pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Another rule change - deleting residential photos without PR  (Read 5584 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: April 23, 2014, 16:10 »
+2
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.

I guess we should get rid of all editorial then, just in case an image with people in it was shot in Hungary? ;)


« Reply #26 on: April 23, 2014, 16:22 »
+1
They gave you the option to upload PRs when the thing was announced. Both in the email and at the site.

don't remember seeing that, anyway without doing anything they decided to reactivate it an hour ago, guess they are checking the forum here :D

« Reply #27 on: April 23, 2014, 16:30 »
0
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?

I understand Sue!

stockphotoeurope

« Reply #28 on: April 23, 2014, 16:30 »
+2
  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


As an architect (my other job) I truly appreciate the clarity of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/62
which is clearly based on a proper understanding of the distinction between a building and its representation, by stating that a photograph of a building is not a violation of copyright. This solves the copyright issues completely in my opinion.
Unfortunately, it still doesn't clear the property issues, probably because it's not the purpose of that Act, thus leaving the interpretation of commercial use to the advertising authority.

The German Panoramafreiheit not only states the same concept, but with the paragraph in bold also allows the distribution of those photographs explicitly (if I understand correctly, since I can't read German and used Google translator), thus allowing every use, not just personal use:

  59 UrhG Werke an ffentlichen Pltzen
    (1) Zulssig ist, Werke, die sich bleibend an ffentlichen Wegen, Straen oder Pltzen befinden, mit Mitteln der Malerei oder Grafik, durch Lichtbild oder durch Film zu vervielfltigen, zu verbreiten und ffentlich wiederzugeben. Bei Bauwerken erstrecken sich diese Befugnisse nur auf die uere Ansicht.
    (2) Die Vervielfltigungen drfen nicht an einem Bauwerk vorgenommen werden.


Curiously - despite being Italian - the situation in Italy it is a lot less clear to me. But this is probably another issue: Roman law (and way too many laws) vs Common Law (with fewer, simpler acts).

Amidst all these different regulations, I am afraid they are just taking the easy way (better safe than sorry) instead of properly checking each country's legislation.

Similarly, they reject all "castles in Europe" just because some are the property of the National Trust in the UK. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

With their generous take, one could expect a bit more of research. However it's their policy... as long as other sites are accepting such pictures, I am not worried (I feel sorry for exclusives).

« Last Edit: April 23, 2014, 17:32 by stockphotoeurope »

« Reply #29 on: April 23, 2014, 16:42 »
+2
Hi All,

 Here is a good link that answers a lot of questions being asked here. I love the opening statement to the link. ": There is only one answer to every question ever put to a lawyer. That answer is, "It depends." The reason for this is that the answers to legal questions are always based on two things: the law and the facts. The lawyer may know the law, but he/she probably won't know all of the facts, and a slight change in what seems like a minor detail can result in a completely different answer " I hope this is a bit of help in a very grey area.

https://asmp.org/articles/business-and-legal-faq.html#.U1gzcxaq7d4

Cheers,
Jonathan

ShadySue

« Reply #30 on: April 23, 2014, 17:16 »
0
Similarly, they reject all "castles in Europe" just because some are the property of the National Trust in the UK. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
They also now reject buildings with castellation, even if they're not castles, which isn't unusual in e.g. Scotland - long before the residential buildings. Also they rejected a former castle which is now an office block (and there are previously submitted pics of same, still live and non-editorial).

BTW, the feeling is generally that the NT/NTS are on shaky legal ground (there have allegedly been cases where they've challenged agencies on images, taken from public places and sold as editorial), but they do rattle the cages of the agencies, because they sell images of their properties themselves. However, no agency wants to get dragged through the mud taking on a national charity which 'needs the money'.
BTW, I've also heard more than once that one of them (NT/NTS?) would sign a release provided they got 50% of the proceeds, which of course is impossible with any agency, but would possibly be agreeable to someone on e.g. Symbiostock.

« Reply #31 on: April 23, 2014, 17:20 »
+1
So if this images were transferred to editorial use they could keep them?

stockphotoeurope

« Reply #32 on: April 23, 2014, 17:22 »
0
deleted double post

« Reply #33 on: April 23, 2014, 20:33 »
0
They did reactivate my deactivated images as I did have property releases submitted with them.

lisafx

« Reply #34 on: April 23, 2014, 22:43 »
0
I only had two deactivated.  Fortunately most of my port is not affected, and the two deactivations were not big sellers. 

FWIW, one of them was a public historical site which hasn't been in private hands for about 120 years.  For the amount of sales it had it would not be worth flying to Kentucky to try and get a release signed though...

« Reply #35 on: April 24, 2014, 01:30 »
+2
Shutterstock does not accept buildings in main focus. I had very large houses like skyscraper and an one public building in main focus and they rejected it. I had a two property releases too for these buildings, but reply was a copyright infringement. Same for tractor in field. All logos and numbers were removed. There is no problems with such images at macro agencies. I add this image as link.

http://goo.gl/6jr9Z

« Reply #36 on: April 24, 2014, 01:49 »
+1
The German Panoramafreiheit not only states the same concept, but with the paragraph in bold also allows the distribution of those photographs explicitly (if I understand correctly, since I can't read German and used Google translator), thus allowing every use, not just personal use:

  59 UrhG Werke an ffentlichen Pltzen
    (1) Zulssig ist, Werke, die sich bleibend an ffentlichen Wegen, Straen oder Pltzen befinden, mit Mitteln der Malerei oder Grafik, durch Lichtbild oder durch Film zu vervielfltigen, zu verbreiten und ffentlich wiederzugeben. Bei Bauwerken erstrecken sich diese Befugnisse nur auf die uere Ansicht.
    (2) Die Vervielfltigungen drfen nicht an einem Bauwerk vorgenommen werden.

Yet Germany is to my knowledge the only bigger country where Google offered an "Opt Out" for StreetView, so people could report if they did not want to see their houses in it. They had to blur hundreds of thousands of houses from their pictures as a result.

It was not because the law would not have been on Google's side but popular opinion and the support of politicians in an effort to protect privacy made them consider it might not be good for their reputation to push through what they might have legally be allowed to do. As I have read as a result Google gave up taking new pictures for StreetView in Germany for the time being.

That is just an example of how things are: Even if the law is on your side, it's sometimes smarter not to get into an argument.

And quite frankly, there are enough photographers out there who are willing and able to provide property releases for the locations they shoot. So why should agencies need to put up with the potential of problems when they also can get similar content hassle-free?

ShadySue

« Reply #37 on: April 24, 2014, 08:26 »
0
So if this images were transferred to editorial use they could keep them?

Yes, but remember the points here: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=360598&messageid=7005534

« Reply #38 on: April 24, 2014, 09:16 »
0
If studio shots or illustrations can be editorial why edited images cannot? Asking to re-edit and re-upload as editorial is just shifting work to contributors.

So if this images were transferred to editorial use they could keep them?

Yes, but remember the points here: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=360598&messageid=7005534

« Reply #39 on: April 24, 2014, 11:32 »
0
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?

and of course, who knows whether the PR I signed by the owner?  renters can't sign away an owners alleged rights

this just gets sillier & sillier -- but again, it's only IS, so it hardly matters

« Reply #40 on: April 24, 2014, 11:36 »
0
Renters can sign, in my view.

« Reply #41 on: April 24, 2014, 12:48 »
+3
8 of mine removed: all historic homes owned by city parks. Clearly stated that they were public property and not needing a property release. Istock is such a pain in the ass to deal with. 

« Reply #42 on: April 26, 2014, 04:53 »
+3
Oh dear, this explains a lot.  I recently uploaded a group of images of facades of 100+ year old buildings in a European city, all taken in the one street.  In their infinite wisdom, iStock allowed some as RF commercial, knocked back some with the option to resubmit as editorial, and gave others no option to resubmit (ie property release or nothing). Some of the inconsistencies are for the same building! 

IMHO, and my day job is an IP lawyer, there cannot be any reasonable basis for requiring a  property release for these images.  I sent a query to Scout (very polite, really) asking if they could explain the inconsistency.

After reading this, I expect the outcome will be that the already accepted (for commercial) images will be deactivated.  groan


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
3552 Views
Last post May 12, 2009, 18:47
by goldenangel
3 Replies
1450 Views
Last post July 27, 2011, 23:12
by pancaketom
8 Replies
2068 Views
Last post November 16, 2014, 23:23
by imagesbykenny
2 Replies
1151 Views
Last post April 21, 2019, 05:54
by vuk8691
5 Replies
2230 Views
Last post May 15, 2019, 08:17
by christiano

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results