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.

Quote from: donding on August 17, 2010, 20:29

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.

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.

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?

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.