pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Quality control?  (Read 6537 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 18, 2011, 01:08 »
0
Is Shutterstock start doing quality control? Just received this e-mail:

We have removed the following images that you uploaded.
title (number ) deleted because: Quality Control -
Removed per legal. Do not resubmit
Regards,
ShutterStock Support


RacePhoto

« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2011, 03:22 »
0
Is Shutterstock start doing quality control? Just received this e-mail:

We have removed the following images that you uploaded.
title (number ) deleted because: Quality Control -
Removed per legal. Do not resubmit
Regards,
ShutterStock Support

Had one of those last Summer. I don't have a clue how they find them, or if someone actually goes looking.

Let me put it another way. If I search for some of the offending type of images, the site is still full of them. Who knows why one shot is removed and others stay online, when they are the same subjects and concepts. :( They aren't accepting new ones of the same type, in theory. ;)

« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2011, 08:08 »
0
Is Shutterstock start doing quality control? Just received this e-mail:

We have removed the following images that you uploaded.
title (number ) deleted because: Quality Control -
Removed per legal. Do not resubmit
Regards,
ShutterStock Support

also got one today. no clue how they pick them and also don't know why they chose this particular picture. maybe a buyer who didn't like the quality and claimed the money back?

« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2011, 09:44 »
0
No, I'm pretty sure the relevant part is "Removed per legal".  In my case, it's always been due to some specific license or copyright ownership claim.  The last time was over the portrait of Queen Elizabeth on a couple of coins in a pile of international change.  Not about quality at all.

RacePhoto

« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2011, 02:45 »
0
No, I'm pretty sure the relevant part is "Removed per legal".  In my case, it's always been due to some specific license or copyright ownership claim.  The last time was over the portrait of Queen Elizabeth on a couple of coins in a pile of international change.  Not about quality at all.

Yes, similar, even though I believe one was removed per legal there was something about no complaint but the estate of famous dead people could potentially file a claim. This is a somewhat new legal area, where agents now manage dead people, for their families. Anything for a dime.

As far as the Queens picture and the British coins and currency, they have always been illegal to reproduce, maybe the agency just discovered that? :)

Coin designs: are copyrighted by the Royal Mint. UK banknotes: The Bank of England owns the copyright and banknotes carry a notice.

RT


« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2011, 03:41 »
0
As far as the Queens picture and the British coins and currency, they have always been illegal to reproduce, maybe the agency just discovered that? :)

Actually that's not true, it's the way that an image of British currency is used that is the issue, walk into any supermarket or large chain of stores in the UK and you'll see images containing UK money, same for adverts, press, TV and all other media and commercial usage. The problem is microstock agencies have no control over how an image is used and another factor is the type of buyers and the majority of contributors using/submitting images to microstock are less likely to understand the legalities of usage, same goes for the microstock reviewer, from a microstock agencies point of view it's better to have a blanket no acceptance rule. You'll find hundreds of images using UK money on macro agencies both RF and RM, all quite legal.

RacePhoto

« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2011, 03:59 »
0
As far as the Queens picture and the British coins and currency, they have always been illegal to reproduce, maybe the agency just discovered that? :)

Actually that's not true, it's the way that an image of British currency is used that is the issue, walk into any supermarket or large chain of stores in the UK and you'll see images containing UK money, same for adverts, press, TV and all other media and commercial usage. The problem is microstock agencies have no control over how an image is used and another factor is the type of buyers and the majority of contributors using/submitting images to microstock are less likely to understand the legalities of usage, same goes for the microstock reviewer, from a microstock agencies point of view it's better to have a blanket no acceptance rule. You'll find hundreds of images using UK money on macro agencies both RF and RM, all quite legal.

It's printed right on the bills! Take a look.

People speed, drive and park illegally, does that make it legal?  ???

rubyroo

« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2011, 05:29 »
0
Where the end usage is not predetermined, commercial stock pictures are not permissable if they show any of the detail added to the coin.  Only the sides (with Latin words erased) are acceptable.   Editorial is a different matter, but even that is not without conditions.

Don't take my word for it though, contact them directly and see what they say.   Personally I think it's always better to go directly to the source and get your own response to ensure absolute clarity and to file a hard copy in case you ever have to cover yourself legally.

ETA (for anyone who doesn't already know this):

         For questions on British bank notes, contact The Bank of England
         For questions on British coinage, contact The Royal Mint

 - contact details are on their respective websites.

Edited to clarify that this info relates to images whose ultimate usage cannot be predetermined (e.g. microstock).
« Last Edit: January 19, 2011, 10:38 by rubyroo »

RT


« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2011, 09:40 »
0
Don't take my word for it though, contact them directly and see what they say.  

I have on occassions for commercial jobs, and there is never a problem, just like the thousands of other commercial usage of british currency you see each and every day. I think you're getting confused with the BoE reproduction of banknotes policy.

Like I said above it is the usage that determines whether the currency can be used commercially, their concern on reproduction is not for the type of usage that most commercial uses apply to, their concern is people supplying high res flat images that could be used to reproduce a note. Too many people on microstock sites have no idea of what can and can't be used.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2011, 10:12 by RT »

RT


« Reply #9 on: January 19, 2011, 09:45 »
0
People speed, drive and park illegally, does that make it legal?  ???

Umm not sure what you're trying to associate here but the answer is no because they're doing some illegal  ::)

Taking a photo of British currency is not illegal, neither is using it commercially if used correctly but as I tried to explain above the microstock sites have no control how such an image would be used so they lean on the side of caution.

rubyroo

« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2011, 10:14 »
0
I was talking about coinage, not notes.  My information is current and directly from The Royal Mint.  If others get different answers they must act as they see fit, but I will stick to the letter of what they told me, as that's the only way I can be sure that my own actions are above board and in line with the information I was given.   If yours tie in with what they've advised you directly, that may be because you were working in a one-off commercial scenario(?)

I asked specifically about  microstock photography, where the photographer does not know how or where the image will be used.  I understood from the response that one-off commercial photography is assessed on a case by case basis, so that is a different scenario.

Not here to argue the point with anyone, I'm happy with the information I have received.  I was just putting that out there for anyone who hasn't clarified this directly with the authority in question.

Note:  I've edited my initial post for clarity re pre-determined usage.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2011, 10:42 by rubyroo »

RT


« Reply #11 on: January 19, 2011, 11:18 »
0
I was talking about coinage, not notes.  My information is current and directly from The Royal Mint.  If others get different answers they must act as they see fit, but I will stick to the letter of what they told me, as that's the only way I can be sure that my own actions are above board and in line with the information I was given.   If yours tie in with what they've advised you directly, that may be because you were working in a one-off commercial scenario(?)

I asked specifically about  microstock photography, where the photographer does not know how or where the image will be used.  I understood from the response that one-off commercial photography is assessed on a case by case basis, so that is a different scenario.


Like I've said before it's not the taking of a photo of notes or coins that is illegal, neither is using them commercially, reproduction of coins and notes is illegal, taking a photo and then using it for a commercial use is not reproduction, in simple terms, the times and reasons you would need permission from the BoE or Royal Mint to reproduce would for example be:

- where you wanted to take an image of a banknote on fire (willfully destroying currency is in itself an illegal act) and wanted to photocopy or print a note to burn, the act of photocopying or printing the note would constitute reproduction as defined by law and therefore you should get authority.
- if you wanted to take an image of a huge pile of banknotes to use in a scene, most people don't have access to a few million so they'd have some mock ups printed, again reproduction that requires authority.

I'm sure you get the picture (excuse the pun). The problem where everyone gets confused and why the stock sites got concerned is that a number of people where taking direct flat high res images of UK currency (notes and coins) and selling it as stock, whilst taking the photo and selling it as stock itself is not illegal someone could then buy the image and use it to reproduce counterfeit currency, although they would commit the counterfeit offence the photographer and the agencies themselves may be deemed to fall within the terms of 'being party to the commission of an offence' (aiding and abetting in laymen terms) and that is most probably the reason that they don't accept them, to try and train reviewers and even themselves as to what is and isn't acceptable probably is worth the bother or risk.

As for your contacting the royal mint, they have a clear statement on their site, you got the reply you did because of the same reasons I've mentioned above, they don't know how or what you're photographing them for so they can't give you permission, but as you can see from their statement you don't need permission to photograph coins.

"The flat form reproduction of a coin for use in advertisements or other promotional literature is normally permissible, providing the coin is reproduced in a faithful likeness and shown in good taste. The Royal Mint does not presume to be the arbiters of good taste, but relies on the good sense of the advertisers themselves. The stipulation that coins should be reproduced in a faithful likeness is made to prevent part of the coinage design being used out of context. However, showing part or a segment of a coin will usually be acceptable, providing the image is used in good taste and is clearly recognisable as depicting part of a coin."

The BoE doesn't have any reference to photographing banknotes (because it isn't illegal  ;)) only for reproduction, for which you fill out a form telling why you want to reproduce some notes and what for, they then send you an authority which you take to your printer.

Hope that clears things up for you.

rubyroo

« Reply #12 on: January 19, 2011, 11:41 »
0
It doesn't actually because this:

"The flat form reproduction of a coin for use in advertisements or other promotional literature is normally permissible, providing the coin is reproduced in a faithful likeness and shown in good taste.

...is what I was told (in writing) was the premise for editorial photography.

I was also told (in writing) that they would have "no problem with your selling your image commercially" shot from a side-view if edge inscriptions are erased and all distinguishing elements of design are removed.  They said, specifically, that I could leave the edge milling on as this is a 'generic feature used on coins around the world"

So I'm very surprised that this appears to conflict with the information on their site.  As I said, I did explain to them how microstock is sold, and this is the information I received in return.  Given the 'normally' and 'usually' qualifiers in their site statement, I'll just stick with working to the direct answer I was given.   What anyone else does is up to them, but I'm not taking any chances.

Thank you though.

RT


« Reply #13 on: January 19, 2011, 12:03 »
0
So I'm very surprised that this appears to conflict with the information on their site.

I'm not - if you'd gone ahead and done what you wanted to do no problem, if there subsequently turns out to be some legal issue they're not at fault. However you asked them first, what would happen then if there was a legal issue bearing in mind they have no idea what and how you're photography the coins and more to the point who's buying them and what for!  They took the easy option, and to be honest I'm not surprised after all your reply would have a name on it - put yourself in his/her shoes which reply guarantees you keep your job ;)

rubyroo

« Reply #14 on: January 19, 2011, 12:29 »
0
Fair enough.  I prefer to work this way though.  I guarantee you, if I didn't, I'd get bitten on the bum.  That's the story of my life...  :D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Camera Control Pro

Started by Dreamstime News Microstock News

0 Replies
1528 Views
Last post February 15, 2007, 10:10
by Dreamstime News
0 Replies
1472 Views
Last post May 14, 2007, 07:35
by rjmiz
0 Replies
2677 Views
Last post December 01, 2011, 11:19
by ProArtwork
11 Replies
3856 Views
Last post September 10, 2013, 03:12
by Alamy
8 Replies
2622 Views
Last post February 20, 2016, 05:19
by PatrickA1

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results