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

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.

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.

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.