MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: hafakot on April 21, 2017, 06:31
-
Hi there,
How do I release tattoo for shutterstock?
can somebody help?
-
A few more words might help. If you're asking how to get a photo of someone with tattoos accepted, you will need to submit a property release signed by the tattoo artist. The artists holds copyright to their art, and needs to grant permission for its commercial use. That is of course in addition to a model release.
-
In other words, you probably don't. Avoid photographing tattoos. If your concept 100%:requires it you should use someone sans tat and draw something of your own design on them with makeup or add in post.
-
No problem with tattoos in fotolia...
I avoid tattoos people.
-
Thank you all for your answers.
SS accepted an image after the tattoo artist signed the PR
and the model had regular MR.
-
How to delete tattoo?
-
How to delete tattoo?
Learn to get really good with Photoshop and the Healing Brush. It depends on the size and location of the tattoo, and whether or not it is partially covered by clothing or anything else. Small tattoos on relatively even areas of skin are pretty easy to remove with software; things get harder from there. Better to position the model so the tattoo doesn't show if you can do that, or cover it with clothing. Or pick a model who doesn't have them; that's my preferred solution.
-
I did a video shoot of a tattoo artist for Getty, I had to have a model and property release for the tattoo. They have sold well.
-
How to delete tattoo?
Learn to get really good with Photoshop and the Healing Brush. It depends on the size and location of the tattoo, and whether or not it is partially covered by clothing or anything else. Small tattoos on relatively even areas of skin are pretty easy to remove with software; things get harder from there. Better to position the model so the tattoo doesn't show if you can do that, or cover it with clothing. Or pick a model who doesn't have them; that's my preferred solution.
Thanks, I am ACE in Photoshop so I believe I can do it...
I meant how to delete a tattoo in real life :-)
It was supposed to be a joke
-
I've just got my first images rejected for showing tattos. I think the claim to have PR for tattoos is a bit ridiculous given the explosion of their popularity in recent years.
From my recent batch, getty accepted all the images showing tattoo.
Shutterstock rejected all of them where even a small part was visible (29 of them).
Can you imagine how bizarre the conversation would be? "Yeah, I'm the guy you tattooed 6 years ago. Can I have your permission to use my arm?".
-
...I think the claim to have PR for tattoos is a bit ridiculous given the explosion of their popularity in recent years....
You really need to get a firm grip on intellectual property issues if you want to sell RF licenses to stock imagery. Suggesting that the popularity of an image means it shouldn't be protected is nonsensical.
You should also realize that if you skate too close to the line you might get unlucky and get sued - and taking the image down from the agency wouldn't be enough to satisfy an artist. Read about this case (http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2011/06/30/lawsuit-over-seattles-dancing-footprints-settles/#photo-2919) as but one example (more here (https://petapixel.com/2011/07/07/dance-steps-on-broadway-lawsuit-ends-with-photographer-paying-settlement/) and here (http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2011/06/broadway-dance-steps-lawsuit-settled-not-worth-continuing-to-fight/)). It just isn't worth the risk, so get a release or find something else to take stock images of.
-
I can understand when a work of art has a clear boundaries in space, such as the case with the Dancing Steps.
However, when the work of art becomes part of the person itself, don't you think we are sailing on somewhat different waters?
The canvas is the person himself and, in my opinion, the subject's consent should have the same value as the one signed by the tattoo artist.
I'm talking about fundamental issues of identity and property.
Don't you find the idea of someone gaining property rights on your body a bit outrageous?
-
Don't you find the idea of someone gaining property rights on your body a bit outrageous?
They don't have property rights on your body, only with their art.
It's like if you have a painting, say, or a fancy car or anything like that. You may own it, but you can't release it, only its creator/copyright owner can do that.
It may well be different if someone made a design themselves then asked the tattooist to ink it, but IANAL.
-
It's funny to see that out of the big 4, only Shutterstock seems to be having this policy, all the others accepted the images.
I don't know if they've had issues in the past, but the scalded cat fears cold water, it seems.
-
I'm talking about fundamental issues of identity and property.
Don't you find the idea of someone gaining property rights on your body a bit outrageous?
You're still not thinking about the IP issues - no one has property rights on the tattooed person's body, only on the rights to license images of the artwork on a part of the skin.
The person can be part of any RF image with their tattoo covered or not visible. The person can remove the tattoo or cover it with makeup. The tattoo designer has no control over that. What they do have control over is someone else making money from their artwork without their permission.
And I don't see how identity has anything to do with it. You don't lose your identity because you get or remove a tattoo, and tattooed art doesn't become yours just because you have it reproduced on your skin any more than you own copyright in a piece of artwork because you purchase a print of it.
-
iS always used to refuse unreleased tattoos. Surprised they've reversed that policy, but can't find any reference to tattoos on their lP wiki.
-
Here are some examples of the said tattoos.
-
The educated and experienced photographers above obviously know how it works. However, that's just not how it should work, IMO.
For example, with a building that has strict protections on uses of it's design, you cannot take an isolated image and "sell it". But if it is part of a skyline among many buildings, it's inclusion should in no way be an issue. No one should be able to make a skyline unusable by adding their building to it, that would be ridiculous. Same with graffiti art. An isolated image of an artists work cannot be photographed and then resold via stock, that makes sense. But if an otherwise perfectly commercial image happens to include a spray-painted tag by some idiot, that should not render the entire image unsaleable. That gives an ridiculous amount of power to vandals (but that's the way Shutterstock handle's it, of course).
Same should go with tattoos. You cannot photograph a close-up of tattoo and then sell that image like your own without a release, that's not acceptable. But, if you have images such as chrisphoto has, it's ridiculous to require property releases for partially covered and nowhere near main subject tats.
And if in any of these cases, a buyer edits the picture down to just the copyrighted/owned/trademarked element, well that's among the things that the buyer should be ultimately responsible for.
Unfortunately, the real world vs how it "should" be are two different places.
-
That is my opinion, as well. The tattoo doesn't add commercial value to the image, it's not the the subject of the images in any way.
It would be if the images were about a tattoo shop, or, as Daryl Ray said, being a close shot.
The images are about a couple having fun around Christmas time.
But, oh well, I'm just venting, I don't think any representative of Shutterstock is reading this anyway.
-
Adobe (Fotolia) seems to be getting this right.
Quote from the requirement page - https://helpx.adobe.com/in/stock/contributor/legal/property-release.html
"Tattoos are considered works of art, so you need to take into consideration the prominence of a tattoo’s display and the content of the tattoo itself. You don’t need a release if the tattoo isn’t the main focus of the photo. However, a property release is required in these cases:
The tattoo is close up and the primary focus.
The tattoo depicts celebrities.
The tattoo’s subject is trademarked or copyrighted (e.g., a logo or character)."