pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Difference in the requirement of property release from different sites  (Read 1738 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 19, 2015, 04:32 »
0
I have tried uploading a photo of several commercial buildings in it to IS and SS. The photo was taken on the street. One of site requires property release but the other doesn't. Do you have similar experience and do you know why ?


« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2015, 11:25 »
+1
You can find lots of information online about model and property releases, but from the point of view of the agencies, they get to set their own policies as they see fit, largely to minimize any risk of a lawsuit or other trouble.

Many agencies differentiate between a wide shot of a city street (which typically will not require a release) and a shot of one building (which often will require a release). You don't want legal hassles any more than the agencies do, so erring on the side of caution has a lot of appeal.

https://asmp.org/tutorials/property-and-model-releases.html#.Vk32UmSrQ18

https://asmp.org/tutorials/using-property-releases.html#.Vk33UmSrQ18

http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/contributor-resources/legal/stock-image-releases/

http://www.alamy.com/help/what-is-model-release-property-release.asp

http://www.agefotostock.com/phroad/ingles/phroad03d.asp

« Reply #2 on: November 19, 2015, 12:31 »
0
definitely go along with jo ann,  best to get a PR if you can. this will minimize the risk of future problems.
i find that the site that sells the most are the more likely to err on the side of caution, as jo ann
said.

« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2015, 21:08 »
0
Just my two cents worth.
Some of the NEWER sites seem to be allowing images that are obviously NOT RF into the RF section, saw this great pic of a melbourne alleyway full of coffee shops, people looking at the camera, logos everywhere and they were licensing it as RF and this site originates in Melbourne, you'd think they would know better.
So you should also be doubly careful submitting images to sites that just accept images as RF when the obviously are not.

Remember it is your responsibility, you took the shot!!

ShadySue

« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2015, 04:02 »
+2
Just my two cents worth.
Some of the NEWER sites seem to be allowing images that are obviously NOT RF into the RF section, saw this great pic of a melbourne alleyway full of coffee shops, people looking at the camera, logos everywhere and they were licensing it as RF and this site originates in Melbourne, you'd think they would know better.
So you should also be doubly careful submitting images to sites that just accept images as RF when the obviously are not.

Remember it is your responsibility, you took the shot!!

I don't think you understand the distinction between the RF/RM models of selling and editorial/commercial licensing.
Several of the micros have RF editorial licences. Just as some of the macros/midstock sites have RM commercial licences.

« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2015, 05:06 »
0


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
17 Replies
8116 Views
Last post August 17, 2010, 10:48
by Anyka
1 Replies
1215 Views
Last post November 07, 2012, 02:17
by enstoker
3 Replies
2083 Views
Last post June 29, 2013, 12:43
by Ron
7 Replies
2172 Views
Last post September 16, 2013, 08:30
by gillian vann
2 Replies
1034 Views
Last post October 04, 2015, 10:04
by PZF

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results