| Author |
Message |
terrymr
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 71
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:44 pm
|  |
| gdlerner wrote: | | I still don t understand,the ares a new law?,they deleted already 5 from my gallery |
I was responding to Sumo's point about buildings being next. The law does protect the right of photographers to photograph buildings from a public place and to distribute those pictures as long as there is not some other trademark or copyright issue with the picture. |
|
eagle
Joined: 03 Aug 2005
Posts: 645
Location: Akron, Ohio
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:04 pm
| |
I have had five or so deleted in the last few days as well. All have been older cars. |
|
sumo
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 186
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:56 pm
| |
Well there is a property release available which does imply that we need a release for photos of buildings and property. Also as you stated the law does state that pictures taken from a public place, but who defines public ? I have yet to see a clear definition of what constitutes a public space,
Is a residential street public ? I would say it is since the provinsial authority built the street even though the homes there may be private. According to that definition I ought to be able to take pictures of a private house visible from the street and post it and not need a property release. I think somebody is going to disagree. Also many such homes are very generic and look the same to hundreds of other similar homes, and as such they hardly can be defined as unique in any way and therefor should not need a property release but many stock sites will reject ANY photo of such a house even if it is of a mass produced building taken from a public street with no unique features.
So we are in a very sensitive area in regard to this.
I can understand the position stock agencies are in and why they want to be safe. But on the other hand this trademark thing and sueing everybody is getting WAAAAAAAYYYY out of hand.
Besides what idiot made laws in such a way that we need specially educated people to interpret them ?
I mean what the hell, the laws should just be to the point and bereft of any double meaning or subject to different interpretations. |
|
triceratops
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 3420
Location: The other Nevada
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:17 pm
| |
| sumo wrote: | Well there is a property release available which does imply that we need a release for photos of buildings and property. Also as you stated the law does state that pictures taken from a public place, but who defines public ? I have yet to see a clear definition of what constitutes a public space,
Is a residential street public ? I would say it is since the provinsial authority built the street even though the homes there may be private. According to that definition I ought to be able to take pictures of a private house visible from the street and post it and not need a property release. I think somebody is going to disagree. Also many such homes are very generic and look the same to hundreds of other similar homes, and as such they hardly can be defined as unique in any way and therefor should not need a property release but many stock sites will reject ANY photo of such a house even if it is of a mass produced building taken from a public street with no unique features.
So we are in a very sensitive area in regard to this.
I can understand the position stock agencies are in and why they want to be safe. But on the other hand this trademark thing and sueing everybody is getting WAAAAAAAYYYY out of hand.
Besides what idiot made laws in such a way that we need specially educated people to interpret them ?
I mean what the hell, the laws should just be to the point and bereft of any double meaning or subject to different interpretations. |
You need to make the distinction between taking a picture and using a picture. You can take a picture of anything from a public place. The problem arises when you want to use the picture for commercial purposes. That's where editorial comes in. The picture may be used in a non-commercial manner (editorial) without a release, but may not be used commercially unless it has a valid release. In real life, the term editorial means many things. But SS, and most other microstock agencies, have elected to define it as something that is "newsworthy." So either this image is newsworthy or it must have a release. If neither condition is met, scrap it. |
|
hhltdave5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 10893
Location: Our stock and food photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:23 pm
| |
| sumo wrote: | Well there is a property release available which does imply that we need a release for photos of buildings and property. Also as you stated the law does state that pictures taken from a public place, but who defines public ? I have yet to see a clear definition of what constitutes a public space,
Is a residential street public ? I would say it is since the provinsial authority built the street even though the homes there may be private. According to that definition I ought to be able to take pictures of a private house visible from the street and post it and not need a property release. I think somebody is going to disagree. Also many such homes are very generic and look the same to hundreds of other similar homes, and as such they hardly can be defined as unique in any way and therefor should not need a property release but many stock sites will reject ANY photo of such a house even if it is of a mass produced building taken from a public street with no unique features.
So we are in a very sensitive area in regard to this.
I can understand the position stock agencies are in and why they want to be safe. But on the other hand this trademark thing and sueing everybody is getting WAAAAAAAYYYY out of hand.
Besides what idiot made laws in such a way that we need specially educated people to interpret them ?
I mean what the hell, the laws should just be to the point and bereft of any double meaning or subject to different interpretations. |
There is nothing that says you cannot TAKE an image from a public place (as long as it is done legally) and copyright/trademark protections do not address that. The area they address is when someone USES that image for compensation or profit. It is the USE of the image for profit that is protected not the taking of it.
When it comes to easy definitions about legal terms that also is not an easy task. Laws deal in what are known as absolutes so they must be specific, sometimes VERY specific. You cannot simply say that a public place is somewhere that people can gather because there are many different ways and places where people can gather. Trust me, I have dealt with laws my entire adult life and I wish they they could be simple but that is just not the way it is.
Here is a site that gives some definitions and explanations of what a public place is. A better source is a book called Black's Legal Dictionary and it can be found in most libraries.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/public+place |
|
gdlerner
Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Posts: 71
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:01 am
| |
Yes but the most images are beeing deleted are from old cars ,and my images the ares no on open places (on the forest for example) |
|
jmci
Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 1380
Location: Northern Ireland
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:56 am
| |
I wonder what the position is regarding images that have now been deleted, but which have previously been sold and, presumably, used in good faith? |
|
vorminbeeld
Joined: 29 Aug 2008
Posts: 42
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:28 am
| |
Another picture of mine has been deleted yesterday. It was a picture of a camper van from the seventies. To me it was a generic looking camper. This is very annoying. I thought that only pictures of cars which could be identified as a specific brand are deleted. Still the rules are not clear to me. I have some cars which were designed in the fifties. The designs are more then 50 years old. Will these also be deleted? Does anyone know? |
|
kenk
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Posts: 1593
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:00 am
| |
I had pictures of Princeton University taken off another site (I will follow up here as soon as I can), due to the university's request. |
|
lowellaguno
Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 771
Location: Southern California; www.lowellaguno.com
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:33 am
| |
This purging by microstock sites of all things copyrighted and trademarked is very good news! It means people like me who directly license photos to the editorial market will have images not available on the micros.
Thank you microstock industry for helping out editorial stock photographers, like me!
Y-E-S !
Last edited by lowellaguno on Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
massman
Joined: 04 Jul 2006
Posts: 453
Location: South Wales
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:28 pm
| |
Just had the colourful version of this one deleted:
The worlds' gone made a tell ya. Don't even know how long this one will be around. |
|
jdebordphoto
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Posts: 48
Location: Denver!
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:53 pm
| |
I have also been a victim too, all mine deleted though have been of hotrods mostly cars from the 30s with a few 40s and 50s...all customized highly too. |
|
algol
Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Posts: 105
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:59 am
| |
My generic sports car illustrations are gone too. This is really crazy! Same legal team as the non-US tax mess I assume? |
|
gdlerner
Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Posts: 71
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:57 pm
| |
Why nobody from SS is explain this issue!!
I seded email not answer!!! |
|
dzain
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 2659
Location: The Netherlands
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:18 pm
| |
| algol wrote: | | My generic sports car illustrations are gone too. This is really crazy! Same legal team as the non-US tax mess I assume? |
I'm afraid you're right... |
|
| |
|
Log in
