MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Which sites accept editorial?  (Read 4217 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« on: August 17, 2010, 20:29 »
0
I know Big Stock, Dreamstime and Shutterstock do, but does iStock and Veer and any of those other smaller ones???


« Reply #1 on: August 17, 2010, 20:36 »
0
I know Big Stock, Dreamstime and Shutterstock do, but does iStock and Veer and any of those other smaller ones???
No: iStock, Veer, FT - Yes: 123RF.
SS: only accepts newsworthy, not the full range of editorial.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 20:37 by FD-regular »

« Reply #2 on: August 17, 2010, 21:26 »
0
you got also Alamy :)

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #3 on: August 17, 2010, 21:38 »
0
I know Big Stock, Dreamstime and Shutterstock do, but does iStock and Veer and any of those other smaller ones???
No: iStock, Veer, FT - Yes: 123RF.
SS: only accepts newsworthy, not the full range of editorial.

I had a feeling iStock didn't and neither did Veer since the photos I was looking for only showed feet. Thank's FD....that saved me some time on not having to upload just to find out there was no editorial option.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #4 on: August 17, 2010, 21:40 »
0
you got also Alamy :)

I knew Alamy had that. I've got a few editorial on there but it's been ages since I even uploaded anything there or even checked the site for sales. Not much activity for me there. Of course I don't even think I have 60 photos on there.

« Reply #5 on: August 17, 2010, 21:57 »
0
I had a feeling iStock didn't and neither did Veer since the photos I was looking for only showed feet.
You can also see it on (the absence of realistic) city views.
It's also almost impossible to upload buildings on BigStock, SS or IS unless not as main focus. Must have to do with the warranty. DT is still very lenient on it. The warranty was really a bad move (DT hasn't one) as buyers are responsible for the use and many times they don't need that warranty.
Istock not having editorial is giving away market share to DT since there is a large market for editorial and mixed commercial/editorial.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 22:00 by FD-regular »

« Reply #6 on: August 18, 2010, 02:11 »
0
I just use alamy.  Nice to be building a portfolio that isn't on the micros and hopefully one day I will get one of those big sales.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #7 on: August 18, 2010, 02:37 »
0
You can also see it on (the absence of realistic) city views.
It's also almost impossible to upload buildings on BigStock, SS or IS unless not as main focus. Must have to do with the warranty. DT is still very lenient on it. The warranty was really a bad move (DT hasn't one) as buyers are responsible for the use and many times they don't need that warranty.

Maybe they are being over-cautious?

Regarding copyright: from what I understand of British and German laws, architects' drawings are copyright, not buildings. So you cannot copy a design but you can shoot a building.
Regarding property: from what I understand of German laws, a property release is not required if a building is shoot from a public and publicly accessible point of view.
Regarding safety/anti-terrorism issues: the UK tried to impose limits on photography in public, but it's regarded as an unlawful request by many MPs and lawyers as well.
Other countries may have different rules.

So many pictures of buildings *could* be legally accepted without a release. But I'm not a lawyer, it would be nice to know for sure so that we can sell pictures of buildings at least on our personal websites if agencies don't have the pulse to read local laws and act accordingly.

Any lawyers here?
« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 02:49 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #8 on: August 18, 2010, 02:54 »
0
PS: one more  - simpler - question regarding pictures of buildings:

EDITORIAL (where this licence is accepted) = LEGALLY SOUND (both regarding copyright and property issues)? Thanks

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #9 on: August 18, 2010, 11:11 »
0
I do think iStock takes it's copyright issues a little overboard. I recently had a photo of the Dallas skyline rejected because you could see the AT&T sign on one of the buildings. I'm surprised they didn't reject it for the "Mobil Horse" on the top of one of them. My point is that downtown Dallas is known for these icons. It makes up their skyline. It was approved at the other sites I submitted it to. I'm don't plan to resubmit it to iStock.
I also had some pictures from the 1800's rejected because they wanted model releases. I provided a property release, but they said they had to have a model release signed by a descendant with their relation stated on the release. I could have provided one but it is more of a hassle than it's worth. Dreamstime did the same thing, but shutterstock and big stock took them with the property release. I'm glad shutterstock did because I have sold a ton of them on there and they are still selling.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
4706 Views
Last post April 12, 2008, 21:03
by ann
7 Replies
3635 Views
Last post June 27, 2008, 15:40
by HermanM
8 Replies
5321 Views
Last post July 18, 2008, 17:05
by HermanM
2 Replies
3475 Views
Last post August 01, 2009, 10:23
by cathyslife
8 Replies
4513 Views
Last post December 18, 2010, 00:30
by RacePhoto

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle