You could submit a photo of a flower if you only use keywords for the flower and dont mention where you took it. You could submit all the others without a release as editorial photos to any site that allows editorial images.


I dont think city skylines need releases but maybe someone can clarify that further.

You don't need a property release for images shot in US national parks - those are all public, even though you have to pay a fee to get in.  You need a permit if you want to do a big shoot there with models or a wedding or something - that is the kind of commercial photography they are talking about.  Shutterstock has a list of places that do or do not need releases and whether suitable for editorial - I think it is on their blog, but do a search and you will find it.  City skylines are fine but you will need to get rid of all corporate logos or submit them editorial.  The agencies will let you know if you do it wrong according to their rules, which are often more conservative than legally necessary.

For what it's worth, I have never needed a release for the Golden Gate Bridge or any other bridge I've submitted.  Buildings are more likely to be an issue, especially famous landmarks like the Empire State.  And there are some odd cases.  I believe the San Francisco Bay Bridge at night requires a release because of a copyright on the light show.  It's the same situation as the Eiffel Tower: fine during the day but not at night when the lights are on.

I hope I'm not distracting the conversation. I've read about editorials on this thread and recalled something. I'd really appreciate if somebody could clarify this editorial example (this shot is one of many similar on Shutterstock): http://www.shutterstock.com/ru/video/clip-10768688-stock-footage-prague-czech-republic-may-billboard-in-the-city-urban-street-with-buildings-green.html?src=search/4sfNcav1M_VqZILvRsXTAA:1:23/3p

How editorial licence could be applied here? Isn't it supposed buyer would add his own commercial instead of the green screen? I doubt this is an editorial use.

My understanding of Editorial was that it shouldn't be manipulated to show something that wasn't there so yes puzzling whether thats a legal or ethical consideration I'm not sure.

"Then I learned that photos of the Golden Gate Bridge need a Property Release"

The above is not true. All structures and buildings in the US built before 1990 **CANNOT** have copyright protection. The Golden Gate Bridge was built before 1990.

"The following building designs cannot be registered:"
"Structures other than buildings, such as bridges"
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ41.pdf

Other buldings in the US that *DO NOT HAVE COPYRIGHT PROTECTION*
- Chrysler Building
- Empire State Building
- all building built before 1990

"I believe the San Francisco Bay Bridge at night requires a release because of a copyright on the light show"

Copyrights of light shows do not transfer to derivative works such as photos. Almost any photo taken by a photographer is copyrighted by the photographer, unless you take a photo of another photo (or painting).

Citation, please.  According to this article and several other opinions I have read, the claims to copyright fall in line with European law.  Of course, a court could rule otherwise, but until they do, it pays to be cautious.  In any event, it's up to the stock agencies to decide what they will and won't accept, and I suspect they won't see the risk as worth taking.

Just to clarify, if you have a light show, and you copyright your light show, your copyright protects you from having other light shows duplicate your light show, which prevents you from earning revenue, because people will attend the other light show instead of yours.

Taking a photo of a light show is never copyright infringement. Your photo does not prevent the original copyright owner from earning money by putting on their light show. It falls under fair use because your photo of the light show is a new creative work, whereby you used your own judgement as to how to frame your photo and what it includes, at your direction. Also, events such as light shows (and sporting events) cannot be copyrighted (I asked the copyright office about events and they replied and told me that live events cannot be copyrighted).

This has been upheld in court many times.

Unfortunately I think you are deeply wrong. You cannot make money of ANY copyrighted work if it is not yours or you have the pertinent authorization, That is the law and the agencies obey it for a good reason. You cannot copy nor make any derivative new copyrighted work of another author work without his/her explicit permission (editorial/informative work being an exception in some cases). You cannot make/sell plasticine mickey mouses with bigger ears and smaller noses because you will be in big trouble. You can not take a photo of Mickey mouse and sell postcards because you will run into big trouble. The same with the Eiffel tower night light show for that matter. I will point you to real cases where people lost for trying to make profits with derivative works from other copyrighted objects/creations. One the Cavalli case with graffiti work and one Getty selling stock photos where Le Corbusier furniture appeared.
http://the1709blog.blogspot.com.es/2014/08/le-corbusier-heirs-score-win-over-getty.html
http://www.thefashionlaw.com/home/robert-cavalli-settles-suits-still-stuck-with-bad-press

There are exceptions to this like the Freedom of Press in most democracies in the world or Freedom of Panorama in some countries of the world . The line is sometimes very thin but the consequences of a mistake can be a big issue. Stock agencies/distributors are everyday less willing to take risks in this front.   

you said: "You cannot copy nor make any derivative new copyrighted work of another author work without his/her explicit permission"

you are wrong, derivatives fall under Fair Use and is legal.

Quote from: unnonimus on December 28, 2016, 00:04

you said: "You cannot copy nor make any derivative new copyrighted work of another author work without his/her explicit permission"

you are wrong, derivatives fall under Fair Use and is legal.

Wrong again, sorry.  You can't make a catch all statement like that.
http://www.photoattorney.com/2008/11/does-derivative-work-violate-your.html
http://cdas.com/how-much-is-too-much-transformative-works-vs-derivative-works-photographer-wins-appropriation-art-copyright-case/
http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/derivative-work.html
http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2010/photographing-public-art-legal-waltz-seattle

My honest opinion.... You are somewhat both correct but Sean is a tiny bit more correct.

The problem the term "Fair use". What I would consider to be Fair use does not necessarily mean it is for Sean or someone else. Yes there are guidelines as to what is considered a Fair use but those are only guidelines. For me, and it does not mean it is correct - it is just my opinion, is if you intend to use it for commercial purposes. For example: you create a great image with nothing but a light show that is under copyright. Fair use is out of the question. You take a panoramic shot of a hill with light show  entering the frame - well it is clear that the subject was the hill and not the light so you would be in the clear.
Either way, I personally believe that there is no one strict answer, it is rather case by case situation.

you said: " For example: you create a great image with nothing but a light show that is under copyright. Fair use is out of the question."

You do not understand copyright law and are spreading false information.

A photo of a light show is 100% the copyright of the photographer, not the creator of the light show. It is 100% fair use. This is basic copyright law.

If you create your own light show and copy someone else's light show, that is infringement. a photo of someone else's creative work is not infringement in most cases.

This is basic copyright law. Please stop spreading misinformation because you and the others are 100% wrong, and so are the stock agencies.

The only source for copyright law (in the US) is copyright.gov.

I find this one of the many frustrations of the industry every site has its own interpretation and is inconsistent within that they also change the rules a lot so you will see examples of stuff that would never be allowed now.

And much more confusion. No release needed for bridges or national parks, unless it's commercial. That doesn't mean Micro, it means productions or for hire shoots.