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.

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?

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.

Quote from: Poncke on January 05, 2013, 07:44

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.

Ok, cool. Thanks.

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 05, 2013, 08:43

Quote from: Poncke on January 05, 2013, 07:44

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

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 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.

Quote from: Batman on January 05, 2013, 20:29

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.

Quote from: Batman on January 05, 2013, 20:55

Quote from: ShadySue on January 05, 2013, 20:38

Quote from: Batman on January 05, 2013, 20:29

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.

Maybe this will help. (go Packers)

http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/shutterstock-property-release-policy

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

Piss on the packers!

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 05, 2013, 21:55

Maybe this will help. (go Packers)

http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/shutterstock-property-release-policy

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.

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 06, 2013, 01:13

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

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on January 05, 2013, 22:02

Piss on the packers!

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 05, 2013, 21:55

Maybe this will help. (go Packers)

http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/shutterstock-property-release-policy

seattle fans were hoping the vikings would win, too, since it would mean seattle doesnt have to play all their games on the road