MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Please critique my six rejected iStock contributor application photos  (Read 34837 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

« Reply #25 on: February 03, 2010, 03:17 »
0
As said above, iStock plays extremely 'safe' with both model and property releases.
In law, it's the jurisidiction in which the photos are taken which counts, BUT you can't expect inspectors to be au fait with the ever-changing laws in every country on the planet, so they seem to have taken the strictest possible interpretation of the law and run with it.
What you can do sometimes is check the laws of the appropriate country and submit that as evidence together with evidence that your photo meets that. For instance, if something is out of copyright 70 years after the death of its creator in a country, you can provide that information with an appropriate link and also evidence that the creator had in fact died over 70 years ago.
However, as also mentioned above, museum shots are generally no-go areas.
All that said, the PR issue shouldn't have been a big deal for submission shots.
Maybe you should be thinking of uploading to a site which accepts editorial images? Just a thought since the main uses of these image is probably travel books, text books etc.


RacePhoto

« Reply #26 on: February 04, 2010, 04:52 »
0

Below are two photos that I might consider submitting.  I'm 99% sure that both works are pre-1923 and therefore in the public domain (I'll have to check on that).  Comments on the two photos below?

Thanks


Nice photos and interesting angles and colors.

You may be legally correct in all examples, but the agencies make their own rules. I just had one image from 1907 refused: "This file includes content that may be subject to copyright or trademark protection. Certain use of this file creates risk of copyright/trademark infringement and we regret that it cannot be accepted, unless this content is removed from the file."

Hello? 1907 steamboat?  :) Same for a shot dated to the 1880s. Fine it's their game, they make the rules.

As for the museum contents start thinking compilations, collections and private property. The means of acquisition has nothing to do with the current rights. You as an attorney should understand that part. Zoos are the same way. Many are privately funded and don't allow their animals to be used for commercial purposes. I believe the whole of the Giza plateau is protected.

As soon as they reject something for some CYA reason, I just leave it alone and move on. They may be incorrect about the legal grounds, go look at the farm buildings and cracker box homes they refuse for property release. None need a property release, but for some agencies, they have decided that they do. It would be nice to appeal with logic and the law, but they have made up their minds. You can't file a complaint or suit to have them use your photos. They can accept or refuse anything for any reason they wish.

"They" above can be any stock agency. This isn't directed at any one in particular.

Probably the best suggestion I got when I was starting to apply at IS was, a variety of lighting, styles, subjects and examples of your photographic diversity. I think I send in an isolation, outdoor natural light shot and a texture. Nothing fantastic or amazing, just nice plain basic, extremely sharp, high range of contrast, bright, photos. Save the fancy stuff for later. They want to know that someone new can handle different styles and materials.

This isn't about art shots, it's about marketable stock photos that will have a demand for multiple uses.


« Reply #27 on: February 04, 2010, 05:52 »
0
Nice photos and interesting angles and colors.
Yes I agree. They will do well on Flickr and Wikipedia, and with some added purple fringe on Deviantart perhaps.

« Reply #28 on: February 04, 2010, 22:00 »
0

Below are two photos that I might consider submitting.  I'm 99% sure that both works are pre-1923 and therefore in the public domain (I'll have to check on that).  Comments on the two photos below?

Thanks


Nice photos and interesting angles and colors.

You may be legally correct in all examples, but the agencies make their own rules. I just had one image from 1907 refused: "This file includes content that may be subject to copyright or trademark protection. Certain use of this file creates risk of copyright/trademark infringement and we regret that it cannot be accepted, unless this content is removed from the file."

Hello? 1907 steamboat?  :) Same for a shot dated to the 1880s. Fine it's their game, they make the rules.

As for the museum contents start thinking compilations, collections and private property. The means of acquisition has nothing to do with the current rights. You as an attorney should understand that part. Zoos are the same way. Many are privately funded and don't allow their animals to be used for commercial purposes. I believe the whole of the Giza plateau is protected.

As soon as they reject something for some CYA reason, I just leave it alone and move on. They may be incorrect about the legal grounds, go look at the farm buildings and cracker box homes they refuse for property release. None need a property release, but for some agencies, they have decided that they do. It would be nice to appeal with logic and the law, but they have made up their minds. You can't file a complaint or suit to have them use your photos. They can accept or refuse anything for any reason they wish.

"They" above can be any stock agency. This isn't directed at any one in particular.

Probably the best suggestion I got when I was starting to apply at IS was, a variety of lighting, styles, subjects and examples of your photographic diversity. I think I send in an isolation, outdoor natural light shot and a texture. Nothing fantastic or amazing, just nice plain basic, extremely sharp, high range of contrast, bright, photos. Save the fancy stuff for later. They want to know that someone new can handle different styles and materials.

This isn't about art shots, it's about marketable stock photos that will have a demand for multiple uses.



Thanks for the advice.  From the comments in this thread I've learned loads about the stock photography biz.  I realize that the agencies are free to make up their own rules regarding releases.  I'm already trying to think of new places to shoot that aren't subject to such restrictions.  Usually I just shoot photos of things that interest me; I really have to change gears to start thinking more about what is marketable.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
10549 Views
Last post November 11, 2009, 17:27
by bsites
32 Replies
18200 Views
Last post March 27, 2010, 09:47
by nancypics
11 Replies
5177 Views
Last post June 27, 2011, 14:22
by Jo Ann Snover
9 Replies
2737 Views
Last post January 04, 2012, 20:03
by Socas
2 Replies
1401 Views
Last post July 15, 2013, 07:46
by Bang-images

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results