MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Property Release Case US  (Read 3561 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RacePhoto

« on: December 20, 2010, 01:30 »
0
Keep in mind that laws are different in different countries. You can shoot just about anything, from anywhere, but what you do with the image afterwards is the point where legal comes in.

Some countries, not the US, if you are on public land, you can shoot and use almost anything. Some other places you can't and you'll get arrested for taking pictures of the flag or Govt. representatives or military. OK so there's a great variation, but lets get down to the property release that some agencies are requesting, in the common instances. Not the exceptions or extremely obscure cases.

In this case a private home was used in a flyer. The circumstances are a detail of the complaint, but the decision would be a broader decision.

http://www.propertyintangible.com/2010/08/houses-right-of-publicity.html

"The plaintiffs were offended by HSBC's use..."

"But what right do the plaintiffs have to prevent this kind of use?  None, according to the court.  Seven legal theories, none left standing."


molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2010, 05:27 »
0
what a sad bullsh*t case. another pampered lazy american trying to make money thru lawsuit. exactly what harm has come to them from this? a few people asking if they are selling something? ohh, the horror ::) Go on like this, and you won't be able to shoot anything, coz anything belongs to someone. The streets and parks here belong to the municipal government. The beautiful nature reserve area close to my town actually belongs to NortForest Ltd. entrusted by the state to manage it, so no more landcapes stock. Maybe the sky and the clouds... altho the airspace is courtesy of the state and it's military : D
« Last Edit: December 20, 2010, 05:29 by molka »

« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2010, 14:28 »
0
Just imagine how many RF images would have to be removed from the Micros of any "business buildings" or "building exterior" without a property release if this homeowner would have won the case.

I think many of us can consider ourselves lucky to be able to shoot almost anything from a public place without the need of a property release otherwise the Micros would have only a 1/100 or less of the architecture shots.

RacePhoto

« Reply #3 on: December 20, 2010, 14:58 »
0
The main point wasn't the people, who maybe were upset because their well known residence was used, but the fact that this case there was a recognizable building, and still no rights for the building.

I've had corn silos, grain elevators and a house with decorations, refused by some agencies (OK all of them if I only count the top six)  :) for property release needed. It's a personal issue because I can't understand why they require something, that isn't legally required. And before someone says trademark, all signs are removed and these are generic looking items, not for paint color or design features.

How about a house at night with Christmas lights? Totally absurd that they want a property release when it could be any of 10,000 houses that look just like that.

Eventually their requests and requirements could be construed as precedence and it will get backed by some judge. Then we are really in the hole, because everything ever made will have to have a release! It's getting ridiculous.

« Reply #4 on: December 20, 2010, 15:22 »
0
It hasn't always been like that with the Micros.

In the early days they approved pretty much everything even some with partial logos, faces etc. in them.

Times change and as the archives are filled now with plenty of stuff that "slipped through", the agencies now can easily reject unreleased images just to be on the safe side from here on. There is little logic behind it IMO because the old unreleased stuff is still selling (and sometimes selling very strong).

If they apply new rules, they should remove the old content that doesn't adhere to those new rules.

RacePhoto

« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2010, 15:31 »
0
It hasn't always been like that with the Micros.

In the early days they approved pretty much everything even some with partial logos, faces etc. in them.

Times change and as the archives are filled now with plenty of stuff that "slipped through", the agencies now can easily reject unreleased images just to be on the safe side from here on. There is little logic behind it IMO because the old unreleased stuff is still selling (and sometimes selling very strong).

If they apply new rules, they should remove the old content that doesn't adhere to those new rules.

We all know that one. They refuse an image for some vague content reason, make rules against certain subjects, and then someone finds pages and pages of the same thing, already on the site and selling. I don't bother with the site forums, but it's a laugh to go look and see the complaints about pictures refused for release and then links to existing shots that are worse or actually infringing.

I agree with you. They have removed shots of mine when new policy came in. Maybe missed some, I don't know, and still a search will find hundreds more, some using the Mfg. name in the search! Not like they are hiding. One was famous person, which lets just point out, died in the 1700's or 1800's and the material is PD but the site says, maybe be infringing on the rights of the estate. Hey, the laws says how long, and that time has passed. Estates can't make up their own rules, just because the person is famous.

« Reply #6 on: December 20, 2010, 15:44 »
0
It's one of those things that change the microstock landscape over time.

Photographers that shoot only models, lifestyle etc. only work with releases so they wouldn't be affected or involved in this issue.

But for city, architectural, landscape etc. photography, such new rules are really making it hard to get images approved.

Technically the shots should be allowed to be sold in the countries that have laws in place that protect the photographer and simply don't sell them into countries that forbid such use.

« Reply #7 on: December 20, 2010, 16:07 »
0
To be frank, apart from any legal issues, the house is indeed very characteristic (maybe it's the bright colors) that I would be annoyed in the guy's place. Depending on how the image is used, it can even have a negative effect in its value. It's not the same as something that is vague and unidentifiable, like one of the hundreds of varandas on several look-alike buildings in a condo.

« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2010, 16:52 »
0
To be frank, apart from any legal issues, the house is indeed very characteristic (maybe it's the bright colors) that I would be annoyed in the guy's place. Depending on how the image is used, it can even have a negative effect in its value. It's not the same as something that is vague and unidentifiable, like one of the hundreds of varandas on several look-alike buildings in a condo.

A little Photoshopping would have taken care of the color issues.  Other that the paint job, the house isn't all that unique in San Francisco.  There are thousands of similar houses throughout the city.  Even the house on the right is the same as the primary house, only backwards. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
4839 Views
Last post April 21, 2006, 13:10
by leaf
9 Replies
10019 Views
Last post September 26, 2008, 16:15
by JC-SL
17 Replies
11135 Views
Last post August 17, 2010, 10:48
by Anyka
5 Replies
1865 Views
Last post January 20, 2017, 00:56
by unnonimus
11 Replies
3422 Views
Last post February 01, 2017, 17:24
by YadaYadaYada

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle