Let's say that a photo of statue/building/... that requires property release is approved by an agency without the property release.

If this would result into problem with copyright, who would be responsible? The photographer who took the photo? Or the agency for selling it without the proper rights? I could see both of them being responsible, but who would end up paying for the consequences.

Reason for asking: I had a photo that was deactivated for copyright reasons and it was told that it was approved my mistake. I accepted the decision and moved on. This happened over a year ago. Today I did a search for the same picture and I see almost identical photos for sale by other contributors. Should I inform the contributor/agency?

I would like to hear your thoughts.

You could innocently ask support/whoever is appropriate if your photo was deleted in error, since there are many other images of the same property on the site. However, it might be possible that others have a release; and even if not, it can take over a year for the images to be deleted (I speak from experience).
It's all very inconsistent: I uploaded a series earlier in the year. I wasn't sure about it, so uploaded one first. When that was accepted, I drip-fed the rest up over a few days. I can't believe that at least eight different inspectors were involved and they all accepted them. When I queried the one which was accepted, they were all deactivated. There are lots of other similars by the same manufacturer up on the site.
Who knows who is responsible. FWIW, I think eventually this will be the issue that stops microstock from taking over the world - there are so many things which are not allowed, and new things being disallowed daily.

I think that the deactivation was warranted. I think the files should not be allowed and they were approved by error.

Let's put a specific example (different than my deactivated photo):
Harvard University buildings
Do you think that you need a release?

There are plenty of images of Harvard on iStock and they seem to sell pretty well. I highly doubt that they have a release. I can not imagine that anyone at Harvard would sign that release, the surely don't need $$$ and the iStock property realease gives you a lot of rights.

I wondered the same about Harvard, and was let off the hook the day I went there by the rain.
Hard to say, as I don't know US law. UK law allows buildings taken from public streets or public areas to be in the public domain.
I'm now sending all that sort of thing to Alamy as editorial, for all the good it's doing me. I have some earlier 'well known' buildings on iStock from my 350D days.
Some people seem to find it very easy to get releases. No-one replies to my requests, with SAEs, for PRs, not even to say, "Get Lost". Other people seem to be able to get them no bother.
I've even wondered  how the reverse would pan out. Say there was a street on which there was a recent artwork, and you managed to clone out the artwork, and it appeared somewhere, obviously not as a historic print. What rights might the artist have, especially if it were a guidebook or somesuch. Suffice it to say, I'm not playing that game any more either.

And then, somehow, Google drives by and photographs every building in existence, and nothing happens.

I think you can photograph ANYTHING you like from a public space. Question is what can you do with those pictures. Royalty free license gives you a lot of power.

Quote from: stockastic on April 22, 2010, 17:07

And then, somehow, Google drives by and photographs every building in existence, and nothing happens.

I think you can photograph ANYTHING you like from a public space. Question is what can you do with those pictures. Royalty free license gives you a lot of power.

Google doesn't provide "street view" as a public service - like everything Google does, its purpose is to sell ads (or possibly gather and sell information).