| Author |
Message |
bichon
Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 11329
Location: Canada
|
Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 8:47 am
|  |
| muradin wrote: | but what if the next time i'll draw a three-head and eight-legs monster, could you tell me where to find it?
|
it's under your bed |
|
muradin
Joined: 06 Oct 2009
Posts: 11
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:31 am
| |
2 bichon:
I had no sleep last night!
And again about this property release. Where should i find that Witness for the signing? Is it Jehovah's Witness? Or should i fetch my watercolor papers to the notary office? All this so complicated! |
|
pzurek
Joined: 14 Mar 2008
Posts: 47
Location: Prague
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:18 pm
| |
| muradin wrote: |
And again about this property release. Where should i find that Witness for the signing? Is it Jehovah's Witness? Or should i fetch my watercolor papers to the notary office? All this so complicated! |
As witness I´m using anybody available around. Witness confirm, that signatures are representing people on PR/MR. Still keep on mind: PR/MR is your protection.
Peter |
|
muradin
Joined: 06 Oct 2009
Posts: 11
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:35 am
| |
Sometimes it's very difficult to find this anybody available for using! |
|
noahsamuel
Joined: 16 Jun 2009
Posts: 1
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:11 pm
| |
new rules complicate our work. I did upload few detail shots of interiors - as armchair with a coffee table, detail of kitchen etc. Nothing extra special nor designer pieces. I was asked to provide a property release and that's ridiculous. I assume they will lose a lot of business. |
|
bichon
Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 11329
Location: Canada
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:16 pm
| |
| noahsamuel wrote: | | new rules complicate our work. I did upload few detail shots of interiors - as armchair with a coffee table, detail of kitchen etc. Nothing extra special nor designer pieces. I was asked to provide a property release and that's ridiculous. I assume they will lose a lot of business. |
just move them somewhere else who still accept them without releases. |
|
biketourist
Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 172
Location: Central California
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:07 pm
| |
"If the subject of your image contains any of the following, please provide a properly completed and signed property release when your content is submitted."
"As a photographer, it is your responsibility to do the research and determine if a release is necessary."
First, the two statements above are contradictory. If I do the research and determine a release is NOT necessary your reviewer may say that yes, a release IS necessary. So what has been accomplished?
Your list of subjects includes almost every material object in the civilized world. Do you think that movie producers shooting on location in a city get releases from every store, sign, passing automobile, pedestrian and unique appearing dog in the background?
Editorial? Are you kidding. Most of the giants of photojournalism who pursued great social themes would not get accepted by your reviewers because they were not what you deem NEWSWORTHY. Newsworthy is apparently sports and train wrecks. That's all.
Really, SS needs to give some serious thought to its policies regarding editorial and documentary photography (and the other microstocks, too, not to single you out). A lot of editorial usage is used to illustrate themes that are not exactly newsworthy. The microstocks are narrowing the concept, possibly out of fear of law suites, but there is a great body of law supporting a more liberal interpretation.
You don't want to end up with 13 million images of sports, train wrecks and business people on white isolated backgrounds.
Or do you? |
|
hhltdave5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 24070
Location: Our Stock, Food & Portrait photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:30 pm
| |
| biketourist wrote: | "If the subject of your image contains any of the following, please provide a properly completed and signed property release when your content is submitted."
"As a photographer, it is your responsibility to do the research and determine if a release is necessary."
First, the two statements above are contradictory. If I do the research and determine a release is NOT necessary your reviewer may say that yes, a release IS necessary. So what has been accomplished?
Your list of subjects includes almost every material object in the civilized world. Do you think that movie producers shooting on location in a city get releases from every store, sign, passing automobile, pedestrian and unique appearing dog in the background?
Editorial? Are you kidding. Most of the giants of photojournalism who pursued great social themes would not get accepted by your reviewers because they were not what you deem NEWSWORTHY. Newsworthy is apparently sports and train wrecks. That's all.
Really, SS needs to give some serious thought to its policies regarding editorial and documentary photography (and the other microstocks, too, not to single you out). A lot of editorial usage is used to illustrate themes that are not exactly newsworthy. The microstocks are narrowing the concept, possibly out of fear of law suites, but there is a great body of law supporting a more liberal interpretation.
You don't want to end up with 13 million images of sports, train wrecks and business people on white isolated backgrounds.
Or do you? |
Shutterstock has put a good deal of thought into their policies on releases that is exactly why they made the changes that they did and why so many people are bitching.
Copyright/Trademark laws and protections are extremely varied and complicated. Their are law suits brought about all over the world constantly because someone did not want their property used in a manner that made money for someone else without their permission.
To reduce the liability potential Shutterstock and other stock sites have changed their policies and those submitting images either follow them or move on.
Your comment about film producers getting releases they actually do or names of places are changed. Most vehicles in movies are those owned or rented by the production company. People in the scenes are actors or extras signed by the production company to appear in the film. Film companies also do have negotiated agreements with the owners of well known structures to use their buildings in a film.
As far as editorial or photojournalism images they have also made changes in those areas. They have one requirement and that it be newsworthy. Granted what is newsworthy is open to debate but Shutterstock is not a place for displaying the photo-journalistic abilities of others. It is a stock site that is in the business to sell stock images, that's it.
As far as having 13 million images of only what you described well they are accepting about 70,000 new images a day of widely varying subject matter.
Submitters may not like the rules but that's the way things are. If someone doesn't like them then they have other options and ways of selling their images and they are free to take good use of them.
Have things gotten more difficult for submitters to get images accepted? Of course but the days of going out and snapping a shot of a car or another shot looking up at an office building are over. The times are changing so we either have to change with them or we take our toys and go play somewhere else. In the end Shutterstock is going to do what they feel is best to protect themselves from potential liability. |
|
biketourist
Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 172
Location: Central California
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:15 pm
| |
hhltdave5, thanks for your well reasoned reply. I can understand and agree with much of it. All those images out there must give legal nightmares to SS staff.
It's always been Shutterstock's ballgame and most of us will continue to play by the rules as we are given to understand them.
I'm grateful for Shutterstock's role in providing a little extra retirement income. That doesn't mean I can't be a little critical, especially since digital imaging, along with digital everything else, is evolving daily and occupying new territory.
Thanks again for your response. |
|
hhltdave5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 24070
Location: Our Stock, Food & Portrait photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:30 pm
| |
| biketourist wrote: | hhltdave5, thanks for your well reasoned reply. I can understand and agree with much of it. All those images out there must give legal nightmares to SS staff.
It's always been Shutterstock's ballgame and most of us will continue to play by the rules as we are given to understand them.
I'm grateful for Shutterstock's role in providing a little extra retirement income. That doesn't mean I can't be a little critical, especially since digital imaging, along with digital everything else, is evolving daily and occupying new territory.
Thanks again for your response. |
There is nothing wrong with being critical or asking questions. If no one ever did that change would be slow in coming. It is also normal for people to dislike change in many cases. It takes us into an area we are not familiar with and it takes time to understand it and accept it.
Good luck in getting those extra retirement funds. I know myself how nice they are :) |
|
emirsimsek
Joined: 18 May 2007
Posts: 45
Location: Toronto / Tokyo / Istanbul
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 6:47 am
| |
i uploaded my vector files (cityscape, fishing boat) with their releases but they are rejected with a "doesn't need release" note. so i think i can send them without releases, eh? |
|
tarasart
Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Posts: 52
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:42 pm
| |
I've submitted my family's 19th century photos, which were rejected because of 'no property release'.
How can make it in a proper way? I've never made it before, and what kind of proof must I apply?
A photo of me or my ID near that dozen of photocards, or a printed SS logo with a current date among them? : )
p.s. sorry for bad English, if anything is wrong ) |
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 17463
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, The real California
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:30 am
| |
| tarasart wrote: | I've submitted my family's 19th century photos, which were rejected because of 'no property release'.
How can make it in a proper way? I've never made it before, and what kind of proof must I apply?
A photo of me or my ID near that dozen of photocards, or a printed SS logo with a current date among them? : )
p.s. sorry for bad English, if anything is wrong ) |
Old images (photos) are the copyright of the photographer who took them, and in the US then pass on to his/her heirs for a period of 75 years after their death. So if these images are indeed 19th century, 1800's, it means that it is unlikely that the photographer is still alive, but it may yet not be 75 years since their death. |
|
veinglory
Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 1243
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:01 pm
| |
I am seeing no really pattern in which of my artwork (done in markers and scanned) need a property release, and which don't.
Is there a basis for this? I get rejected for not having a release about 5% of the time but not for any particular kind of drawing.
None of my art fits the desciption of 'photographs of artwork'. it is all scanned on a flatbed scanner.
Any guidance would really be appreciated. |
|
1973kla
Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 86
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 5:56 am
| |
This property release is now asked also for my vector sketched images (they are hand drawn by me).... I don't understand how it works... should it be attached to the original jpg scan used to trace vector or should it be alone? The owner of the image am I... Should I compile Owner's space with MY data? This sound quite absurd to me....
I have alrealdy granted that I am the copyright holder of my images when I accepted the legal advices joining a stock agency ! ...
Well...Ok....the last question : should I compile this annoying thing for EVERY single sketch image or a single Release is good for different ones, considering that I am always the drawing's author ?
Thanks for every answer !
(Sorry for bad macaroni English... )
C. |
|
| |
|
Log in
