MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: trabuco on April 25, 2020, 00:42
-
Hi.
New rejections from skyscrapers and financial district of la Defense. Whole batch of modern architecture from there, many of them unrecognizable reflections and things like that.
Content not suitable for licenses: We cannot incorporate this image into our commercial or editorial collection, or we no longer accept this type of content
The first time, I have these kind of pictures in mi port in all agencies as editorial. Not the Grande Arche, that always have been rejected on SS and BS, but pictures of skyscrapers, even with logos, always have been accepted on SS as editorial. The rejections are not only close-ups, cityscapes and panoramic ones too.
Anyone elese having this kind of problems with urban pictures?
-
I once got a legal letter from the "owners" of La Defence in Paris saying that they needed me to buy a license from them in order to sell photos of that area. I think I told them I had made $10 in my sales and so they didn't push for a retrospective license and I took the images down. This was probably 8 or 10 years back now.
Steve
-
I once got a legal letter from the "owners" of La Defence in Paris saying that they needed me to buy a license from them in order to sell photos of that area. I think I told them I had made $10 in my sales and so they didn't push for a retrospective license and I took the images down. This was probably 8 or 10 years back now.
Steve
Thank you for your answer.
Maybe SS has changed their criteria about these buildings for that regulation. The weird thing is that Is has no problems with these pictures, just with the Grande Arche.
-
I once got a legal letter from the "owners" of La Defence in Paris saying that they needed me to buy a license from them in order to sell photos of that area. I think I told them I had made $10 in my sales and so they didn't push for a retrospective license and I took the images down. This was probably 8 or 10 years back now.
Steve
Thank you for your answer.
Maybe SS has changed their criteria about these buildings for that regulation. The weird thing is that Is has no problems with these pictures, just with the Grande Arche.
SS makes up their own rules, as do other agencies. If someone complains it's easier to say, no more.
Of course the arch is in France, so Freedom of Panorama laws would apply. In France there is no general freedom of panorama. Not in Italy either, but much of the time, these restrictions were not enforced in the past.
https://www.dw.com/en/freedom-of-panorama-will-the-eu-ban-landmark-photography/a-18554383 (https://www.dw.com/en/freedom-of-panorama-will-the-eu-ban-landmark-photography/a-18554383)
2015 the EU sought to protect landmarks from being photographed for commercial purposes.
Could be? Good luck.
United States Law
Beginning in December 1990, U.S. copyright law added protections for architectural works. Designs that were published after December 1, 1990, are protected. So are unpublished designs from before 1990 as long as they were constructed by December 31, 2002.
-
These editorial pictures are always in a grey zone.
-
These editorial pictures are always in a grey zone.
Right, I was just digging around for possible legal reasons. The ultimate answer is "because they said so." ;D
Like why SS doesn't take events and sports that are free and open to the public in public places. Or why they require credentials for Editorial when news is a protected right.
-
Well, at this point with 80/90 % of rejections It's time for holidays from SS. Gonna focus on IS, AS and AL where I have 100 % of acceptance.
-
These editorial pictures are always in a grey zone.
Right, I was just digging around for possible legal reasons. The ultimate answer is "because they said so." ;D
Like why SS doesn't take events and sports that are free and open to the public in public places. Or why they require credentials for Editorial when news is a protected right.
Well, at least they are slightly more liberal than IS that block a lot of things. My preferred rejection reason from them is the one about "castles in Europe" that are supposedly copyrighted...
In any case, in France, there would be no problems to use the pictures of La Défense for editorial purposes for free. Local agencies, such as AFP or the regional press groups (some of them have some considerable stock activities, such as Sud-Ouest) do have some of them available. Considering the important lobby in France when it comes to IP, some entities have a pretty big legal service specialized in such questions, that do not hesitate to bully anybody coming too close to their lawn. I guess that's what happened with La Défense threatening SS.
-
copyrights protect works of art.
buildings are not works of art
the copyright protects the work (photo), not what is in the photo. there is no copyright protection for something within a photo.
you can legally take photos of almost anything and sell it, including logos, trademarks, etc.
Andy Warhol famously did paintings of logos and products because it is legal in almost every country.
no building owner can demand a license for you to sell your photo.
-
United States Law
Beginning in December 1990, U.S. copyright law added protections for architectural works. Designs that were published after December 1, 1990, are protected. So are unpublished designs from before 1990 as long as they were constructed by December 31, 2002.
[/quote]
the above refers to the architectural drawings, not the construction or photos of the building.
that means no one can take your design and go build another building that is identical. it does not prohibit or limit photos of any building. buildings themselves are not works of art and cannot be copyprotected.
-
...buildings themselves are not works of art and cannot be copyprotected.
...but they can be rejected by agencies for whatever reason they like, which is what you seem to miss, every single time. If you want to sell them yourself on your own site, and you're confident there's nothing they can do about it, then feel free to do so. But this forum is mainly about selling stock through stock agencies rather than the intricacies of copyright law.
Something you never seem to get is that if it's legal for an agency to sell certain content, that doesn't mean it's illegal for them to refuse that content for whatever reason they choose, or for no reason at all.
-
....
-
...
-
...buildings themselves are not works of art and cannot be copyprotected.
...but they can be rejected by agencies for whatever reason they like, which is what you seem to miss, every single time.
I have never missed it a single time. what you are missing is that people should know true interpretation of copyright law and not incorrect interpretations of law. I am merely educating people on mistakes they are making on copyright law.
istock removed a lot of their restrictions on buildings after I educated them.