Author Topic: Shutterstock requires property release for a picture of animal? (Read 13435 times)

beketoff · « **on:** May 18, 2016, 11:28 »

Hi all,

Was wondering if it's fine that Shutterstock requires a property release for a picture where the only subject is a close-up of an animal (cow), with no visible signs attributing it to a specific place, property, etc. Obviously, the picture was rejected as no property release was attached (and could never be attached, for that matter). I'm a bit confused, to say least...

w7lwi · « **Reply #1 on:** May 18, 2016, 11:34 »

Did it have an I.D. ear tag visible? That's typically the reason they reject livestock images. Otherwise you just hit one of their many clueless reviewers. Just resubmit.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #2 on:** May 18, 2016, 11:58 »

Quote from: w7lwi on May 18, 2016, 11:34

Otherwise you just hit one of their many clueless reviewers.

perharps so. like the same one who rejects everything for o-o-f .
the reveiwer probably saw a dog instead of a cow, and so expect you to get a release from its owner LOL
come to think of it, if every "pet" requires a release from the owner,
i should think a snake, terapin, spider,etc... might soon require a release as they are being kept as pets too.
originally, if i am not mistaken, a release is needed because it is "recognizable".
ie. a structure, piece of art, statue, fender of a distinct luxury car, even graffiti, .. are recognizable, thus the release. a pet, even though all dogs might look alike, is recognizable to its owner.
thus the joke between pet -owner justifably agreeing when someone screams out, "that is not andy...andy (her goldfish) has a freckle on her nose" !!!

pancaketom · « **Reply #3 on:** May 18, 2016, 16:09 »

I do remember quite a while ago they were needing PR for horses - which are probably pretty recognizable to horse people. I would think that if it is a prize winning cow at a fair that might be an issue, but if it is just another head of cattle out in a field somewhere it seems pretty unlikely. I am sure some people could recognize their trees or flowers, so it could get pretty ridiculous if they continue down this path.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #4 on:** May 19, 2016, 13:28 »

Ridiculous to require releases for animals. Only exception should be my dog. As she is human she should require a model release.

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** May 19, 2016, 14:17 »

Dan Heller has a page indicating that animals don't need a release in the US unless they are some famous specific individual, e.g. if the star of a petting farm was Daisy the Cow, for example.
I have no idea what the Law is elsewhere. I know that it has long been held in Scotland at least (maybe all of UK?) that prohibitions about selling photos sold in zoos etc. have no basis in Law, and at least two establishments have stopped putting the restrictions on their tickets.
BUT:
1. Who wants to be in a legal case, even with a strong probability of winning.
2. The agencies can make their own rules and generally err on the side of caution, with SS seeming to me (as an outsider) to be generally laxer than iS.

Two US zoos: one has only a stated restriction on one particular building on the site, i.e. the actual architectural construction; one had a stated prohibition on any publication of photos taken there, but actively solicits photos for their social media, and has a large Flickr group.

cathyslife · « **Reply #6 on:** May 19, 2016, 14:37 »

In my own personal experience, I uploaded pics of my horse for a few years and was never asked for a release once. I can see needing one if you uploaded a pic of Secretariat or some famous horse, for sure. I think the OP just got unlucky with the reviewer. I have a couple cow photos in my port, too, with no releases required. Cows standing in a field, not Elsie. :-)

Dumc · « **Reply #7 on:** May 19, 2016, 14:42 »

As stated above, if there is an ear tag visible, agencies will reject it. And I know that because I got a case like that. After I removed tag, it was OK.

beketoff · « **Reply #8 on:** May 19, 2016, 14:53 »

Thank you all for your feedback and stories.

No, the cow didn't have any tag in its ear, and no, it wasn't any special type (prize winning) cow; the only aspect which could have distinguished that cow from the millions of others was the fact that the photo was taken in a zoo. However, no other features indicating it was a zoo (e.g. architecture, other features, nor a name or location of the zoo in the title/keywords) were present in the photo, just a headshot with lots of blurred copyspace around.

But hey, why would it all matter, if the picture was rejected again (I resubmitted it) for a usual reason: poor lighting. Perhaps I should drop this, as this cow doesn't appear to be a lucky one for me so far, so maybe it's not worth

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #9 on:** May 19, 2016, 15:52 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 19, 2016, 14:17

Dan Heller has a page indicating that animals don't need a release in the US unless they are some famous specific individual, e.g. if the star of a petting farm was Daisy the Cow, for example.
I have no idea what the Law is elsewhere. I know that it has long been held in Scotland at least (maybe all of UK?) that prohibitions about selling photos sold in zoos etc. have no basis in Law, and at least two establishments have stopped putting the restrictions on their tickets.
BUT:
1. Who wants to be in a legal case, even with a strong probability of winning.
2. The agencies can make their own rules and generally err on the side of caution, with SS seeming to me (as an outsider) to be generally laxer than iS.

Two US zoos: one has only a stated restriction on one particular building on the site, i.e. the actual architectural construction; one had a stated prohibition on any publication of photos taken there, but actively solicits photos for their social media, and has a large Flickr group.

museam, etc do require us to pay for taking photos, but they also restrict the usage to personal uses. i think they just want to control their sales of postcards,etc..
but like you said, who is going to retain a lawyer to get back pennies from someone.
still, it is prudent to err on the side of caution, after all, it's not like you are going to make a lot of money with these type of shots. still, if they ever reject my work on this issue,
i would not bother trying to resubmit.

Rinderart · « **Reply #10 on:** May 19, 2016, 16:26 »

Really, A zoo has a cow? wow. Must be pretty fancy Zoo. LOL Only way to comment is to see the Image Pls.

ShadySue · « **Reply #11 on:** May 19, 2016, 16:45 »

Quote from: Rinderart on May 19, 2016, 16:26

Really, A zoo has a cow? wow. Must be pretty fancy Zoo. LOL

It's neither unusual nor laughable.
Zoos can have domestic animals in children's zoos, to let inner-city kids get up close and personal.

alno · « **Reply #12 on:** May 19, 2016, 17:02 »

I can remember a friend of mine experience with videos from public oceanarium. Pond5 rejected all of them while Shutterstock accepted almost all of them. There were some quite usual fishes not star dolphins. The discussion with pond5 support revealed that they had some legal problems with zoo owner recently.
I also recall some funny story about property release request on main Russian government building (exterior).
I can suggest to submit that cow picture once again, it will surely pass.

beketoff · « **Reply #13 on:** May 20, 2016, 03:05 »

Quote from: Irina Anosova on May 19, 2016, 17:02

I can suggest to submit that cow picture once again, it will surely pass.

It really passed, after a third attempt (third time is the charm).

And the famous cow is here. Now, just don't tell me it's not a cow

ShadySue · « **Reply #14 on:** May 20, 2016, 04:04 »

Quote from: beketoff on May 20, 2016, 03:05

Quote from: Irina Anosova on May 19, 2016, 17:02
I can suggest to submit that cow picture once again, it will surely pass.

It really passed, after a third attempt (third time is the charm).

And the famous cow is here. Now, just don't tell me it's not a cow

It may be a female (or a young male, maybe?), but it looks like a zebu (the hump).

beketoff · « **Reply #15 on:** May 20, 2016, 04:57 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 20, 2016, 04:04

It may be a female (or a young male, maybe?), but it looks like a zebu (the hump).

Thanks a lot! I actually spent a ton of time trying to identify the animal and ended up describing it as it looked. Now it appears to be more scientific. Thanks again for a tip.

cathyslife · « **Reply #16 on:** May 20, 2016, 05:14 »

I was going to say Brahma bull, because of the hump, but can't tell if male or female.

JoeClemson · « **Reply #17 on:** May 20, 2016, 05:54 »

Zoos in the UK almost always prohibit photographs taken on their property being used for commercial purposes without their permission and I guess this is probably true in many other parts of the world. An animal in a zoo may well be identifiable because of some unique characteristic, whether or not it has a tag in its ear. It is risky to submit such pictures for commercial RF usage as it leaves the photographer open to subsequent legal action, even if it does get past the microstock inspector. The risk may be small, as in this case, but it is there.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #18 on:** May 20, 2016, 16:31 »

Please forgive some well intentioned critique. Going a bit wider to avoid cutting off the feet and the back end would make this a more sellable picture. Also, using the clone tool to get rid of the distracting feet of another animal on the left would give you some copy space.

Looks like a Brahma bull to me too.

ShadySue · « **Reply #19 on:** May 20, 2016, 17:09 »

For info: Zebu <=> Brahma cattle.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #20 on:** May 20, 2016, 18:05 »

Quote from: Irina Anosova on May 19, 2016, 17:02

I also recall some funny story about property release request on main Russian government building (exterior).

not so funny, actually in some countries it is forbidden, infact one could get arrested for pointing a camera in the direction of the compound of the king,etc..
in one of my assignments many years ago, in a country i was in, i was told we could not even point it towards the top of the mountain where the governor's palace was. at one time, i was even hanging about a public beach when i unknowing had my camera and wondered into an area where an old guy was walking with some very hot looking young woman. as i pointed in their direction,
but not at them, i found myself suddenly surrounded by dark suited mafia looking guys.
they asked for my passport. and later went to my hotel and someone came in to "check the airconditioning".
i touched a nerve there, and no doubt it was a politician and some woman they did not want me to see.
back to the palace , another photographer did indeed point it that direction
and got his camera checked. the distance was not even near. you could have taken a 500mm lens
and still only got the face of a mountain. absurd??? yes, but you don't want to lose any time
in a cell and have your consulate not even know where you are.

Rinderart · « **Reply #21 on:** May 20, 2016, 23:42 »

Amazing thread. why does every thread Here remind me of every thread from years ago? I assume my time has come to move on. I post advice ... them Im a old fart, even a elitist Old fart. Well, this Old fart will put any Image of mine against yours any day of the week. seriously. My time is coming to an end here and microstock in general.

Newbies think they have it all figured out, with there trends that in reality are 10 years old and Older. Sorry guys, Thats the truth. I haven't seen anything fresh or new in years. I have reviewer friends and ADMIN friends and they agree. Oh God. I could write 20 Pages. maybe I will very soon when I leave. And I hate to say this and not because of me and others....... you Guys Have to respect those who came before. For some reason you dont....Maybe never will. oh well your loss.

Many of us fought for what you have now and you don't even Know it. You go whoHoo I made 25 cents, Someone Likes me and my Pictures............My God. Sad. The sites love you guys.

Dumc · « **Reply #22 on:** May 21, 2016, 02:57 »

So, what does this have to do with a cow and property release?

alno · « **Reply #23 on:** May 21, 2016, 03:40 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on May 20, 2016, 18:05

Quote from: Irina Anosova on May 19, 2016, 17:02
I also recall some funny story about property release request on main Russian government building (exterior).

not so funny, actually in some countries it is forbidden, infact one could get arrested for pointing a camera in the direction of the compound of the king,etc..

Funny part is about accepting several shots of that building and rejecting one actually. I guess there are no easily accessible trouble making buildings in Moscow, it some kind of Arabic, Chinese or Thai things. The worst about it is that all conspirators in the neighborhood surely already have nice 20 mpix 600 mm shots of those 'top secret objects' and some ordinary people having real troubles because of royal paranoia.

rod-09 · « **Reply #24 on:** May 21, 2016, 05:45 »

The accepted the videos of my cat that I sent about two months ago. No I.D, Release or whatever...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock requires property release for a picture of animal? (Read 13435 times)

beketoff

w7lwi

etudiante_rapide

pancaketom

PixelBytes

ShadySue

cathyslife

Dumc

beketoff

etudiante_rapide

Rinderart

ShadySue

alno

beketoff

ShadySue

beketoff

cathyslife

JoeClemson

PixelBytes

ShadySue

etudiante_rapide

Rinderart

Dumc

alno

rod-09

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors