MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Do any of the agencies accept these kind of images?  (Read 10663 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« on: January 29, 2010, 12:22 »
0
This is a filtered photo through photoshop...made to look like a drawing. Do any of them accept these types of files or do they considered over filtered? Just wondering cause if they do it's sure fun to play around with it.


« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2010, 12:36 »
0
Filtration is cool but generally detracts from sales. But this has never stopped me from doing it. However a shot like that is better off at someplace like Alamy.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #2 on: January 29, 2010, 12:39 »
0
I know I'd have to have a property release for it. I have more examples but that one was the smallest file and I would have to resize to post them here...to much of a hassle...just wondered. I guess I could try uploading some on sites besides iStock. Wouldn't want to clog up my 15 per week slots just to find out... ;D

« Reply #3 on: January 29, 2010, 12:53 »
0
That's the thing, you wouldn't need a release for Alamy if you submit as an L image with no release indicated. It can still be used for editorial which although not a huge market, can still place value on such images.

« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2010, 12:54 »
0
As cool as an image may look with those kinds of effects added to it, it can only hurt your sales.  A good designer is looking for a decent source image to start with and he/she already has in mind what kind of effects he/she would like to apply for the intended end result.  By putting an altered image out there to start with, you're significantly cutting the number of people who might want it.  

« Reply #5 on: January 29, 2010, 13:11 »
0
That doesn't look like a drawing.  It looks like an image that somebody applied a bunch of filters to.

You wouldn't need a PR for an old farm building, anywhere.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #6 on: January 29, 2010, 13:15 »
0
That's the thing, you wouldn't need a release for Alamy if you submit as an L image with no release indicated. It can still be used for editorial which although not a huge market, can still place value on such images.

Not sure that is right, Zeus.  Isn't there a restriction on editing editorial?  I think you can only crop ... maybe a little contrast or sharpening???


« Reply #7 on: January 29, 2010, 13:21 »
0
That's the thing, you wouldn't need a release for Alamy if you submit as an L image with no release indicated. It can still be used for editorial which although not a huge market, can still place value on such images.

Not sure that is right, Zeus.  Isn't there a restriction on editing editorial?  I think you can only crop ... maybe a little contrast or sharpening???



Perhaps that is true. I would submit without all the filtration. I have tried all kinds of filtration and although I love it, it never sells.

« Reply #8 on: January 29, 2010, 13:25 »
0
AFAIK, Alamy doesn't try to position itself as a news agency and doesn't have "restrictions" on editorial submissions.  Editorial is just a license type that says "I don't have releases for this", so people know to only use it in certain ways.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #9 on: January 29, 2010, 14:16 »
0
That doesn't look like a drawing.  It looks like an image that somebody applied a bunch of filters to.

You wouldn't need a PR for an old farm building, anywhere.
The more "I" look at the more "I" don't like it....lol ::)
Actually it would proubably need a property release because it is a operating feed mill. I doubt any one would want to buy an image like that as editoral. Oh well it was fun creating it, but your proubably right it wouldn't sell.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #10 on: January 29, 2010, 14:41 »
0
That's the thing, you wouldn't need a release for Alamy if you submit as an L image with no release indicated. It can still be used for editorial which although not a huge market, can still place value on such images.

Not sure that is right, Zeus.  Isn't there a restriction on editing editorial?  I think you can only crop ... maybe a little contrast or sharpening???

You have to say at upload whether it's been digitally altered or not.
FWIW, I also don't think this building would require a PR.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #11 on: January 29, 2010, 15:27 »
0
That's the thing, you wouldn't need a release for Alamy if you submit as an L image with no release indicated. It can still be used for editorial which although not a huge market, can still place value on such images.

Not sure that is right, Zeus.  Isn't there a restriction on editing editorial?  I think you can only crop ... maybe a little contrast or sharpening???

You have to say at upload whether it's been digitally altered or not.
FWIW, I also don't think this building would require a PR.
Are you saying because it was digitally altered it wouldn't need a PR or would no PR required apply to the original photo also. I never upload these because I don't have PR"s on them. I have alot of these type photos...power plants...ect ect.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #12 on: January 29, 2010, 15:35 »
0
There was a court decision sometime back and I don't know details but read somewhere that buildings (in the USA) that were built prior to 1990 and had no copyright registered with the copyright office were NOT protected by copyright law and, therefore, need no release.

There is a lot of confusing copyright information on the internet.  Much of what or how it is interpreted is site-specific. 

And, remember, that nothing offered in a public forum is more correct than anything else offered in a public forum.  Most of us are just expressing opinions with minimal research backup.   ::)

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #13 on: January 29, 2010, 16:06 »
0
There was a court decision sometime back and I don't know details but read somewhere that buildings (in the USA) that were built prior to 1990 and had no copyright registered with the copyright office were NOT protected by copyright law and, therefore, need no release.

There is a lot of confusing copyright information on the internet.  Much of what or how it is interpreted is site-specific. 

And, remember, that nothing offered in a public forum is more correct than anything else offered in a public forum.  Most of us are just expressing opinions with minimal research backup.   ::)
I understand...i would assume that the PR would have to go with the well known landmarks..of which I doubt anyone could get unless you were related to the Queen of England...and of course that would be site specific...I just have never tryed uploading anything like these...meaning the actual pictures.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #14 on: January 29, 2010, 16:37 »
0
There was a court decision sometime back and I don't know details but read somewhere that buildings (in the USA) that were built prior to 1990 and had no copyright registered with the copyright office were NOT protected by copyright law and, therefore, need no release.

There is a lot of confusing copyright information on the internet.  Much of what or how it is interpreted is site-specific. 

And, remember, that nothing offered in a public forum is more correct than anything else offered in a public forum.  Most of us are just expressing opinions with minimal research backup.   ::)
I understand...i would assume that the PR would have to go with the well known landmarks..of which I doubt anyone could get unless you were related to the Queen of England...and of course that would be site specific...I just have never tryed uploading anything like these...meaning the actual pictures.
If in England, you're generally OK if you're shooting from a public place. Scotland is the same. :-) It's generally thought that even those images which are generally culled from agencies (e.g. NT) are also OK if taken from a public place, but the NT rattled their cage and several agencies culled some images, though some still remain in these same collections. Well-known landmarks would generally be particularly OK! In fact, there are several of Buck House on iStock, who are notoriously conservative.

RacePhoto

« Reply #15 on: January 29, 2010, 23:48 »
0

You wouldn't need a PR for an old farm building, anywhere.


Yeah, we went back and forth on this over a year ago, and you we're right back then. Nothing has changed.  :)

The agencies will refuse all kinds of things for needing a property release, an old grain silo in a field with a farm house for example, but they don't really need one.

Here's one link that I came up with in a quick, short search.

American Society of Media Photographers
http://asmp.org/tutorials/using-property-releases.html

ASMP has never seen a statute or a legal case that requires a release for property.

Then they go on to link to the form and explain why you might want one anyway.  ::)

Here's one with some information on monuments and architecture.

http://www.patentcopyrighttrademarkblog.com/2008/08/do-you-need-permission-to-publ.html

As for the copyright in the buildings, it's true that architecture created after 1990 is protected under copyright law, but that's not an issue for you because there is an exception that permits you to photograph and publish constructed buildings that are publicly viewable.


I'm not a lawyer, so I'll leave it with that.

I just had a scenic hand colored postcard, clearly marked 1907, refused at one agency, for Copyright. I wrote and appealed on the grounds that the copyright expired in 1992, but I don't expect that to make any points. Seems some places make up the rules as they go along. ;) Another was a real photo card from the same era (postmarked 1907) same deal.

« Reply #16 on: January 30, 2010, 09:39 »
0
Quote
The agencies will refuse all kinds of things for needing a property release, an old grain silo in a field with a farm house for example, but they don't really need one.

Exactly. It doesn't matter whether a PR is legally needed for some of these buildings...the agencies will refuse the shots anyway...their game, their rules.

I remember a specific example a while back...it was a gorgeous photo of an old farm building in a field of yellow, lots of great colors going on. Rejected because it needed a property release. The person who took was on public property.

Based on what I have seen happen in the past, I'm going to say her photo would need a PR, especially since it's a currently operating mill. If old abandoned shacks in the middle of nowhere need a release, I'm thinking this would too. Not that I think it makes any sense.

« Reply #17 on: January 30, 2010, 11:32 »
0
That's the thing, you wouldn't need a release for Alamy if you submit as an L image with no release indicated. It can still be used for editorial which although not a huge market, can still place value on such images.

Not sure that is right, Zeus.  Isn't there a restriction on editing editorial?  I think you can only crop ... maybe a little contrast or sharpening???

You have to say at upload whether it's been digitally altered or not.
FWIW, I also don't think this building would require a PR.

No, it would likely not require a release. Only a few buildings with copyrighted designs require releases. Very few.

« Reply #18 on: January 30, 2010, 11:34 »
0
Quote
The agencies will refuse all kinds of things for needing a property release, an old grain silo in a field with a farm house for example, but they don't really need one.

Exactly. It doesn't matter whether a PR is legally needed for some of these buildings...the agencies will refuse the shots anyway...their game, their rules.

I remember a specific example a while back...it was a gorgeous photo of an old farm building in a field of yellow, lots of great colors going on. Rejected because it needed a property release. The person who took was on public property.

Based on what I have seen happen in the past, I'm going to say her photo would need a PR, especially since it's a currently operating mill. If old abandoned shacks in the middle of nowhere need a release, I'm thinking this would too. Not that I think it makes any sense.

We're not talking any agency we are talking about Alamy here. Way different rules.

« Reply #19 on: January 30, 2010, 13:24 »
0
Quote
We're not talking any agency we are talking about Alamy here. Way different rules.

The OP was asking about ANY agency. That is kind of who I was addressing. Yes, Alamy may be different. In fact, all the sites ALL have different criteria. But I think it is safe to say if you are going to upload a building shot, you should have a property release. Good practice for someone new coming into microstock to get into.  Just my humble opinion.

« Reply #20 on: January 30, 2010, 15:28 »
0
No common building shot, like a grain whatever, needs a property release.  Don't feed the fire.

« Reply #21 on: January 30, 2010, 16:16 »
0
Not exactly sure if you're talking to me, Sean and if you are, not exactly sure what fire you think is being fed but here is some info, for anyone who hasn't looked it up themselves.

From StockXpert:

Property Release Requirements

Stockxpert requires you to upload a validly signed property release for all images or footage clips taken of private property such as homes and buildings (interiors and exteriors).

You may or may not need a property release for interior or exterior shots of public property, churches or government buildings, depending upon the specific property. For example, any images of famous fast food restaurants, LAX Airport, the New Orleans Superdome, or the Empire State Building alone (and not part of a skyline), just to name a few, may not normally be used for commercial purposes without a release. You will need to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a property release is needed for these types of properties.

For images or footage clips taken of private homes from public property such as the street, you still need a property release. The house belongs to someone and without a validly signed property release the owner has not granted permission for you to use an image or footage clip of their property for commercial gain. If you do get permission from the owner, please remove all identifiable location information such as house number or street address. We do not require an additional property release in the event the private property changes ownership as permission was granted at the time the image or footage clip was taken.


From Big Stock Photo:

Property Releases Are Preferred

Photos of private property or businesses showing the interior or taken from on the owners property must normally have an accompanying Property Release signed by the owner. Legally, this is a confusing area, so we will often approve images without property releases, and the buyer will be able to see that the image is not released. But if you can get the release, it's helpful and your images are more protected this way.

Taking photos of buildings or homes from outside in a public place such as the sidewalk or the street is generally OK, as long as they don't show anything private such as people on or within the premises or other details that the property owner may wish to keep private.

But if you take a photo of a home in your neighborhood for instance, or the coffee shop downtown from INSIDE the building, or on the owners property, you will need a release from the property owner.

Generally it's better to take photo of a group of buildings or homes, rather than singling out just one anyway. :-)


From Istock:


iStockphoto - Stock Photographer Training Manual
9.1 - Property Release:

    * The requirement for a property release isn't as clear-cut as for a model release, because there is no specific right of privacy that attaches to property, as it does to people. Having said that, there are at least two reasons for obtaining property releases: (i) on the theory that a person's identity might be connected to the property in question (such as where a person's property is used in a manner that might defame the person as owner); and (ii) on the basis that to use someone's property for commercial gain without their consent may amount to an offense called "conversion". Also, if you go on someone's private property to take a picture of them or their property, it could amount to trespass.
    * iStock recommends that a Property Release be obtained when the image contains identifiable property wherever possible (this isn't just for houses, it could apply to pets, cars and other personal property. The more recognizable and unique the property (and the more the owner's identity might be connected to or determined from the property) the greater the need for a property release.
    * The Property Release needs to signed by the legal and beneficial owner(s) of the property or their authorized agent. Many of the same formalities apply as for Model Releases.


Again, I say, it is safe to say if you are going to upload a building shot, you should have a property release. Good practice for someone new coming into microstock to get into.  Just my humble opinion.

« Reply #22 on: January 30, 2010, 16:33 »
0
Not exactly sure if you're talking to me, Sean and if you are, not exactly sure what fire you think is being fed but here is some info, for anyone who hasn't looked it up themselves.

The fire that's being fed is paranoia that legally, property releases are required for every building under the sun.  And they aren't.  Legally.

« Reply #23 on: January 30, 2010, 17:51 »
0
Agreed.

« Reply #24 on: January 31, 2010, 12:02 »
0
Agreed.

some agencies do slip into the paranoia - i never consider propert releases for stock - if one agency rejects for that reason, most will still accept - even those quoted above with seemingly strict rules. 

i have a number of mills, plants, lumber and other industrial images that sell well - these types of images are more likely to be used for editorial purposes in any case [even if they're not specifically entered as ed]

steve

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #25 on: January 31, 2010, 12:23 »
0
Agreed.

some agencies do slip into the paranoia - i never consider propert releases for stock - if one agency rejects for that reason, most will still accept - even those quoted above with seemingly strict rules. 

i have a number of mills, plants, lumber and other industrial images that sell well - these types of images are more likely to be used for editorial purposes in any case [even if they're not specifically entered as ed]

steve
I love photographing old buildings in general and I have quite a few, but have never tryed uploading because of the property release issue. I would agree something like that would be more than likey used for editoral...simply because there are not many things that type of image would be used for. I guess I can try uploading and see what happens. If they get rejected, they get rejected..not really any loss to me.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2985 Views
Last post February 20, 2008, 07:17
by Seren
4 Replies
2670 Views
Last post October 02, 2008, 13:04
by melastmohican
24 Replies
5999 Views
Last post June 17, 2009, 20:11
by Smiling Jack
6 Replies
6112 Views
Last post November 23, 2010, 16:44
by jm
8 Replies
5054 Views
Last post December 18, 2010, 00:30
by RacePhoto

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle