Author Topic: Another rule change - deleting residential photos without PR (Read 14671 times)

disorderly · « **on:** April 23, 2014, 12:17 »

23 of my old photos deleted so far:

Quote

Dear iStock Member,

The content is not suitable for our broad Royalty Free license; the reason given was: This image is deactivated due to a recent content guidelines change; images of a personal residence require a property release.

iStock Content Team

Pretty soon I won't have anything left there.

Ron · « **Reply #1 on:** April 23, 2014, 12:31 »

Isnt that an older thing announced last year somewhere? Sucks though.

dbvirago · « **Reply #2 on:** April 23, 2014, 12:33 »

Just had 50 deleted. Doesn't matter - it was only iStock. On the sites that do actually understand the law, they still sell very well. I assume sales on those sites will go up.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #3 on:** April 23, 2014, 12:52 »

here as well and what a joke!

why don't they ask if I have PR? I do!

ShadySue · « **Reply #4 on:** April 23, 2014, 12:55 »

I've had two today, one being my own house (but it's complicated).

luissantos84 · « **Reply #5 on:** April 23, 2014, 12:56 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 23, 2014, 12:55

I've had two today, one being my own house (can't find anyone willing to sign as witness to my signature.)

how about a relative or a neighbor? ok not my business!

ShadySue · « **Reply #6 on:** April 23, 2014, 13:04 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on April 23, 2014, 12:56

Quote from: ShadySue on April 23, 2014, 12:55
I've had two today, one being my own house (can't find anyone willing to sign as witness to my signature.)

how about a relative or a neighbor? ok not my business!

Do you think I haven't tried?

bunhill · « **Reply #7 on:** April 23, 2014, 13:05 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on April 23, 2014, 12:52

here as well and what a joke!

why don't they ask if I have PR? I do!

They gave you the option to upload PRs when the thing was announced. Both in the email and at the site.

And as the article made clear at the time of the announcement ....

Quote

At anytime after December 20th you can still send us the required releases and we will reactivate the files as soon as we are able to review the documentation.

But don't let that get in the way of a good rant.

ShadySue · « **Reply #8 on:** April 23, 2014, 13:10 »

Some people in the official iS thread say they had PRs with the images, yet they were still deactivated.

bunhill · « **Reply #9 on:** April 23, 2014, 13:11 »

Quote from: dbvirago on April 23, 2014, 12:33

Just had 50 deleted. Doesn't matter - it was only iStock. On the sites that do actually understand the law, they still sell very well. I assume sales on those sites will go up.

Over time buyers will inevitably become more educated re the general potential for hassle associated with the commercial use of unreleased content. Agencies which make sure that their content is hassle free offer buyers a more professional and reliable product.

Ron · « **Reply #10 on:** April 23, 2014, 13:11 »

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358092

Announced December 2013. Not that it helps, but then you know where its coming from

Ron · « **Reply #11 on:** April 23, 2014, 13:13 »

Quote from: bunhill on April 23, 2014, 13:11

Quote from: dbvirago on April 23, 2014, 12:33
Just had 50 deleted. Doesn't matter - it was only iStock. On the sites that do actually understand the law, they still sell very well. I assume sales on those sites will go up.

Over time buyers will inevitably become more educated re the general potential for hassle associated with the commercial use of unreleased content. Agencies which make sure that their content is hassle free offer buyers a more professional and reliable product.

Release is not needed, but you dont want the hassle of this;

http://propertyintangible.com/2010/08/houses-right-of-publicity.html

However, a release is not needed.

tundracamper · « **Reply #12 on:** April 23, 2014, 13:31 »

I had two deleted today. Both of them were mansions owned by the state. In other words, they were public property. It was pretty easy to see that from the image, but I'm sure the reviewers are just looking for anything that looks like a house.

bunhill · « **Reply #13 on:** April 23, 2014, 13:40 »

Quote from: tundracamper on April 23, 2014, 13:31

I had two deleted today. Both of them were mansions owned by the state. In other words, they were public property. It was pretty easy to see that from the image, but I'm sure the reviewers are just looking for anything that looks like a house.

But the people looking through millions of images have no certain way of knowing who owns a property. You say it is public property - but in what country is this common knowledge ? And how can a reviewer be expected to know what the rules are in some specific country with respect to the commercial use of unreleased property whether or not it is public ?

If you are allowed to use the content commercially, if you can guarantee that a potential buyer anywhere on planet earth could not potentially be hassled for using the image commercially, then why not simply get a release signed by someone with the appropriate authority ?

Mantis · « **Reply #14 on:** April 23, 2014, 14:06 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 23, 2014, 13:10

Some people in the official iS thread say they had PRs with the images, yet they were still deactivated.

That's my case. Wonder if they are changing the terms of the release? One is a good seller.

ShadySue · « **Reply #15 on:** April 23, 2014, 14:09 »

Quote from: Mantis on April 23, 2014, 14:06

Quote from: ShadySue on April 23, 2014, 13:10
Some people in the official iS thread say they had PRs with the images, yet they were still deactivated.

That's my case. Wonder if they are changing the terms of the release? One is a good seller.

Seems to be 'an issue'.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=360578&messageid=7005296

SNAFU:
"There was a small batch of images that were deactivated in spite of the fact contributors had sent in the necessary releases after we made our initial announcement. We have since reactivated those files.

Content that has been deactivated that had originally been uploaded with the necessarily releases which have been caught up in this cull will be reactivated in short order. We will have an update as soon as that process is complete.

We apologize for any inconvenience."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=360578&messageid=7005316

tundracamper · « **Reply #16 on:** April 23, 2014, 14:48 »

Quote from: bunhill on April 23, 2014, 13:40

If you are allowed to use the content commercially, if you can guarantee that a potential buyer anywhere on planet earth could not potentially be hassled for using the image commercially, then why not simply get a release signed by someone with the appropriate authority ?

And that authority would be who, the governor? I'm sure he would love to sign a property release in his spare time. With this thinking, eventually there will be absolutely no stock photography that contains any part of a building unless the photographer has a property release, even though property has no rights. That should only include about two-thirds of the stock photography industry.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #17 on:** April 23, 2014, 14:51 »

21 deactivated - most of them are non-recognizable cookie-cutter suburban homes. And, by the way, I never received any emails from Istock notifying me that this is going to happen - this is complete news to me.

Danybot · « **Reply #18 on:** April 23, 2014, 15:11 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on April 23, 2014, 14:51

21 deactivated - most of them are non-recognizable cookie-cutter suburban homes. And, by the way, I never received any emails from Istock notifying me that this is going to happen - this is complete news to me.

That is exactly why this makes no sense. There is no intellectual property involved, unless there is unique architecture or landscape design, and the designer wants to assert her copyright. In most countries, the owner of the house has no right to prevent somebody from taking a photo of his house from the public street. If it bothers him, he should put up a tall fence. Istock's demand for "property" releases for generic houses is legally meaningless, but that is part and parcel of a badly managed company.

Ron · « **Reply #19 on:** April 23, 2014, 15:14 »

Isnt it the same as with a tattoo then? The home owner may own the house, but they didnt design nor create it, so how can they sign a property release when the architect is the one holding the copyright to the design? It seems when a home owner signs a PR they could be doing so illegally.

ShadySue · « **Reply #20 on:** April 23, 2014, 15:17 »

Quote from: Danybot on April 23, 2014, 15:11

In most countries, the owner of the house has no right to prevent somebody from taking a photo of his house from the public street. ...

... for personal use, or to sell as editorial, just the same as shooting a person for editorial.
Commercial use is different for people, and in some countries, e.g. the UK, for property:
http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2013/02/12/is-it-legal-to-take-pictures-of-buildings-photography-law-questions-answered-by-experts

bunhill · « **Reply #21 on:** April 23, 2014, 15:32 »

Quote from: tundracamper on April 23, 2014, 14:48

Quote from: bunhill on April 23, 2014, 13:40

If you are allowed to use the content commercially, if you can guarantee that a potential buyer anywhere on planet earth could not potentially be hassled for using the image commercially, then why not simply get a release signed by someone with the appropriate authority ?

And that authority would be who, the governor? I'm sure he would love to sign a property release in his spare time. With this thinking, eventually there will be absolutely no stock photography that contains any part of a building unless the photographer has a property release, even though property has no rights. That should only include about two-thirds of the stock photography industry.

The governor of where ? You make it sound as if people are supposed to know what country, regional state or jurisdiction is at issue, what set of normal practices you are even talking about.

One-size-fits-all stock sites where thousands of contributors upload millions of pictures annually need a single set of practices which relate to images taken anywhere on the planet and which might potentially be used anywhere on the planet. Anything which does not fit that boiler-plate model should be with a specialist agency and probably RM so that any use is mediated by an actual conversation between the customer and the agent. Or else the potential use should be restricted. To protect the users. Or else there should be releases, at least.

From the buyer perspective it certainly is not only about the law. It's about knowing that any questions or hassles about the use of an image will definitely be addressed by the agency. This is something I feel quite strongly about FWIW. It is absolutely essential that the people buying images are able to feel confident that they will not be called out (either legal or socially - on the web) for using an image which raises a complaint or for which the use is out of context.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #22 on:** April 23, 2014, 15:51 »

Still requiring property releases for residential houses makes no sense to me. I photographed several properties with legit releases signed by the owner (one of them being me) that have been sold to someone else in recent years. Now someone else owns these buildings. Do my releases still stand or not? And if they do, how is this not absurd?

bunhill · « **Reply #23 on:** April 23, 2014, 15:59 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on April 23, 2014, 15:51

Still requiring property releases for residential houses makes no sense to me. I photographed several properties with legit releases signed by the owner (one of them being me) that have been sold to someone else in recent years. Now someone else owns these buildings. Do my releases still stand or not? And if they do, how is this not absurd?

https://contribute.gettyimages.com/producer/help/propertyReleases

A property release records a permission given at the time the picture was taken. Potentially someone selling a property would need to tell a buyer that a property release had been signed. The same as any other legal contract relating to the property would need to be disclosed. Any issue would be between the new owner and the previous owner who signed the release.

Danybot · « **Reply #24 on:** April 23, 2014, 16:07 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 23, 2014, 15:17

Quote from: Danybot on April 23, 2014, 15:11
In most countries, the owner of the house has no right to prevent somebody from taking a photo of his house from the public street. ...

... for personal use, or to sell as editorial, just the same as shooting a person for editorial.
Commercial use is different for people, and in some countries, e.g. the UK, for property:
http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2013/02/12/is-it-legal-to-take-pictures-of-buildings-photography-law-questions-answered-by-experts

If there is no copyright, it generally does not make a difference whether you use it commercially or not. In the UK, it appears that there is a voluntary advertising standards council that has a policy of discouraging advertisers from using such photos. That is a concession to the overly sensitive, but it is unlikely to be a legal requirement. Stock photos are always de-identified, with house numbers etc. removed. Most houses are not very unique, and for many of the photos being removed by Istock, their owners would not be able to swear that it is their own house as opposed to a similar one a thousand miles away.

In any event, it is up to the user to know what they are using the photo for and whether that use is legal where they are using it. I sell hundreds of photos of "personal residences" on microstock sites every year. Presumably, if there was a major legal risk in using them, people would have gotten wind of it, and stopped buying long before now.

Removing a photo just because it is of a "personal residence," which Istock is doing, is a downright silly reason. However, as somebody else pointed out, it is probably a good thing, as buyers who want these will have to migrate to other stock sites, and virtually all of them pay a higher commission to the photographer than Istock.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Another rule change - deleting residential photos without PR (Read 14671 times)

disorderly

Ron

dbvirago

luissantos84

ShadySue

luissantos84

ShadySue

bunhill

ShadySue

bunhill

Ron

Ron

tundracamper

bunhill

Mantis

ShadySue

tundracamper

Elenathewise

Danybot

Ron

ShadySue

bunhill

Elenathewise

bunhill

Danybot

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors