MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Is selling my pictures as stock considered "Commercial"  (Read 2386 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 25, 2018, 03:18 »
0
Hello all those who have taken the time to read this.

A few locations I thought that would be worth a visit such as national parks and such require permits for "Commercial photography" but reading the forms it seems geared more toward like stages big shoots with a team etc.

So my question is, is taking photos of/on this location and perhaps putting a few on stock sites such as adobe stock, alamy etc for some extra income considered "Commercial photography"? In which case should I be purchasing the permit/applying for permission beforehand? Or am I other-thinking things and being silly

Sorry to waffle.

Kindly thanks for those that answer, ta.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2018, 03:22 by Londonandhappy »


« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2018, 03:28 »
0
Yes it is. But you will get lots of different opinions about exactly what is or isn't permitted. I suggest you spend a bit of time googling and looking at what the stock sites say.

« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2018, 03:55 »
0
Thank you for your reply, I have googled a fair bit but to no real avail with many conflicting answers.

It just seems weird to me that taking a load of snaps and picking out a few to perhaps put on stock sites for a trickle of income would require, in many cases, a commercial photography permit (Some places were asking for $100/100)

« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2018, 04:03 »
0
Thank you for your reply, I have googled a fair bit but to no real avail with many conflicting answers.

It just seems weird to me that taking a load of snaps and picking out a few to perhaps put on stock sites for a trickle of income would require, in many cases, a commercial photography permit (Some places were asking for $100/100)
I'm afraid that's the way it is. If the law wasn't confusing and contradictory we wouldn't need so many lawyers ;-).  I no longer take pics for sale  on National Trust sites as they explicitly forbid it....English Heritage don't so I carry on. In the end you have to let the sites decide for you or make your own decision.

« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2018, 04:09 »
0
Thanks again, you are helping things clear up for me I have read a little bit about how strict the National Trust is in regards to that.

I assume that aside from the obvious property/Model releases if required, pictures taken on public land and perhaps selling a few is fair game?

« Reply #5 on: July 25, 2018, 04:18 »
0
Thanks again, you are helping things clear up for me I have read a little bit about how strict the National Trust is in regards to that.

I assume that aside from the obvious property/Model releases if required, pictures taken on public land and perhaps selling a few is fair game?
Yes thats my belief. btw I assume you may be from London....there's a surprising amount of private land there e.g canary wharf ;-). https://group.canarywharf.com/media/film-photography-permits/ Minefield isn't it! ???

« Reply #6 on: July 25, 2018, 05:01 »
+2
Hello all those who have taken the time to read this.

A few locations I thought that would be worth a visit such as national parks and such require permits for "Commercial photography" but reading the forms it seems geared more toward like stages big shoots with a team etc.

So my question is, is taking photos of/on this location and perhaps putting a few on stock sites such as adobe stock, alamy etc for some extra income considered "Commercial photography"? In which case should I be purchasing the permit/applying for permission beforehand? Or am I other-thinking things and being silly

At least in the US, most people agree that your initial thought is correct.  It's permission for teams and props and such.  Just taking some non-invasive photos and uploading them for stock is fine.

« Reply #7 on: July 25, 2018, 06:26 »
0
Hello all those who have taken the time to read this.

A few locations I thought that would be worth a visit such as national parks and such require permits for "Commercial photography" but reading the forms it seems geared more toward like stages big shoots with a team etc.

So my question is, is taking photos of/on this location and perhaps putting a few on stock sites such as adobe stock, alamy etc for some extra income considered "Commercial photography"? In which case should I be purchasing the permit/applying for permission beforehand? Or am I other-thinking things and being silly

At least in the US, most people agree that your initial thought is correct.  It's permission for teams and props and such.  Just taking some non-invasive photos and uploading them for stock is fine.
In the UK SS specifically identify Royal Parks, Royal Residences and National trust properties as places with known restrictions that covers a lot of London's iconic locations. So I would say its on a case by case basis really. If there is a great big sign up saying you can't take pictures for commercial use I wouldn't personally sell identifiable images from there. If there is nothing to say you can't then I would....that's only my layman's view though I'm not a lawyer. I would also add the agencies seem to becoming more and more cautious on what they will allow.

« Reply #8 on: July 25, 2018, 09:56 »
0
Does anyone have any experience with the brecon beacons in wales? I couldn't find a straight answer on that.

dpimborough

« Reply #9 on: July 25, 2018, 13:42 »
+1
Does anyone have any experience with the brecon beacons in wales? I couldn't find a straight answer on that.


You'll be fine the Brecon Beacons is a National Park but restrictions and permits apply to commercial filming (i.e. films documentaries) and commerical photography i.e. use of props lights equipment models etc.

http://www.beacons-npa.gov.uk/the-authority/filming-in-the-park/

You taking landscape or other shots for sale as stock will hardly raise an eyebrow.

But you can alway contact them to clarify.  Just be clear what you intend to photograph and what you intend to do with it.

But if you are really intending to pay a fee remember its:

Commercial photo shoot         1000 - 2000
Corporate film or photography    from 500 +
« Last Edit: July 25, 2018, 13:44 by Sammy the Cat »

« Reply #10 on: July 25, 2018, 17:25 »
0
lol. If you already got away with taking the photo, I'd say go ahead. I highly doubt that they're tracking down a lone photographer over a $100 ticket. Some of the professional photographers even sneak photos in places they aren't supposed to. I think the whole compact tripod market is probably built around this.

« Reply #11 on: July 25, 2018, 18:04 »
0
In London the permit is usually required if youre going to obstruct the way of other visitors during a long period of time, such as using actors or models or other heavy equipment. If you only use a tripod that should be fine, especially with the amount of tourists that dont know the rules, unless the official website of the Park states otherwise (for instance the royal parks are very strict about that, and some parks are monitored as well so someone might come up to you. You should be able to shoot the commons without any issue thou.

Then comes the license to sell commercial photos of the parks. In case of private parks again, the website should state if they can be sold commercially, but for royal parks they wouldnt grant such a license to sell commercially as you will have no control as where and for what purpose the image will be used for. Your best bet would be to submit these images as editorial.

« Reply #12 on: July 26, 2018, 02:40 »
0
lol. If you already got away with taking the photo, I'd say go ahead. I highly doubt that they're tracking down a lone photographer over a $100 ticket. Some of the professional photographers even sneak photos in places they aren't supposed to. I think the whole compact tripod market is probably built around this.
You are probably correct and I'm no saint and sneak a few in. I guess the question arises if your image starts appearing as post cards/posters etc. Personally i've risked a few but as I said above if a location makes it abundantly clear you can't do it I don't. On a related matter last time I went horse racing at Newmarket I had to get a permit (free) and sign a declaration just because I had a DSLR.

« Reply #13 on: August 23, 2018, 17:34 »
0
lol. If you already got away with taking the photo, I'd say go ahead. I highly doubt that they're tracking down a lone photographer over a $100 ticket. Some of the professional photographers even sneak photos in places they aren't supposed to. I think the whole compact tripod market is probably built around this.
You are probably correct and I'm no saint and sneak a few in. I guess the question arises if your image starts appearing as post cards/posters etc. Personally i've risked a few but as I said above if a location makes it abundantly clear you can't do it I don't. On a related matter last time I went horse racing at Newmarket I had to get a permit (free) and sign a declaration just because I had a DSLR.

Yeah, I usually go to a couple concerts per year and there's a common "no detachable lenses" restriction. There are probably hundreds of decent cameras with a fixed lens. Like uhm ... all of the Nikon compacts are on par with my 3200.

Hell, my Samsung telephone comes with two fixed focal length lenses ... and you could sneak in one of those little detachable things nearly anywhere. They're fighting a losing battle.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1915 Views
Last post February 26, 2007, 13:47
by Vekha
22 Replies
8573 Views
Last post January 15, 2008, 19:38
by madelaide
2 Replies
3126 Views
Last post June 21, 2011, 10:19
by lisafx
9 Replies
2935 Views
Last post March 23, 2015, 16:51
by heywoody
26 Replies
7529 Views
Last post November 20, 2016, 15:24
by loop

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results