MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Property release pain  (Read 3720 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 10, 2016, 04:15 »
0
Hi guys

recently (well maybe not that recently but still more than ever) all the agencies started to take property release very seriously. It's kind of pain in the ass since in many countries you can take photos of most of the building eg. public buildings, museums and so on. Also in most cases getting property release is simply impossible. Is there a way to deal with it or simply one can forget all the architectural photography as stock phtography?


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2016, 05:30 »
+1
One possibility with many agencies is to submit the image as editorial only, providing you can satisfy the other criteria for editorial.

« Reply #2 on: November 10, 2016, 06:40 »
0
One possibility with many agencies is to submit the image as editorial only, providing you can satisfy the other criteria for editorial.

Well this is an idea. :)

« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2016, 11:59 »
0
I've generally gone the editorial route. I have one photo that's RF everywhere, but SS, which wouldn't let a public building photo through. I objected, and they got back to me a month later saying the architectural design was copyrighted. It's not; the building predates that possibility, but I didn't want to wait another month for a second reply! I put it up as editorial, although the 'original' photo has some extraneous stuff I removed from the RF version. Both sell, so I'm not complaining... ok, maybe a little.

« Reply #4 on: November 10, 2016, 13:15 »
0
I've generally gone the editorial route. I have one photo that's RF everywhere, but SS, which wouldn't let a public building photo through. I objected, and they got back to me a month later saying the architectural design was copyrighted. It's not; the building predates that possibility, but I didn't want to wait another month for a second reply! I put it up as editorial, although the 'original' photo has some extraneous stuff I removed from the RF version. Both sell, so I'm not complaining... ok, maybe a little.

Exactly my thought! I need to think about this editorial, though I mainly use SS, FT and DP. SS almost never accepts my editorials, FT doesn't have at all and DP mostly accepts building at all. (Even though they lately rejects dozens of photos based on my favourite rejection reason: low commercial  value. -_-)

« Reply #5 on: December 27, 2016, 01:56 »
+1
All buildings in the US built before 1990 cannot be copyprotected. Neither can architecture such as doorways or windows. neither can boats, cruise ships, signs, etc.

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ41.pdf

The problem is that stock media agencies do not understand the laws.

The empire state building is NOT copyrighted. neither is the hollywood sign. the laws are clear and the agencies spread misinformation.

« Reply #6 on: December 27, 2016, 09:10 »
+3
the law is the law, agencies have their own rules, they just dont want any risk or deal with complaints from building owners, their agency, their rules. cant do anything about it, so best is not to get worked up over it.

« Reply #7 on: December 27, 2016, 10:04 »
+1
All buildings in the US built before 1990 cannot be copyprotected. Neither can architecture such as doorways or windows. neither can boats, cruise ships, signs, etc.

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ41.pdf

The problem is that stock media agencies do not understand the laws.

The empire state building is NOT copyrighted. neither is the hollywood sign. the laws are clear and the agencies spread misinformation.


Only partly right and as usual you are spreading false information. The Hollywood sign is protected and they file claims regularly. Nope it's not copyright it's trademarked.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/bb-hollywood-trademark-dispute-383648

The stock agencies understand the laws fine, they just don't want to get involved in expensive lawsuits.

Maybe they don't want everybody uploading NASA public domain images and filling the collections with those and library of congress photos.

Just because the law allows something, doesn't mean agencies want to accept, or must sell it. They can take or leave whatever they want. The argument that something is legal makes no difference.

the law is the law, agencies have their own rules, they just dont want any risk or deal with complaints from building owners, their agency, their rules. cant do anything about it, so best is not to get worked up over it.


You got it.

« Reply #8 on: December 27, 2016, 23:57 »
+1
you said: "The Hollywood sign is protected and they file claims regularly. Nope it's not copyright it's trademarked."

The Hollywood Sign is owned by the State of California and is free to film and use by the general public.

the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce only has rights to manage the property around the sign, not the sign itself, and they only charge for access to the property near the sign, not for filming the sign itself.

it is not possible to trademark a sign or signage. trademarks protect source, such as brand names, not physical objects or structures.

The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce does not have a registered trademark for the Hollywood sign. You can search the uspto.gov and see that they made many application attempts to trademark the sign and they were all rejected.

I contacted the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce and asked them why they claim that photographers cannot sell photos of the sign, and they (Christine Sovich <[email protected]>) responded: "your statement that these registrations somehow preclude you from exploiting your rights as a photographer of the Sign couldn't be further from the truth.  I am not sure where you read this, but it simply is not the case." which means that photographers can sell photos of the sign and profit from it.

stock agencies are incorrect, it is perfectly legal to photograph the Hollywood Sign and resell it for profit.


« Reply #9 on: December 28, 2016, 05:49 »
+1
stock agencies are incorrect, it is perfectly legal to photograph the Hollywood Sign and resell it for profit.


Here, go ahead and ask these guys about that: http://globalicons.com/hollywood-licensing

« Reply #10 on: December 28, 2016, 12:29 »
+1
stock agencies are incorrect, it is perfectly legal to photograph the Hollywood Sign and resell it for profit.


Here, go ahead and ask these guys about that: http://globalicons.com/hollywood-licensing


Sean, don't let the facts ruin another unnonimus misinformation post. He has a reputation to keep up.  ;D

the law is the law, agencies have their own rules, they just dont want any risk or deal with complaints from building owners, their agency, their rules. cant do anything about it, so best is not to get worked up over it.


Which means, the law or various interpretations, defense and claims of the right to resell, have nothing to do with the agencies right to accept or reject whatever they want or don't want. SS refuses all kinds of other legal materials, because they choose to.

Arguing that they don't know the law is an incorrect assumption. They don't want to take the risk or time. Defending against a frivolous lawsuit is costly and a waste of time.

unnonimus, a question. If I have a model release, signed and witnessed, can a model come after me years later, to have all her photos removed, and sue me, because she's become famous and she doesn't want them on Microstock. With a proper legal release can a model change her mind after the fact?

What's your official legal opinion on this question unnonimus?

« Reply #11 on: January 01, 2017, 03:35 »
0
you said: "unnonimus, a question. If I have a model release, signed and witnessed, can a model come after me years later, to have all her photos removed, and sue me, because she's become famous and she doesn't want them on Microstock. With a proper legal release can a model change her mind after the fact?
What's your official legal opinion on this question unnonimus?"

only a court of law can make that determination.

« Reply #12 on: January 01, 2017, 03:36 »
0
you said: "Arguing that they don't know the law is an incorrect assumption."

after many email exchanges with stock photo companies, they clearly do not know the copyright laws.

« Reply #13 on: January 01, 2017, 10:15 »
0
you said: "unnonimus, a question. If I have a model release, signed and witnessed, can a model come after me years later, to have all her photos removed, and sue me, because she's become famous and she doesn't want them on Microstock. With a proper legal release can a model change her mind after the fact?
What's your official legal opinion on this question unnonimus?"

only a court of law can make that determination.


Nice dodge, you claim to know the law better then the agencies. If I have a model release, signed and witnessed, can a model come after me years later to stop selling the images?

If unnonimus comes to a forum and posts that we can license and sell images of the Hollywood sign, does that mean it's legal and we can?

Please read before you answer,

https://www.trademarkaccess.com/trademark-registration/hollywood-trademark-registration/

Its not just the use of the actual Hollywood sign that they are protecting under their trademark registrations. They also monitor for trade dress violations for infringing uses that may not fall under a trademark registration.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/bb-hollywood-trademark-dispute-383648

Not only can't we use the actual Hollywood sign, we can't create a similar design that looks like the Hollywood sign.

One more time. What agencies take or refuse, doesn't translate to they don't know the law, which is your flawed assumption. They choose what they will accept which has no direct association with the law being the reason they don't take some things. They make their own rules.

Some of them take subjects and scenes which are outside the legal rights of photographers to sell or license. FAA will some day get a fat lawsuit that could put them out of business.

« Reply #14 on: January 02, 2017, 08:45 »
0
you said: "Its not just the use of the actual Hollywood sign that they are protecting under their trademark registrations."


You are 100% wrong. The hollywood sign is owned by the state of california, and there is no valid trademark registration for the sign itself. trademark registration for signs is not permitted in the United States of America. The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce only has rights to manage the ground where the sign sits and not the sign itself. They have made numerous attempts to file trademark registrations with the USPTO and the USPTO office rejected their attempts to register a trademark of the Hollywood sign.

The article you reference is not evidence of trademark registration and is misinformation. Go to the USPTO web site and search for their trademark registrations and you will see that they were DENIED a trademark for the sign itself, and most of their trademarks are for gift items, such as an imprint on a paper bag.

They tell you they have trademarks for the Hollywood sign but what they don't tell you is that their trademark is limited to gift items such as imprints on paper bags that are distributed at their gift shop. this does not deny you rights to photograph and resell photos of the sign, they have no rights to control it. There is a law entered into the state of california legislature that clearly states that the hollywood chamber of commerce only has rights to manage the grounds that the sign sits on and not the sign itself, they do not own it.

I contacted the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce and they confirmed to me that I may photograph the Hollywood sign and sell my photos for profit. I posted an excerpt of the email.

You are wrong, please stop spreading misinformation.

If you think they have a trademark for the sign, find the registration number with the USPTO. You will fail.

This is a classic case of organizations misleading the public because the public doesn't investigate the truth. They may as well say they own the Brooklyn bridge.

In regards to the question about people suing regarding model release forms years later, there is nothing the copyright law regarding model release forms. model release forms were invented by the stock media industry. anyone can sue for any reason in the United States. Only a court of law can make a determination if a lawsuit can be entered into a court, not me or you.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2017, 08:48 by unnonimus »

« Reply #15 on: January 02, 2017, 08:50 »
0
trademarks are for logos (that identify source), not for physical structures, you cannot trademark physical objects, it is not permitted in the united states patent and trademark office.

« Reply #16 on: January 02, 2017, 11:17 »
+2
Really not worth the time and effort to continue. For everybody else, if the agency says you can't upload or sell something, that's their decision, not necessarily the law.


« Reply #17 on: January 02, 2017, 14:06 »
0
Really not worth the time and effort to continue. For everybody else, if the agency says you can't upload or sell something, that's their decision, not necessarily the law.
Very true perhaps some people would have enjoyed pursuing a legal career more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrC1aMdfa14


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
17 Replies
10941 Views
Last post August 17, 2010, 10:48
by Anyka
3 Replies
3836 Views
Last post June 29, 2013, 12:43
by Ron
7 Replies
3622 Views
Last post September 16, 2013, 08:30
by gillian vann
2 Replies
1543 Views
Last post October 04, 2015, 10:04
by PZF
4 Replies
2862 Views
Last post May 28, 2016, 12:49
by PigsInSpace

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle