it. I know that would be editorial in almost all cases, but I have had some downloads recently from Shutterstock of other views of this battlefield, so who knows.

I'll see how it gets on at the various sites - I know Graphic Leftovers will reject it (and April over there was very helpful with the explanation!)

Thanks for all your comments - the 70 year rule applies in the US as well, I believe, so I will make that the basis for my decisions in future.
Steve

ShadySue · « **Reply #6 on:** June 05, 2011, 20:06 »

Quote from: steheap on June 05, 2011, 16:27

Well, the sculptor died in 1954, which means that I'm not yet at the 60 years point! I will put it on Alamy as well, and fill in the pieces about not having a property release,

IIRC, if you have no PR, it has to be RM at Alamy, so you should maybe reconsider whether you want to put it RM there or RF at any places which will accept it. Or it could be accepted as RF/editorial at e.g. iStock.

Karimala · « **Reply #7 on:** June 06, 2011, 11:49 »

Quote from: steheap on June 05, 2011, 16:27

Well, the sculptor died in 1954, which means that I'm not yet at the 60 years point! I will put it on Alamy as well, and fill in the pieces about not having a property release, but this year is the 150th anniversary of the battle that took place at this site and so I was hoping for some more general interest in it. I know that would be editorial in almost all cases, but I have had some downloads recently from Shutterstock of other views of this battlefield, so who knows.

I'll see how it gets on at the various sites - I know Graphic Leftovers will reject it (and April over there was very helpful with the explanation!)

Thanks for all your comments - the 70 year rule applies in the US as well, I believe, so I will make that the basis for my decisions in future.
Steve

I have to research copyright status for my vintage ephemera archive at Alamy and my Vintagerie Ephemera store at Zazzle. Just because the sculptor died in 1954 doesn't necessarily mean the 70-year rule applies. For pre-1963 works, one of two scenarios have to be in place for a copyright to still be valid: 1) a copyright had to first be registered with the US Copyright Office and then re-registered before 1977 or 2) a copyright was not registered, but was subsequently registered between 1977 - 89. Everything created after 1963 is covered by the 70-year rule.

To check on a renewal status between 1950 - 77, which would cover your 1938 statue, Project Gutenburg has combined the majority of the copyright renewal records into one document (a few years are missing...a quick search at Project Gutenburg will reveal the years). http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11800/11800-8.txt Takes a little while to load, so be patient. If Project Gutenburg has the year you're looking for, and then you don't find the sculpture listed, then the work is definitely in the public domain.

Karimala · « **Reply #8 on:** June 06, 2011, 11:59 »

A couple more links to copyright renewal catalogs:

At the University of Pennsylvania (they have some of the missing years): http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/

At Google, the entire catalog for 1950-77 (if you can open the .xml file): http://booksearch.blogspot.com/2008/06/us-copyright-renewal-records-available.html

gwhitton · « **Reply #9 on:** June 06, 2011, 12:30 »

Something else that plays into this, is that supposedly, unless a sculptor was given public funds, the copyright resides with the state or federal government and is thus in the public domain.

Its those exceptions that muddy the water...

steheap · « **Reply #10 on:** June 07, 2011, 09:09 »

Quote

A couple more links to copyright renewal catalogs:

At the University of Pennsylvania (they have some of the missing years): http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/

At Google, the entire catalog for 1950-77 (if you can open the .xml file): http://booksearch.blogspot.com/2008/06/us-copyright-renewal-records-available.html

Wow - you guys are amazing! I checked the Gutenburg listing and didn't find my sculptor, and am in the middle of trying to use the Google XML list. I downloaded the Microsoft XML notepad but it is enormously slow with a file this big. How did you manage to use the XML to search for a particular piece of artwork? I think I could load the xml into Microsoft access perhaps and use a query to search it, but is there a better way.

On a separate note, this raises an interesting question about what to set as the license on Alamy, but I will post that thought on the Alamy thread.

Steve

steheap · « **Reply #11 on:** June 07, 2011, 09:29 »

Although... I'm running into some problems here. The Google results appear to simply include books, not works of art, and I'm beginning to think that some of the other lists are mainly, if not wholly, focused on books. Am I reading this incorrectly?

Steve

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: How do you find out if a statue needs a property release (Read 7392 times)

steheap

click_click

ShadySue

luissantos84

ShadySue

steheap

ShadySue

Karimala

Karimala

gwhitton

steheap

steheap

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors