There's a few days grace to send in PRs, as the deactivation is starting on 20th Dec. They have also said that deactivated images can be reactivated after that on receipt of PRs.

There's a huge list of person-made / person-owned things that are potentially next.

Quote from: ShadySue on December 14, 2013, 12:07

There's a huge list of person-made / person-owned things that are potentially next.

where are you getting that information from ?

What information?

Quote from: bunhill on December 14, 2013, 12:08

Quote from: ShadySue on December 14, 2013, 12:07

There's a huge list of person-made / person-owned things that are potentially next.

where are you getting that information from ?

What information?

That there is "a huge list huge list of person-made / person-owned things" which  "are potentially next".

Where is this list ? Who says ?

It seems like the questions and complications with this issue will be endless. Plus there are gray areas which can never be absolutely sorted or made consistent.

In addition, what happens to images pulled from iStock that are on Getty? Do they stay on Getty or will Getty be pulling all their house snaps too?

Then what about images that have been deactivated. How will the contributor know which ones they are? Will the contributor be given a list or will they show on the site somewhere where the contributor can pull them up?

Quote from: ShadySue on December 14, 2013, 12:17

Quote from: bunhill on December 14, 2013, 12:08

Quote from: ShadySue on December 14, 2013, 12:07

There's a huge list of person-made / person-owned things that are potentially next.

where are you getting that information from ?

What information?

That there is "a huge list huge list of person-made / person-owned things" which  "are potentially next".

Where is this list ? Who says ?

There are many person-made/owned things, amny of which has the potential to be deactivatable at any time. That is obvious, and has often been said by admins in various forums, usually along the lines of 'guidelines are constantly being reviewed and are subject to change'.

There have been several rounds of culls when certain content has been deemed 'problematic'.

I can't follow their logic anyway.
Soon after I started I asked about an African mask, the sort you buy in any duka in Africa or can buy here. I was told a PR would be imperative. I pointed out that that would be impossible, as although they are handmade, they are all made to the same design by many workers in wood-carving factories, so you'd never know who had made any individual mask (they are not signed or marked) and the designs are very old. No matter; PR imperative. Ha! When editorial arrived, I thought about my masks as editorial, then found that there were several in the main collection. I presume they got shopkeepers to sign releases, or that releases weren't, in fact, needed.
Conversely, I have a handmade papier mache mask of Ganesha, made in Indonesia but bought here. Initials at the back, presumably those of the artist, but I don't know that for sure. Submitted it as editorial - rejected and told to submit to the Main collection. Queried the rejection and was told it had to go to the Main collection. Didn't do so.

Quote from: bunhill on December 14, 2013, 12:37

That there is "a huge list huge list of person-made / person-owned things" which  "are potentially next".

Where is this list ? Who says ?

Well, it stands to reason that if something that does not have rights needs a rights release, then many other things that do not have rights would need a "release".

Exactly my point.

With respect to a released property later being sold. The answer here, I think, is logically simple and obvious. The house is sold with the release already in place. The person using the stock photograph would be able to quickly confirm that the property release and the photograph pre dated the sale of the property. i.e. - that a pre-existing legal agreement was already in place when the property was sold.

Whether or not the photograph predated the sale of the property is irrelevant.  The current owner will be upset and will threaten legal action if he wants.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on December 14, 2013, 12:47

it stands to reason that if something that does not have rights needs a rights release, then many other things that do not have rights would need a "release".

With respect, it does not IMO (stand to reason). Homes are a particularly sensitive issue. People are understandably often sensitive about their personal space. I can think of no other single thing which compares. Except perhaps pets - and I would guess that many people already now get property releases for pets even though these are not necessarily asked for.

The question of whether or not a release is strictly required is often going to be grey. Especially given that the law, even the basis of the systems of law, varies so much all over the world. No matter - because getting a release is clearly best practice - irrespective of any definite requirement. Because RF stock is supposed to be definitely ready to go problem free and no need for further consultation. Unlike RM. Someone buying an RF stock photo does not want to later be bothered by someone with a complaint which is difficult to address.

So you might as well get a release for everything in the image.  I mean, you wouldn't want Levi's to get upset you're using their design.  Or IKEA to take a poor view of your use of their designed furniture.

The way it is now if you remove a label and/or branding on something then it is ok to sell a trademarked or copyrighted design in one of your commercial photos. So is this going to change too? It seems like it should based on the whole house rationale. Thus, if we can't sell a generic photo of a house anymore then we shouldn't be able to sell a generic looking photo of an iPad where we've removed the buttons, logos, etc either.

I can see this becoming an endless can of worms because technically if Apple can distinguish that it is their iPad in a photo being used for commercial purposes then they technically have grounds for a lawsuit as much as the homeowner of the house does.

I now see how iStock can be backing themselves into a corner here on this issue that they won't be able to get out of so easily if other copyright and trademark owners realize there is now an open door here for a legal dispute.

Since property releases are technically only binding on the current property owner then how is iStock going to feasibly ensure that each property release on file for a house is still up to date at all times?

I don't see how they can and it will become nearly impossible for iStock to guarantee photo buyers in the future that a release is up to date and binding on the property owner at all times.

They would be better off keeping things as they are now and selling photos without releases because selling a photo license with an invalid release has to be much worse then licensing a photo without one at all.

By providing a release you are making a legal promise to the buyer whereas without offering a property release you aren't making a promise.

Common sense says don't even open the door.

Since property releases are technically only binding on the current property owner then how is iStock going to feasibly ensure that each property release on file for a house is still up to date at all times?

Hmmmm
The PS says, "I acknowledge and agree that this rlease is binding upon my heirs if applicable, assigns, or any person claiming an interest in the Property".
Seems weird if that is legal, but anyway even assuming it is, a new owner could  complain to a buyer every bit as much as a current owner, given that a release appears not to be necessary anyway. If someone sees their property in an advert, it's natural they'd think they might be due a lot of money.

I do not know how it works in the US. But in many countries the advocate acting for the buyer has the role of researching existing contracts, covenants etc. I suspect that the contract of sale in many countries will include the seller confirming that there are no undisclosed contracts which relate to the property.

There are loads of issues here too. Some togs probably don't know this is an issue, and just ask for a signature wihtout mentioning it. The current owner who signed probably didn't think that much of it, and later in a legal issue could argue (in some legislations) that they weren't 'fully informed' when they gave their consent. In any case, if the tog was very casual about it, and the owner not really bothered about it, they'd no doubt forget about it five, ten, twenty years down the line.

How could the advocate possibly find out about a property release having been signed? Would an agency even reveal this in such a situation (i.e. if the advocate were trying to ramp up their expenses by contacting every possible agency to ask)? How is the agency going to fund the expense of checking whenever lawyers  write to ask if '1 First Street, Anytown" has a property release signed on it?

Like I said, no skin off my nose; I've already deactivated four 'definites' and one 'maybe' and no doubt will do a few more over the next few days. But as a general issue, it's worth exploring from all angles.

For a property release to remain binding on the new owner after the property is sold etc

What do you mean by 'binding' ? It has nothing to do with a new owner and the new owner is not bound to do anything.

ETA: ok I understand now from the generic PR what you mean by binding in this sense.

You cannot revoke a permission for something which happened (a photograph) previously. The permission is for the photograph when it was taken - agreed by someone who had that permission when the photograph was taken.

We are all over-thinking this. The requirement for PR is already a significant step forward.

.

Bottom line, unless the property release is registered against the property in a legal fashion or the new buyer signs a legal acknowledgment and acceptance of the existing PR when they buy the property, then nothing is binding on the new buyer and your PR becomes worthless as soon as that property changes hands, regardless of what the previous owner might have agreed to in an informal unregistered agreement with a  photographer. In a legal dispute all the new owner would have to say is they were never made aware of the agreement nor did they accept the liability of the PR against the property and they have won the battle.

This is why you are ultimately wrong:

In most countries there is most likely already no legal requirement for a property release anyhow. So this is already belt and braces stuff which would simply provide a further degree of protection (against already rare bother). This probably mostly tends to have more to do with best practice than law.

Anyhow - this has nothing to do with a new buyers. Just the same as they would have no claim over the use of a photograph of the interior of their house taken, say, 100 years ago.