Author Topic: Copyright Issues On Historical Sites? (Read 5327 times)

123XXX · « **on:** October 13, 2010, 03:42 »

I am wondering if anyone is aware of any changes in copyright policies for acceptance of photos taken of historical sites? I just had a couple of outdoor photos I submitted of historical sites marked as pending executive and am wondering if it might be an issue of property rights being a historical site?

Cheers for any knowledge that someone might have on this.

Microbius · « **Reply #1 on:** October 13, 2010, 04:34 »

Probably it's case by case so they will be looking into specific issues with the sites portrayed.

123XXX · « **Reply #2 on:** October 13, 2010, 05:10 »

I sense that is right. I had heard sites like the Eiffel Tower and the Sydney Opera House have issues, but my pictures are of obscure sites. Interesting.

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #3 on:** October 13, 2010, 09:34 »

Some historical sites are owned my preservation societies or other foundations. In some cases those organizations will trademark the property or declare it "private, but open to the public". In that case you would need a property release from the location owner for the images to be used commercially.

123XXX · « **Reply #4 on:** October 13, 2010, 09:43 »

Makes sense. In that case it could be possible the reviewer was not sure about the location of the pictures being declared private or not and maybe wanted a second opinion from an executive reviewer. One possibility I think.

pet_chia · « **Reply #5 on:** October 13, 2010, 09:51 »

Maybe they have a lot of trainee reviewers hired to replace or reinforce the ones who were disgruntled by the change in commissions.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #6 on:** October 13, 2010, 10:53 »

Are your images digital or a film scan?

I ask because they apparently have some sort of internal hijacking of the film queue for a "project" and all film submissions are going via the executive queue to get to an inspector - see here.

123XXX · « **Reply #7 on:** October 13, 2010, 11:12 »

Quote from: jsnover on October 13, 2010, 10:53

Are your images digital or a film scan?

I ask because they apparently have some sort of internal hijacking of the film queue for a "project" and all film submissions are going via the executive queue to get to an inspector - see here.

Your wonderful. Thanks for sending me that forum post. My images do happen to be film scans. That explains it all. Mystery solved. What a relief!!

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #8 on:** October 13, 2010, 11:27 »

Quote from: 123XXX on October 13, 2010, 09:43

Makes sense. In that case it could be possible the reviewer was not sure about the location of the pictures being declared private or not and maybe wanted a second opinion from an executive reviewer. One possibility I think.

That should be irrelevant. A court case in California says property does not get human like publicity protection. If it is "private" they can stop you from getting on, but once off, with images in hand, you shouldn't need a release for most uses (unless trademarked or similarly protected).

Freedom · « **Reply #9 on:** October 13, 2010, 12:18 »

Istock is very confused about the subject.

iStock accepted a historical site image when it was shot from a distance, but rejected a closer image of the same site for copyright reasons.

However, before and after my closer image was rejected, iStock approved other people's images of the same location and at close distance.

I think it depends on the inspector.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #10 on:** October 13, 2010, 14:24 »

Yep different inspectors accept different things and IS is confused about the issues, I can't figure out what they are saying the rules are. Here is what support told me: "As you’ve requested I’ve taken another look at image number XXXXXXX which was rejected due to copyright issues. After doing so I have come to the conclusion that the inspector made the correct decision. Recent artwork including statues that are created after 1884 may represent a liability risk to the buyer, the photographer and iStock."

The thing is that this answer just says an image after 1884, like one created in 2009 may be a risk. It really isn't an answer at all I know some images that are more recent than 1884 are a problem. I also thought it had to do with the death date of the creator. I had about 5 more emails with support before they stopped responding but in the end I think I was told that I would have to prove that the copyright had not passed on to some relatives even though the creator died over 75 years ago. That seems to mean that the copyright can last forever if the copyright is passed on to someone else. I really don't understand how this works and IS support hasn't done a good job explaining this.