if you don't ask, you definitely won't get permission.

the example you give show how clueless the stock agencies are in regards to releases. you do not legally need a property release, it is just something the stock agencies invented because they do not understand copyright law.

your property release, in this case, is essentially a form releasing rights to yourself. it makes no sense and would not be taken seriously by a court, it has no legal bearing.

in addition, if someone contests your ownership, they would have to prove it is their work, meaning they would have to possess the original hardcopy or legal documentation for, which they don't.

property releases in the case you describe are an example of stock agencies not understanding copyright laws.

the only legal evidence that you own the original work is a filing with the US copyright office. stock agencies should be asking for that as proof, but they don't because they don't even understand what copyright filings are. the copyright upon creation laws has now prevented people from filing copyrights.

perhaps it would help if you sign your work, by hand, beneath the work, so buyers can remove it if they want?

I had copyrights filed with the US government, with certificates, and a stock agency told me it wasn't proof enough because stock agencies don't understand copyrights.

All buildings in the US built before 1990 cannot be copyprotected. Neither can architecture such as doorways or windows. neither can boats, cruise ships, signs, etc.

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ41.pdf

The problem is that stock media agencies do not understand the laws.

The empire state building is NOT copyrighted. neither is the hollywood sign. the laws are clear and the agencies spread misinformation.

I used the HD version and it was a wonderful camera because of the stabilizer. however the AX53 does have a small sensor so you won't get ideal lighting as you would with a better sensor.

the camera is good enough you can take video without a tripod (zoomed out) and people won't notice.

I bet the photo quality for stills will pass for many sites.

I did $600 (3 similar videos for $200 each) plus perhaps a handful more from other sites.

a few times I sold 30 or so videos in 1 day (sports videos).

send your content to dropbox, and you can import to istock. I go from my ftp server to dropbox then to istock.

There is a service that allows you to do ftp to dropbox and then to istock. I forgot the name. it is a service where you can take any input (ftp, www, http, dropbox, google drive, etc) and swap everything between each format. I forgot the name. it is expensive because you pay for data size, you save money if you have tens of thousands of transactions. I tried it and didn't like it. forgot the name.

the service is all icon driven. you drag the icons and put commands between the 2. so you drag an FTP icon and dropbox icon, link them, and type in a command, and it processes the command on all of your files. it is a web based service.

copyrights are at the country level. there is no international copyright.

there are 2 major international laws concerning international copyrights, one is the Bern Convention and the other is WIPO.

if the country you are referring to is not a signatory to either of those treaties, then you have no rights, and you have to abide by THEIR laws (which may be non-existent), and the laws of the country you live in, including copyright protection, will mean nothing.

if they are a signatory to one of the 2 above treaties, you may have a case if you paid the filing fees to the international body, which you probably didn't.

so check those 2 treaties and that will tell you if you have a case or not. you always have to abide by the laws of the foreign country.

the US has a big media industry (magazines, Hollywood, TV). most countries don't, so they don't have or need copyright laws because they don't produce anything, and they consider everything to be free to use.

if you have an icon and it sells well, make more variations on that icon and you will have found a niche.

when you know what sells, make more of that. it works.

make sure your keywords are accurate and unique.

you can legally sell almost anything you take a photo of.

a photo you take of a car is your creative work. you can legally sell it. copyrights protect creative works, and your creative work in deciding the lighting, framing, angle, etc of the object, including cars, is 100% owned by you.

the copyright of a car only protects the manufacturer by preventing other car companies from manufacturing duplicate designs of the car. the copyright of a car does not transfer to photographs of a car. this is known as "fair use" and is explained on the US copyright web site.

logos **CANNOT** be copyrighted. logos are trademarks and protect sources. no logo can ever ever be copyrighted or copy protected. this has been upheld in court (Daniel Moore vs U of Alabama) where teh court determined that the photographer can take photos of logos (of the university football team) and sell them as he wishes.

The US government has stated that logos cannot be copyrighted. a simple search on google will affirm that logos **CANNOT** be copyrighted.

you can only infringe on the rights of a logo if you claim to be that company (put their logo on your own products and sell those products). selling paintings of logos, taking photos of logos, and filming logos is perfectly legal and you are free to profit from doing so.

you can legally take photos of any logo and sell them (upheld by Daniel Moore vs University of Alabama).

Andy Warhol famously painted pictures of famous logos without lawsuit, because it is legal.

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.

"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

you said: "I doubt a court would agree with you.  It certainly didn't agree with Shepard Fairey over his famous Hope painting of Barack Obama. "

you are completely wrong and your statement is misleading. Fairey did not lose a copyright infringement case with the AP. they settled out of court because the AP never would have won in court, and Fairey doesn't now any better. He got into trouble for lying in court and destroying evidence, not for copyright infringement.

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/shephard-fairey-is-fined-and-sentenced-to-probation-in-hope-poster-case/?_r=1

"When the case began in 2009, Mr. Fairey argued that his use of Associated Press imagery constituted fair use under copyright law. But the civil lawsuit was settled before that question was decided, and the two sides agreed to financial terms that were not disclosed.The parties also agreed to share the rights to make posters and merchandise bearing the �Hope� image."

re: "Is there a reason you're bumping these old threads?"

at the bottom of the forum they say "new" after them, so I thought they were recent threads, but I see that they are not, and the 'new' indicator is not accurate in regards to recency.