pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Istock Rejection  (Read 8730 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 11, 2007, 09:51 »
0
Usually I let something like this die, but my acceptance ratio at Istock hovers at a pathetic and humiliating 50% so I thought I would ask for some help from those with experience.  No, this isn't a magnificent photo.  It sells occasionally and is on every site but Istock where I just can't seem to do anything right.   Some "occasional" sellers go crazy at Istock.  I hear others complain about StockXpert rejections and I just don't believe it. 

This garden ornament is mass produced.  I did take this at a country restaurant, but the same object appears in two private yards on my street.  It was available at Costco, Walmart and Canadian Tire.  Am I supposed to have a property release for it?  Who would sign that?  The restaurant manager?  This shot was taken 3 summers ago!

It doesn't say anything about copyright of the artwork.

Rejection Reason

Please provide a focused description for this file. Aim to describe the main subject as well as possible (its location and origin), as a creative work of any kind, other than your own, needs to be in the public domain to be considered for royalty-free photography.

Please include any valuable information regarding the file and the ownership of the original artwork. Make sure that your description is clear, helpful and targeted to the client who may be interested in your image (and not to the inspector). Thank you.

iStock Property Release:
http://www.istockphoto.com/docs/propertyrelease.pdf



My description included something like "lower foreground is out of focus".

Since it is not overfiltered, no stray feathered areas, no artifacts, maybe I can get it through, can anyone offer assistance with description and how to handle the property release business? 



vonkara

« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2007, 10:22 »
0
Don't know if this is going to be helpful, but this is what i understand about property release.

 Any artwork is subject to need a property release. Because if the owner of any product or artwork can easily recognize it's work, you will need the release, who let you the liberty to make money whit his property. ( I think this is what they name the trademark )

When you talk about a flat computer screen, they all look similar. Then you can just remove the logos of the company and it seem to be OK. Because no company can easily say this is their product design.

But it is always difficult to know for me too!


« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2007, 10:53 »
0
This garden ornament is mass produced.  I did take this at a country restaurant, but the same object appears in two private yards on my street.  It was available at Costco, Walmart and Canadian Tire.  Am I supposed to have a property release for it?  Who would sign that?  The restaurant manager?  This shot was taken 3 summers ago!

It doesn't say anything about copyright of the artwork.
It is the little boy and girl statute they're objecting to. Even though it is mass produced, the artwork is still copyrighted. You'd have to get a property/copyright release from the original artist of the work, which is nearly impossible. It doesn't matter who the owner of the statute is, or where it is, only who owns the copyright to it. That's who needs to sign the property release.

Basicallly the only artwork allowed in stock photographs are ones in the public domain (and you'd have to obtain proof of this), or artworks where the copyright has lapsed (life of artist +70 years, or for works for hire 95 or 120). So, basically the only safe artwork for stock  photography is 200 years old.

« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2007, 11:33 »
0
Yinyang, I totally buy that explanation.  But surely the 301 garden gnomes returned in a search are not all property released?  Or one more frequently discussed - the 1821 teddy bears returned by search.  Did those contributors have to jump through hoops to get online? 

Maybe I am doubly scrutinized because of my poor acceptance?

« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2007, 12:07 »
0
Yinyang, I totally buy that explanation.  But surely the 301 garden gnomes returned in a search are not all property released?  Or one more frequently discussed - the 1821 teddy bears returned by search.  Did those contributors have to jump through hoops to get online? 

Maybe I am doubly scrutinized because of my poor acceptance?
Well there aren't 301 garden gnomes in that search, most don't have a garden gnome in the photo. Of those that are, some are probably old enough not to be copyrighted and some clearly shouldn't have been excepted. You'll see that a search of garden statues yields mostly old works of art (and a few gnomes). But the point is that just because some things got through that doesn't justify letting other violations in.

If it was me, I would just chalk it up in the fubar column and moved on to more productive stock photos. Generic items (no logos), people, etc.

« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2007, 13:28 »
0
IS is very careful about any risk of problem.  As far as I know, the problem is when the questionable item is the main subject - it's about the same in any site, and in fact I think all are getting more and more careful about this.  But IS takes a step further in this.  Maybe those images you saw are old?

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2007, 13:50 »
0
I agree, MOVE ON.  I don't usually overanalyze rejections.  But just so I understand - they point me to a property release which says "I am the owner of the property"...

Are they looking for the artist who created the property, or the owner of the property that I was standing on?

« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2007, 07:27 »
0
In this situation, as noted above, they are looking for the owner of the statue to sign a property release. Unless you yourself created that statue, then you would sign the release and state that you sculpted the statue.

If you had taken that photo of a statue in a recognizable garden, let's say Central Park in NY as an example, you would more than likely need a property release for the statue AND from Central Park because you took the photo on their property.

« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2007, 10:10 »
0
In this situation, as noted above, they are looking for the owner of the statue to sign a property release. Unless you yourself created that statue, then you would sign the release and state that you sculpted the statue.
No, they're looking for the artist who owns the copyright to the statute to sign the property release, not the owner of the statue. This is a common mistake a lot of people make. Just because you own the statue doesn't mean you own the copyright to it. I normally explain it to photographers like this: If I buy a print of one of your photographs, do you think I should be able to copy it and sell the copies? It's the same principal.

« Reply #9 on: October 15, 2007, 17:17 »
0
sorry yingyang I meant the same thing, just said it wrong. but thanks for reiterating.

« Reply #10 on: October 22, 2007, 15:30 »
0
Saw this by accident in the newest uploads. Wouldn't this be considered a copyrighted item too? 

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=4482368

This confuses me, because it is not a very ordinary item.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #11 on: October 23, 2007, 09:10 »
0
I agree... that could be considered art work.

I had a very public statue picture from Washington DC rejected on copyright concerns. Yet, I see public statues from all over the world uploaded daily... go figure...

digiology

« Reply #12 on: October 23, 2007, 09:39 »
0
I actually find the lamp to be much more generic than the statue. But you are right...someone designed it. It must be difficult to draw the line.

vonkara

« Reply #13 on: November 01, 2007, 15:17 »
0
How about this one ...they tell me to rotate that file?????Wow!!!!

http://www.stockxpert.com/browse.phtml?f=view&id=6020771
« Last Edit: November 01, 2007, 15:31 by Vonkara »

« Reply #14 on: November 01, 2007, 15:45 »
0
How about this one ...they tell me to rotate that file?????Wow!!!!

http://www.stockxpert.com/browse.phtml?f=view&id=6020771


we can't click on that link - it is only for you who is logged in under your name :(

« Reply #15 on: November 01, 2007, 16:39 »
0
Vonkara's link works fine for me.

« Reply #16 on: November 01, 2007, 16:51 »
0
Vonkara's link works fine for me.

That's because it is now changed to a stockxpert link ;)

vonkara

« Reply #17 on: November 01, 2007, 17:22 »
0
Vonkara's link works fine for me.

That's because it is now changed to a stockxpert link ;)
Yes, sorry, I tried to make the change fast but you clicked on it faster

« Reply #18 on: November 01, 2007, 19:25 »
0
How about this one ...they tell me to rotate that file?????Wow!!!

They were probably not going to tell you to rotate the file. They probably want to rotate you the phone's keypad during a re-shoot to get rid of this nasty perspective distorsion, making the picture looking incredibly better and more useful.

« Reply #19 on: November 01, 2007, 20:10 »
0
No copyright issue on this one?

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=4553402

Regards,
Adelaide

vonkara

« Reply #20 on: November 01, 2007, 20:40 »
0
How about this one ...they tell me to rotate that file?????Wow!!!

They were probably not going to tell you to rotate the file. They probably want to rotate you the phone's keypad during a re-shoot to get rid of this nasty perspective distorsion, making the picture looking incredibly better and more useful.
Yeah, that would make more sense, but however, it's the phone who have this little curve...it would be difficult whit a 150 fixed lens to correct this curve. But thanks, it's not IS who is going to be more clear about that.

« Reply #21 on: November 02, 2007, 01:52 »
0
Don't know who's image this is but it's got some bad keyword spamming.

No copyright issue on this one?

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=4553402

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #22 on: November 02, 2007, 09:53 »
0
I didn't pay attention to the keywords, but as I saw this on the "newest uploads", it reminded me of a rubber duck that was shown in the wiki IS has/had about copyright issues.  Maybe it's not the same rubber duck, but I believe the issue would eb the same.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #23 on: November 03, 2007, 18:29 »
0
You can eliminate the curvature on that phone pad by using the lens correction filter in photoshop.  Quite easy.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
4043 Views
Last post October 25, 2012, 20:27
by Suljo
2 Replies
2368 Views
Last post January 31, 2007, 16:28
by madelaide
3 Replies
2369 Views
Last post April 21, 2008, 22:44
by anonymous
2 Replies
2373 Views
Last post December 23, 2015, 19:39
by Hildegarde
3 Replies
2297 Views
Last post January 02, 2017, 18:41
by unnonimus

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle