MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock editorials require press pass?  (Read 5500 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

hotwalkn

  • ...I have a lens fetish...

« on: February 26, 2013, 11:43 »
0
Could someone please, please, please explain to me why Shutterstock would require press pass or venue permission to shoot editorial horse racing images? Am I missing something here?

I submitted my 10 images for round 3 of potential acceptance. Several of these images were editorial that had actually been accepted in the previous attempt. THIS time, I get an email asking if I had venue permission or press pass for that event.

Although, in the past I have obtained press passes if the situation did not allow for unobstructed lens view - in this case, I did not. Regardless, I am confused as to why they would do this on editorial. I'm losing my mind!  :o


« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2013, 11:47 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 15:39 by Audi 5000 »

hotwalkn

  • ...I have a lens fetish...

« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2013, 11:48 »
0
This I understand. The images had no view of buildings. It was either jockeys or horses. :(

« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2013, 11:55 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 15:39 by Audi 5000 »

RacePhoto

« Reply #4 on: February 26, 2013, 12:05 »
0
If you want I can go dig up the link, but YES. (OK I did)  http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=119653&start=0

I scanned credentials and submitted them to credentials@shutterstock.com got registered as media. Then you will get a case number to include in notes to the reviewer which they can check to see if you are approved.

Remember the exact SS format with all the caps and commas. And newsworthy caption.

Here's what's happened in the real world. Buying a ticket doesn't give you the right to sell images from sporting events. However, licensing for Editorial should be allowed.

Personally I think there's something that needs to be challenged, in court, because of News and First Amendment rights in the US. NCAA is one on top of the list, the Olympics are as tenacious as a bulldog. NASCAR, MLB, NFL and some others, you  can't include a logo, or you are in deep trouble.

This is all about protecting image rights and their "product". I still think, the first amendment trumps their lawyers claims. Must be newsworthy, see where SS gets that? People have been skirting the legality claiming pretty much, anything without a release is Editorial. That creates more problems.

One of the events I shoot, I just read the latest agreement and it says something to the effect, I can only transmit or allow the images to be used for the publication that requested my credentials. what? So if I shoot for a specific website and a newspaper or magazine wants the coverage, I can't license it.

Remember when I write = USA legal, and opinion, I'm not a lwayer. Have to include that disclaimer before some dunce says, well I'm in Iceland and the laws are different here.  ;)

First Amendment part that applies: The amendment prohibits the making of any law "...abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press..."

If it's real news, we're allowed to take and use the photos.


Could someone please, please, please explain to me why Shutterstock would require press pass or venue permission to shoot editorial horse racing images? Am I missing something here?

I submitted my 10 images for round 3 of potential acceptance. Several of these images were editorial that had actually been accepted in the previous attempt. THIS time, I get an email asking if I had venue permission or press pass for that event.

Although, in the past I have obtained press passes if the situation did not allow for unobstructed lens view - in this case, I did not. Regardless, I am confused as to why they would do this on editorial. I'm losing my mind!  :o

hotwalkn

  • ...I have a lens fetish...

« Reply #5 on: February 26, 2013, 12:19 »
0
If you want I can go dig up the link, but YES. (OK I did)  http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=119653&start=0

I scanned credentials and submitted them to credentials@shutterstock.com got registered as media. Then you will get a case number to include in notes to the reviewer which they can check to see if you are approved.

Remember the exact SS format with all the caps and commas. And newsworthy caption.

Here's what's happened in the real world. Buying a ticket doesn't give you the right to sell images from sporting events. However, licensing for Editorial should be allowed.

Personally I think there's something that needs to be challenged, in court, because of News and First Amendment rights in the US. NCAA is one on top of the list, the Olympics are as tenacious as a bulldog. NASCAR, MLB, NFL and some others, you  can't include a logo, or you are in deep trouble.

This is all about protecting image rights and their "product". I still think, the first amendment trumps their lawyers claims. Must be newsworthy, see where SS gets that? People have been skirting the legality claiming pretty much, anything without a release is Editorial. That creates more problems.

One of the events I shoot, I just read the latest agreement and it says something to the effect, I can only transmit or allow the images to be used for the publication that requested my credentials. what? So if I shoot for a specific website and a newspaper or magazine wants the coverage, I can't license it.

Remember when I write = USA legal, and opinion, I'm not a lwayer. Have to include that disclaimer before some dunce says, well I'm in Iceland and the laws are different here.  ;)

First Amendment part that applies: The amendment prohibits the making of any law "...abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press..."

If it's real news, we're allowed to take and use the photos.


Could someone please, please, please explain to me why Shutterstock would require press pass or venue permission to shoot editorial horse racing images? Am I missing something here?

I submitted my 10 images for round 3 of potential acceptance. Several of these images were editorial that had actually been accepted in the previous attempt. THIS time, I get an email asking if I had venue permission or press pass for that event.

Although, in the past I have obtained press passes if the situation did not allow for unobstructed lens view - in this case, I did not. Regardless, I am confused as to why they would do this on editorial. I'm losing my mind!  :o



This all totally makes sense to me and so does ticstock's comment. Thank you so much for that link. ;)

I would love to license with Shutterstock for media, but I need to be accepted first and they keep pulling the bait and switch for acceptance! LOL

« Reply #6 on: February 26, 2013, 12:35 »
-1
If you want I can go dig up the link, but YES. (OK I did)  http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=119653&start=0

I scanned credentials and submitted them to credentials@shutterstock.com got registered as media. Then you will get a case number to include in notes to the reviewer which they can check to see if you are approved.

Remember the exact SS format with all the caps and commas. And newsworthy caption.

Here's what's happened in the real world. Buying a ticket doesn't give you the right to sell images from sporting events. However, licensing for Editorial should be allowed.

Personally I think there's something that needs to be challenged, in court, because of News and First Amendment rights in the US. NCAA is one on top of the list, the Olympics are as tenacious as a bulldog. NASCAR, MLB, NFL and some others, you  can't include a logo, or you are in deep trouble.

This is all about protecting image rights and their "product". I still think, the first amendment trumps their lawyers claims. Must be newsworthy, see where SS gets that? People have been skirting the legality claiming pretty much, anything without a release is Editorial. That creates more problems.

One of the events I shoot, I just read the latest agreement and it says something to the effect, I can only transmit or allow the images to be used for the publication that requested my credentials. what? So if I shoot for a specific website and a newspaper or magazine wants the coverage, I can't license it.

Remember when I write = USA legal, and opinion, I'm not a lwayer. Have to include that disclaimer before some dunce says, well I'm in Iceland and the laws are different here.  ;)

First Amendment part that applies: The amendment prohibits the making of any law "...abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press..."

If it's real news, we're allowed to take and use the photos.


[


In general the Constitution only lays out what the government is allowed and not allowed to do, not private individuals.  Note that the first amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law..." meaning the U.S. Government and by extension state and local governments are not allowed to abridge free speech.  There is nothing in the constitution that prevents a private land owner from imposing conditions on access to his property by another private individual including something like no foul language or no commercial photography.  If there is, party at RacePhotos place!  Ill bring the foul language, beer, some naked people, and the camera.   ;D

Is NASCAR or the NCAA part of the government?


RacePhoto

« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2013, 11:18 »
0
They are covering their tail (pun intended).  I shoot concerts on a very regular basis and in order to do so I am required to have a photo pass.  Usually you get to shoot the first 3 songs from the photo pit then you are escorted out.  There are thousands of point and shoot cameras/phones in the crowd taking photos from start to finish.  It is rarely an accident what happens in the first 3 songs.  The artist has a plan for what they want out in the media.  What is happening more and more often now is that bands are forcing the press to sign restrictive contracts.  The Readers Digest version of most of them is that they don't want the images to be issued to any outlet other than what is approved.  If Shutterstock accepted photos from people in the audience shooting with their point and shoot or smuggled dslr when the artist has a strict prohibitive policy against wire services then they would be very vulnerable to a lawsuit from a very expensive attorney.  They take it pretty seriously. 

Exactly!


In general the Constitution only lays out what the government is allowed and not allowed to do, not private individuals.  Note that the first amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law..." meaning the U.S. Government and by extension state and local governments are not allowed to abridge free speech.  There is nothing in the constitution that prevents a private land owner from imposing conditions on access to his property by another private individual including something like no foul language or no commercial photography.  If there is, party at RacePhotos place!  Ill bring the foul language, beer, some naked people, and the camera.   ;D

Is NASCAR or the NCAA part of the government?

News is News and it's protected as freedom of speech. Only the commercial rights for reproduction are restricted and controlled.

Part two remains as I've pointed out many times. The agency makes it's own rules, and they don't always follow the actual laws. Often times they make things Editorial which are actually public domain. They don't take public domain out of copyright images. That's their right.

But when NASCAR or MLB or some other organization says, NEWS services can't use photos of their events, it's a rights grab and it's outside of the US laws.

If you are saying NASCAR or MLB (or any of the others) make laws, that's an interesting viewpoint? Can you explain how?

If it's real news, we're allowed to take and use the photos. This right cannot be taken away, illegally, by some club, or entertainment organization.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 11:22 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #9 on: February 27, 2013, 20:54 »
-1



In general the Constitution only lays out what the government is allowed and not allowed to do, not private individuals.  Note that the first amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law..." meaning the U.S. Government and by extension state and local governments are not allowed to abridge free speech.  There is nothing in the constitution that prevents a private land owner from imposing conditions on access to his property by another private individual including something like no foul language or no commercial photography.  If there is, party at RacePhotos place!  Ill bring the foul language, beer, some naked people, and the camera.   ;D

Is NASCAR or the NCAA part of the government?

News is News and it's protected as freedom of speech. Only the commercial rights for reproduction are restricted and controlled.

Part two remains as I've pointed out many times. The agency makes it's own rules, and they don't always follow the actual laws. Often times they make things Editorial which are actually public domain. They don't take public domain out of copyright images. That's their right.

But when NASCAR or MLB or some other organization says, NEWS services can't use photos of their events, it's a rights grab and it's outside of the US laws.

If you are saying NASCAR or MLB (or any of the others) make laws, that's an interesting viewpoint? Can you explain how?

If it's real news, we're allowed to take and use the photos. This right cannot be taken away, illegally, by some club, or entertainment organization.

The Constitution only says the government can't stifle free speech.  It still says nothing about the right of one private individual to the news/information another private individual has.  What legal principal do you base your argument on that you or I have a right to know the results of a NASCAR race or to have pictures from an NCAA tournament?  It is not found in the First Amendment because the amendment only applies to the government.  In fact, I don't think there is any general right to access news that another person has.  NASCAR and NCAA are private entities and are entitled to do what they want with their property and any information they create.  If they want to let you onto their land under the condition that you won't sell pictures of what you see there, that may be a shame or pathetic, but it is their right because they own the land, the designs, the names and all the rest. 

Going back to my example of the party at your house (the one with the foul language, beer, some naked people, and a camera), would you want me claiming "free speech" to come onto your property without your permission, take pictures of you and some drunk naked people, and sell it to some news organization?  If that is not "real news", what is "real news"?  Who gets to define it?  Is it what I say it is, or is it what you say it is or something else?


RacePhoto

« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2013, 22:12 »
0
You win, I give up.  ::)




In general the Constitution only lays out what the government is allowed and not allowed to do, not private individuals.  Note that the first amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law..." meaning the U.S. Government and by extension state and local governments are not allowed to abridge free speech.  There is nothing in the constitution that prevents a private land owner from imposing conditions on access to his property by another private individual including something like no foul language or no commercial photography.  If there is, party at RacePhotos place!  Ill bring the foul language, beer, some naked people, and the camera.   ;D

Is NASCAR or the NCAA part of the government?

News is News and it's protected as freedom of speech. Only the commercial rights for reproduction are restricted and controlled.

Part two remains as I've pointed out many times. The agency makes it's own rules, and they don't always follow the actual laws. Often times they make things Editorial which are actually public domain. They don't take public domain out of copyright images. That's their right.

But when NASCAR or MLB or some other organization says, NEWS services can't use photos of their events, it's a rights grab and it's outside of the US laws.

If you are saying NASCAR or MLB (or any of the others) make laws, that's an interesting viewpoint? Can you explain how?

If it's real news, we're allowed to take and use the photos. This right cannot be taken away, illegally, by some club, or entertainment organization.

The Constitution only says the government can't stifle free speech.  It still says nothing about the right of one private individual to the news/information another private individual has.  What legal principal do you base your argument on that you or I have a right to know the results of a NASCAR race or to have pictures from an NCAA tournament?  It is not found in the First Amendment because the amendment only applies to the government.  In fact, I don't think there is any general right to access news that another person has.  NASCAR and NCAA are private entities and are entitled to do what they want with their property and any information they create.  If they want to let you onto their land under the condition that you won't sell pictures of what you see there, that may be a shame or pathetic, but it is their right because they own the land, the designs, the names and all the rest. 

Going back to my example of the party at your house (the one with the foul language, beer, some naked people, and a camera), would you want me claiming "free speech" to come onto your property without your permission, take pictures of you and some drunk naked people, and sell it to some news organization?  If that is not "real news", what is "real news"?  Who gets to define it?  Is it what I say it is, or is it what you say it is or something else?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
50 Replies
18309 Views
Last post July 04, 2007, 11:29
by w7lwi
10 Replies
8701 Views
Last post September 14, 2007, 19:51
by Whiz
5 Replies
2356 Views
Last post January 02, 2009, 15:21
by Adeptris
55 Replies
9579 Views
Last post September 06, 2013, 14:57
by txking
24 Replies
7849 Views
Last post April 09, 2016, 01:28
by Petr Toman

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results