MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Miguel Calo on January 05, 2013, 06:29
-
Hi, everybody!
I find myself in a big confusion regarding pictures from interiors of churches and not only.
What I know is that any interior needs a Property Release, no matter the building (church, museum, railway station, airport, private house).
Though I've heard voices saying it's ok to set as editorial an image without PR. Personally, I don't think so.
What's your experience about that? Which agencies accept interiors without PR?
Thanks.
-
I think it depends on the agency. iStock allows unreleased interiors of public places such as airports or churches providing they're not restricted by that location's photographic policy (like the Vatican).
-
Then what "restricted" means? :)
Public access doesn't involve free use of the pictures taken inside, right?
On the other hand, imagine this: one photographer visits you home and then upload pictures from your living-room as editorial... Would it be fair?
-
I think it depends on the agency. iStock allows unreleased interiors of public places such as airports or churches providing they're not restricted by that location's photographic policy (like the Vatican).
So long as they are not editorial.
There are several photos in the main collection in iStock from interiors that would require a release if, for example, an unreleased tour group in the photo required that they be submitted as editorial.
It's a bizarre anomaly.
Also it depends what inspector you get. I have some editorial airport interiors accepted and some rejected (from the same airport) for no clear reason (i.e. I can't work out and it wasn't explained) why some would be accepted and others rejected.
-
My experience is that 123 and DP dont care about a release for interiors for editorial and they accepted my shots, and Shutterstock does care and they rejected.
-
My experience is that 123 and DP dont care about a release for interiors for editorial and they accepted my shots, and Shutterstock does care and they rejected.
exactly, they are looking for newsworthy pictures
-
My experience is that 123 and DP dont care about a release for interiors for editorial and they accepted my shots, and Shutterstock does care and they rejected.
exactly, they are looking for newsworthy pictures
This thread is not about the newsworthiness of the image. This is about a PR needed for interiors.
-
My experience is that 123 and DP dont care about a release for interiors for editorial and they accepted my shots, and Shutterstock does care and they rejected.
exactly, they are looking for newsworthy pictures
How do you know they werent?!? This thread is not about the newsworthiness of the image. This is about a PR needed for interiors. My images were newsworthy by the way.
I was basically agreeing with what you are saying regarding those 3 agencies, I am not discussing if they were newsworthy or not
-
Ok, cool. Thanks.
-
My experience is that 123 and DP dont care about a release for interiors for editorial and they accepted my shots, and Shutterstock does care and they rejected.
exactly, they are looking for newsworthy pictures
Which is odd, as although my photos are 'secondary editorial', my found in-uses have mostly been illustrating news stories.
-
My experience is that 123 and DP dont care about a release for interiors for editorial and they accepted my shots, and Shutterstock does care and they rejected.
exactly, they are looking for newsworthy pictures
Which is odd, as although my photos are 'secondary editorial', my found in-uses have mostly been illustrating news stories.
I agree, reviewers should pay more attention to our editorial uploads but that must be SS policy, curious that iStock saw market on branded products (coca-cola per example) and SS thought they wouldn't sell, go figure agencies ;D
-
And dont forget that in the States Churches are private property which means by law legally you must have a release for any images taken inside the church. :(
-
I saw some ridiculous thoughts on this so:
In fact you should have PR or it should be editorial (depends on kind of church).
BUT here in old Europe:
1) State HAS NOT any property, it was all paid by tax payers and so I take paying entrance fee as an isult. The state bought or built it, pays the staff and service and all that is paid from taxes.
2) Catholic church build most of their churches and cathedrals from taxes or compulsory work for church, most churches are paid and run from taxes and so they should be fully public. In my homecountry even priests are paid from my taxes despite the fact that I do not visit church or anything. Quite fair, isnt it?!
So, you cant compare shooting in church to shooting someones living room. Unless the living room owner built the house and fully pays the service from public money. Requiring PR for church is simply very crippled logic... The church DIDNT built it, DIDNT pay it and in most cases they even DO NOT pay the service, repairs, staff from their own money. The same applies for state owned castles, monuments, museums etc. We all paid it but we have to pay extra if we want to visit it or make some pictures.
-
I can understand your point of view somehow but it's still far away from reality. Now we discuss legal issues, not philosophy!
So, it doesn't make sense to think what is paid from taxes is 100% public and free for our own use. We have to make a difference between public access and public use, huh? :o
-
I saw some ridiculous thoughts on this so:
In fact you should have PR or it should be editorial (depends on kind of church).
BUT here in old Europe:
1) State HAS NOT any property, it was all paid by tax payers and so I take paying entrance fee as an isult. The state bought or built it, pays the staff and service and all that is paid from taxes.
2) Catholic church build most of their churches and cathedrals from taxes or compulsory work for church, most churches are paid and run from taxes and so they should be fully public. In my homecountry even priests are paid from my taxes despite the fact that I do not visit church or anything. Quite fair, isnt it?!
So, you cant compare shooting in church to shooting someones living room. Unless the living room owner built the house and fully pays the service from public money. Requiring PR for church is simply very crippled logic... The church DIDNT built it, DIDNT pay it and in most cases they even DO NOT pay the service, repairs, staff from their own money. The same applies for state owned castles, monuments, museums etc. We all paid it but we have to pay extra if we want to visit it or make some pictures.
Churchs are built from taxes? They are private ownership and those are called donations. SS will refuse pictures because they are not newsworthy doesn't matter if they are public private church or state. Somebody answer this do these sell much. If not whats the point.
-
SS will refuse pictures because they are not newsworthy doesn't matter if they are public private church or state. Somebody answer this do these sell much. If not whats the point.
If SS won't take them, how can we know whether they'd sell there if allowed?
The question is a point of permissions.
-
SS will refuse pictures because they are not newsworthy doesn't matter if they are public private church or state. Somebody answer this do these sell much. If not whats the point.
If SS won't take them, how can we know whether they'd sell there if allowed?
The question is a point of permissions.
Do they sell on places that do take them.
-
SS will refuse pictures because they are not newsworthy doesn't matter if they are public private church or state. Somebody answer this do these sell much. If not whats the point.
If SS won't take them, how can we know whether they'd sell there if allowed?
The question is a point of permissions.
Do they sell on places that do take them.
Doesn't matter because SS is based in the USA and in the USA all churches are privately owned therefore they require a PR.
-
SS will refuse pictures because they are not newsworthy doesn't matter if they are public private church or state. Somebody answer this do these sell much. If not whats the point.
If SS won't take them, how can we know whether they'd sell there if allowed?
The question is a point of permissions.
Do they sell on places that do take them.
Doesn't matter because SS is based in the USA and in the USA all churches are privately owned therefore they require a PR.
Not all churches which might be submitted to SS if they would take them are in the US.
-
SS will refuse pictures because they are not newsworthy doesn't matter if they are public private church or state. Somebody answer this do these sell much. If not whats the point.
If SS won't take them, how can we know whether they'd sell there if allowed?
The question is a point of permissions.
Do they sell on places that do take them.
Doesn't matter because SS is based in the USA and in the USA all churches are privately owned therefore they require a PR.
Not all churches which might be submitted to SS if they would take them are in the US.
But SS as everyone knows or at least should know is going to ere on the side of caution.
Also anyone can take a picture of anything anywhere and it is fine but the problem arises when you take the image and sell it for profit then you are opening a whole new can of worms!
-
Maybe this will help. (go Packers)
http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/shutterstock-property-release-policy (http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/shutterstock-property-release-policy)
-
Piss on the packers!
Maybe this will help. (go Packers)
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/shutterstock-property-release-policy[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/shutterstock-property-release-policy[/url])
-
What? Are you a Vikings fan or Dallas fan? Or some other loser eliminated team, that didn't make it to the final eight? LOL (I'll catch you over on the other side. Have a good Sunday)
More on the OP questions. List of restrictions, if you hadn't found it.
http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/legal/stock-photo-restrictions (http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/legal/stock-photo-restrictions)
Piss on the packers!
Maybe this will help. (go Packers)
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/shutterstock-property-release-policy[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/shutterstock-property-release-policy[/url])
-
Been a die hard Viking fan since the days of Fran Tarkington :)
I dont change teams like everyone else does that jumps on the bandwagon of a winning team.
But i will pull for other teams I like after my team has been defeated so now Seattle, and the Ravens are preferred.
What? Are you a Vikings fan or Dallas fan? Or some other loser eliminated team, that didn't make it to the final eight? LOL (I'll catch you over on the other side. Have a good Sunday)
More on the OP questions. List of restrictions, if you hadn't found it.
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/legal/stock-photo-restrictions[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/legal/stock-photo-restrictions[/url])
Piss on the packers!
Maybe this will help. (go Packers)
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/shutterstock-property-release-policy[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/shutterstock-property-release-policy[/url])
-
Been a die hard Viking fan since the days of Fran Tarkington :)
I dont change teams like everyone else does that jumps on the bandwagon of a winning team.
But i will pull for other teams I like after my team has been defeated so now Seattle, and the Ravens are preferred.
What? Are you a Vikings fan or Dallas fan? Or some other loser eliminated team, that didn't make it to the final eight? LOL (I'll catch you over on the other side. Have a good Sunday)
More on the OP questions. List of restrictions, if you hadn't found it.
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/legal/stock-photo-restrictions[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/legal/stock-photo-restrictions[/url])
Piss on the packers!
Maybe this will help. (go Packers)
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/shutterstock-property-release-policy[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/shutterstock-property-release-policy[/url])
seattle fans were hoping the vikings would win, too, since it would mean seattle doesnt have to play all their games on the road
-
My dear guys, at first, churches in Europe are mostly not private and NOT run from donations. In my homecountry most of church income goes from taxes we ALL pay, in church or not. Also most of churches were built before 18th century and maybe you americans have it different but ALL people had to work for free for church and they had to pay taxes to church in those times. Compulsory free work and church taxes are not donations in my opinion. So if we start talking about "ethical", we should start from the beginning ;)
So YES, most European churches were built from taxes and many are still run from taxes, despite excuses like donations which often make just small part of the whole budget.
-
That still doesn't mean that the images will get accepted!
My dear guys, at first, churches in Europe are mostly not private and NOT run from donations. In my homecountry most of church income goes from taxes we ALL pay, in church or not. Also most of churches were built before 18th century and maybe you americans have it different but ALL people had to work for free for church and they had to pay taxes to church in those times. Compulsory free work and church taxes are not donations in my opinion. So if we start talking about "ethical", we should start from the beginning ;)
So YES, most European churches were built from taxes and many are still run from taxes, despite excuses like donations which often make just small part of the whole budget.
-
My dear guys, at first, churches in Europe are mostly not private and NOT run from donations. In my homecountry most of church income goes from taxes we ALL pay, in church or not. Also most of churches were built before 18th century and maybe you americans have it different but ALL people had to work for free for church and they had to pay taxes to church in those times. Compulsory free work and church taxes are not donations in my opinion. So if we start talking about "ethical", we should start from the beginning ;)
So YES, most European churches were built from taxes and many are still run from taxes, despite excuses like donations which often make just small part of the whole budget.
Thanks for explaining, I assumed they were run by "the church" not by the taxes and the country. Maybe that's why when they founded the US they specifically stated separation of church and state. Now I'll need to read and learn more.
http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/shutterstock-property-release-policy (http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/shutterstock-property-release-policy)
-
My experience is that 123 and DP dont care about a release for interiors for editorial and they accepted my shots, and Shutterstock does care and they rejected.
Yes. My experience as well. Which I found odd considering if you submit a shot of a barren field with an outhouse barely visible in the far lefthand corner, 123RF will reject it unless you include a signed property release. Any image I've submitted with farm buildings has been rejected yet they accepted a collection of shots depicting the inside of a Lutheran Church in North America. No releases. Nadda.
-
similar in turkey where the govt hires the imams and pays for the upkeep of mosques, even though it's a secular country
in the US it's a hidden tax - people can deduct their church contributions from their taxes, so we all pay in the end - that's a major reason why it will be near impossible to eliminate 'charitable' deductions