MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Pets need release??!!  (Read 7019 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 18, 2016, 08:40 »
0
Canstock rejected shot of my dog for release issue.
SS and FT approved the same shot.

???


« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2016, 09:03 »
+4
Canstock rejected shot of my dog for release issue.
SS and FT approved the same shot.

???

Probably u need siganture from mother and father's dog too?  Ask them  :-X

 ;D

Chichikov

« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2016, 09:12 »
+2
Canstock is becoming more and more absurd every day
I think that someone is very sick in this company

« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2016, 10:18 »
+1
Canstock rejected shot of my dog for release issue.
SS and FT approved the same shot.

???

Probably u need siganture from mother and father's dog too?  Ask them  :-X

 ;D

Of course, she is clearly a puppy, not adult ;)

« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2016, 10:22 »
+1
Several agencies have asked for pet releases from me.

Istock
Dreamstime
CanStockPhoto

So I just include one whenever I shoot a pet. No rejections since.

Make sure you put a paw print in the models signature area ;)

« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2016, 11:03 »
+3
Pets are considered to be personal property so a release is needed.

« Reply #6 on: January 18, 2016, 11:07 »
0
Pets are considered to be personal property so a release is needed.

Needed by these platforms, one should add. It's not like releases are generally required for images of personal property in the laws of most countries.

« Reply #7 on: January 18, 2016, 11:18 »
+2
consider the following quotes which i got when i bumped into a pet-owner, ...

- yes, i spoil them rotten
- my dog is more important to me than my bf
- if you touch my collie, better get ready to leave with just your socks on
- there's only one thing more important than my hubby...

so, from these experiences with total strangers, i would say, i would be more cautious when
using a photo of a pet, than i am with a person.

i even remember reading of a woman who passed-away and left nothing to her husband
and everything to her poodle.
so, once again, yes, ...

« Reply #8 on: January 18, 2016, 11:23 »
0
To complete information: iStock have just approved the dog shot too, without release.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2016, 11:38 by Dog-maDe-sign »

Chichikov

« Reply #9 on: January 18, 2016, 11:26 »
+3
Pets are considered to be personal property so a release is needed.

A pet is a living being, and a living being cannot be the property of somebody (from my point of view).
If people really consider them as friends or companions pets belong to themselves.

« Reply #10 on: January 18, 2016, 11:31 »
0
I think there is, in general, an overstated sensibility about pets... maybe someone think is needed shelter against this

« Reply #11 on: January 18, 2016, 11:32 »
0
Pets are considered to be personal property so a release is needed.

A pet is a living being, and a living being cannot be the property of somebody (from my point of view).
If people really consider them as friends or companions pets belong to themselves.

Some agencies determine pets to be personal property and require a release. I think that's what mlwp was saying. But pets are personal property. Otherwise why do you have to license them like a car?

« Reply #12 on: January 18, 2016, 14:19 »
0
I haven't been able to upload any pictures of my dog because, although she is smarter than many humans, I haven't managed to teach her to sign her name.  :(

Fyi, my avatar is a picture of someone else's dog.  How they taught it to sign a release, much less understand the finer legal points, is a mystery to me!
« Last Edit: January 18, 2016, 14:22 by PixelBytes »

« Reply #13 on: January 18, 2016, 14:25 »
+3
What about strays? If I shoot a pic of a stray alley cat, do I need to get the cat's signature?

« Reply #14 on: January 18, 2016, 15:52 »
0
What about strays? If I shoot a pic of a stray alley cat, do I need to get the cat's signature?

Good question... Ask it to canstock staff ;)

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #15 on: January 18, 2016, 21:06 »
+4
It's obvious many of the responders here have never had a cat in their household.  People don't own cats.  Cats own people.  We are their minions, subject to their every whim.  If we ever want to submit a self portrait of some sort, in addition to a model release it will require a property release from the cat.  Cats were once worshiped as Gods ... they have never forgotten this.

« Reply #16 on: January 18, 2016, 23:19 »
0
It's obvious many of the responders here have never had a cat in their household.  People don't own cats.  Cats own people.  We are their minions, subject to their every whim.  If we ever want to submit a self portrait of some sort, in addition to a model release it will require a property release from the cat.  Cats were once worshiped as Gods ... they have never forgotten this.

Well stated!  I was going to write something similar but you beat me to it. 

If all goes well my two cats will turn 17 and 19 in a couple of months.  I'm fairly certain they would consider the concept of one animal (even humans) owning another one (especially a cat!) to be silly.  They most likely consider me to be their pet rather than the other way around.  I have a few images and videos of them on stock sites but not many because they hate it when I dip their paws in ink to sign the model releases.

To the OP, my understanding is that prize/pedigree animals might require a property release but that others should be fine.  If it is just an image of the animal and not in a recognizable context I doubt anyone could prove without a doubt that the image was of their pet.


« Reply #17 on: January 19, 2016, 09:19 »
+2
Yes there is a cat that peruses my property and I am coveting him for model. Now offering cat food in the hopes he will stop by more often. He consideres my backyard his territory and hunting grounds. If he has an owner, I don't care. He is in my backyard.  :o

« Reply #18 on: January 19, 2016, 14:08 »
+2
I'm not sure that legally you actually require a property release for ANYTHING......so its the agencies call and they tend to be cautious

http://danheller.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/busting-myths-about-model-releases.html
« Last Edit: January 19, 2016, 14:11 by Pauws99 »

« Reply #19 on: January 19, 2016, 16:20 »
0
I'm not sure that legally you actually require a property release for ANYTHING......so its the agencies call and they tend to be cautious

http://danheller.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/busting-myths-about-model-releases.html


This person skims over the facts and ignores the cases where we do need a release. Famous animals are protected. A neighbor dog or a stray cat aren't. Unless it's somehow a prize show dog. He gives people a false impression that we are allowed to do almost anything, when the truth is, it's each case and situational.

http://asmp.org/tutorials/using-property-releases.html

We don't need a release to take a photo. We don't need a release to sell a photo or a license. As news or art we can display and sell. But if it's used in a way that is harmful to the owner, we can be sued, should have a release. It's much more complicated than yes or no.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #20 on: January 19, 2016, 16:56 »
0
Dan Heller's only talking about America anyway.
The agencies will be as conservative as the strictest country they sell to.

BTW, googling 'do pets need a property release' give 'yes' from the agencies, and generally no from others, at least on the first page of results.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2016, 17:13 by ShadySue »

« Reply #21 on: January 19, 2016, 17:04 »
0
Yes you are right it is of course more complicated that's why every agency interprets it differently and there is no yes or no which is why I said its the agency's call

« Reply #22 on: January 19, 2016, 17:41 »
+1
Yes you are right it is of course more complicated that's why every agency interprets it differently and there is no yes or no which is why I said its the agency's call

Well, all I know is that every agency I have ever been with over the past 20 years has required a property release for pet pics.

« Reply #23 on: January 20, 2016, 05:53 »
+4
I'm not sure that legally you actually require a property release for ANYTHING......so its the agencies call and they tend to be cautious

http://danheller.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/busting-myths-about-model-releases.html




This person skims over the facts and ignores the cases where we do need a release. Famous animals are protected. A neighbor dog or a stray cat aren't. Unless it's somehow a prize show dog. He gives people a false impression that we are allowed to do almost anything, when the truth is, it's each case and situational.

http://asmp.org/tutorials/using-property-releases.html

We don't need a release to take a photo. We don't need a release to sell a photo or a license. As news or art we can display and sell. But if it's used in a way that is harmful to the owner, we can be sued, should have a release. It's much more complicated than yes or no.


Generally speaking, in most laws animals aren't "protected" against photography at all. That's because taking an image of something does not reduce that something in any way, it is not an infringement on the owner's property rights.

Property releases are required by platforms to avoid a couple of issues, none of which have anything to do with the subject legally being personal property of someone:

1. Copyright or design rights of the makers of a thing. The easiest here is art, of course. Sell a photo of a sculpture and you may need the artist's (NOT the owner's!) okay. This also applies to architecture and some designed objects.

2. Trademark and name rights. If I want to sell an image of my dad's MacBook with the Apple logo displayed, I need Apple's consent -- NOT my dad's.

3. Avoid trouble. In 99% of the cases where an agency requires a property release, it will simply be by their own guidelines, not because the law says so. They just want to avoid trouble with certain troublesome people -- like pet owners.

« Reply #24 on: January 20, 2016, 07:31 »
+2
Yes you are right it is of course more complicated that's why every agency interprets it differently and there is no yes or no which is why I said its the agency's call

Well, all I know is that every agency I have ever been with over the past 20 years has required a property release for pet pics.

I have had the opposite experience. I have a bunch of images of the horse I used to own in my port, and not once did any of the agencies ask for a property release (since 2005). Maybe it's one of those "depending on which inspector you get and what kind of mood they are in" situations?

« Reply #25 on: January 20, 2016, 09:32 »
0
I uploaded a few photos of cats and none of the agency requested release.

« Reply #26 on: January 20, 2016, 12:57 »
0
I'm not sure that legally you actually require a property release for ANYTHING......so its the agencies call and they tend to be cautious

http://danheller.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/busting-myths-about-model-releases.html


This person skims over the facts and ignores the cases where we do need a release. Famous animals are protected. A neighbor dog or a stray cat aren't. Unless it's somehow a prize show dog. He gives people a false impression that we are allowed to do almost anything, when the truth is, it's each case and situational.

http://asmp.org/tutorials/using-property-releases.html

We don't need a release to take a photo. We don't need a release to sell a photo or a license. As news or art we can display and sell. But if it's used in a way that is harmful to the owner, we can be sued, should have a release. It's much more complicated than yes or no.


re: red area above...
well said!
it is the same as property. generic looking property is not IP problemetic...
but an architectural specific design is.  same for animals. if the dogs are those expensive toy dogs or cats are those angora , siamese, etc ,.. i think they would err on the side of caution to ask for a release.
if the cat or a horse or a dog is like most of the strays you see on a field or farm, i am sure it would go through no problem without a release.

mr. ed, trigger, silver,... lassie, rin tin tin,.. even  garf,.. would definitely need a release.


« Reply #27 on: January 20, 2016, 13:15 »
0
on a lighter note, ...
yes, in agreement to one of the commentors above..

dogs ... like the horse in Alice said, "will do anything!"..
but cats,
when a cat actually lets you pose it, or tolerates your studio lights and have you poke a camera
in its face,
believe me, the cat consented. :D

« Reply #28 on: January 20, 2016, 14:38 »
0
re: red area above...
well said!
it is the same as property. generic looking property is not IP problemetic...
but an architectural specific design is.  same for animals. if the dogs are those expensive toy dogs or cats are those angora , siamese, etc ,.. i think they would err on the side of caution to ask for a release.
if the cat or a horse or a dog is like most of the strays you see on a field or farm, i am sure it would go through no problem without a release.

mr. ed, trigger, silver,... lassie, rin tin tin,.. even  garf,.. would definitely need a release.

I have a photo of a nice home, in Podunk USA, taken from the street. Generic house, generic location...and I have always had to submit a property release for that one.

It is all very random.

« Reply #29 on: January 20, 2016, 17:01 »
0
Iv'e got lots of generic houses/buildings I clone out things like house  numbers only very occasionally asked for Property Release...I find Big Stock very picky sometimes.

« Reply #30 on: January 20, 2016, 18:23 »
0
Pets are considered to be personal property so a release is needed.

A pet is a living being, and a living being cannot be the property of somebody (from my point of view).
If people really consider them as friends or companions pets belong to themselves.

Some agencies determine pets to be personal property and require a release. I think that's what mlwp was saying. But pets are personal property. Otherwise why do you have to license them like a car?

No they are not, and you dont have to licence nothing nowhere if you are determed not to do so. If a moronic group of people ( in my personal opinion ) claim so, one doesn't have to agree nor obey.

Not so long ago humans were widely considered property also, and they are mostly not anymore because a smaller group of people decided not to agree.

Animals are living beings experiencing reality just like humans.


« Reply #31 on: January 21, 2016, 02:45 »
0
"No they are not, and you dont have to licence nothing nowhere if you are determed not to do so. " That may be true but you won't get those pics on various Stock sites ....their sites their call even if they are wrong

« Reply #32 on: January 22, 2016, 06:51 »
0
I'm sure that there are numerous jocker among the judges of our pictures. In my first batch submitted to Istock one photoograph of two pidgeon with really blurred background were refused because a lack of release; last year DT refused a still life of a pear isolated on black for the same reason, but accepted as RF a photograph of a medical machine with the brand in evidence (my fault to don't delete). Then I had refused an entire batch o 12 still life that were used last year for an important adv campaign, because "poor light".
I accept the verdict of this judges like a divine storm, Don't understand but accept. And resubmit as second chance

« Reply #33 on: January 22, 2016, 13:55 »
0
Yes you are right it is of course more complicated that's why every agency interprets it differently and there is no yes or no which is why I said its the agency's call

Well, all I know is that every agency I have ever been with over the past 20 years has required a property release for pet pics.


I have had the opposite experience. I have a bunch of images of the horse I used to own in my port, and not once did any of the agencies ask for a property release (since 2005). Maybe it's one of those "depending on which inspector you get and what kind of mood they are in" situations?
Same here. Lots of animals including pets and nobody ever asked for a release.  But these were uploaded several years ago.  Maybe this is something new?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
4073 Views
Last post April 21, 2006, 11:07
by leaf
1 Replies
8506 Views
Last post June 23, 2006, 04:27
by leaf
17 Replies
10915 Views
Last post August 17, 2010, 10:48
by Anyka
3 Replies
3811 Views
Last post June 29, 2013, 12:43
by Ron
15 Replies
5300 Views
Last post September 08, 2018, 17:31
by DallasP

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle