Property Releases - Getting Strict

dkapp12 · #1 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 12:55 PM

I have noticed this past week that I am getting rejections for not acquiring property releases. This has happened at Shutterstock and even more at 123rf.

123rf has rejected photos of national monuments in Washington DC (Korean, WWII, etc) Also rejected a generic kitchen interior and many exterior shots of houses. I have never had a problem with this type of photo before. As far as I can tell there hasn't been any communicatin from the stock agencies on the policy change. What's going on?

Karimala · #2 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 03:33 PM

I had the same rejection at DT last week for photos of graffiti spray painted on the side of a train. In this case, the issue was copyright/trademark infringement and they asked that I try to obtain a property release.

Imagine trying to get a property release from the "artists" who vandalized the train.

I'm going to resubmit them with a note explaining the "artwork" was created by an act of vandalism, and ask if it's protected under copyright/trademark law. Seems to me it would make sense that anything created during a criminal act can't be copyrighted or trademarked...but I could be wrong.

Anyway...the only place where there was an announced vigilance about property releases was SXP. Haven't heard anything about other sites doing the same. In fact, SS doesn't even provide a property release on their site.

The DC monuments aren't copyrighted or trademarked. They are all in the public domain. Try sending an e-mail to Alex @ 123rf, point that out, and ask for a second review. They are pretty good about reconsidering.

dkapp12 · #3 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 04:06 PM

Thanks - I'll give that a try.

e-person · #4 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karimala

I had the same rejection at DT last week for photos of graffiti spray painted on the side of a train. In this case, the issue was copyright/trademark infringement and they asked that I try to obtain a property release.

Imagine trying to get a property release from the "artists" who vandalized the train.

I'm going to resubmit them with a note explaining the "artwork" was created by an act of vandalism, and ask if it's protected under copyright/trademark law. Seems to me it would make sense that anything created during a criminal act can't be copyrighted or trademarked...but I could be wrong.

Practically speaking you are right, although it is still art.

The only place that will most probably take it, is SS. DT would simply not. IS, maybe. 123RF, maybe. It also depends on inspectors mood, as you might be aware of. :-)

I can take thousands of graffiti photos, but only SS would take them. Wasted time for me. I do not want to work for peanuts any longer.

Batman2000 · #5 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 09:16 PM

Micros are getting absurd... all that paperwork for pennies. Many people will overlook the fact that paper management is, in the end, more work. And keeping track of all the paperwork with thousands of photos... a big task.

louoates · #6 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 06:55 PM

I had a reject for lack of property release on a plain block wall being built next to my house. Nothing was visible except part of the block wall and some hands laying the block. Too goofy for words.

Batman2000 · #7 (**permalink**) 06-14-2008, 02:54 PM

There has to be some more behind all this... They wont tell, but the absurdity of it all smells pretty like a legal problem on the works that nobody has commented or reported yet.

thesupe87 · #8 (**permalink**) 06-16-2008, 05:21 PM

I can never get my graffiti shots approved at Dreamstime either. They must not get it over there when it comes to public domain stuff. If vandalism is copyrighted...then you can slap me around and call me Susan. The artist lost any intellectual right to the artwork as soon as he decided to spray paint it on that public wall.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karimala

I had the same rejection at DT last week for photos of graffiti spray painted on the side of a train. In this case, the issue was copyright/trademark infringement and they asked that I try to obtain a property release.

Imagine trying to get a property release from the "artists" who vandalized the train.

I'm going to resubmit them with a note explaining the "artwork" was created by an act of vandalism, and ask if it's protected under copyright/trademark law. Seems to me it would make sense that anything created during a criminal act can't be copyrighted or trademarked...but I could be wrong.

Anyway...the only place where there was an announced vigilance about property releases was SXP. Haven't heard anything about other sites doing the same. In fact, SS doesn't even provide a property release on their site.

The DC monuments aren't copyrighted or trademarked. They are all in the public domain. Try sending an e-mail to Alex @ 123rf, point that out, and ask for a second review. They are pretty good about reconsidering.

AnnO · #9 (**permalink**) 06-24-2008, 06:35 AM

I've found snapvillage on the cutting edge of requiring property releases :!: So I've gotten PRs for shots of my friend's houses and my own house and cats, and then sent the PRs to the other sites that had already okayed the photos - I figure it's just a matter of time that more and more sites will require them.

louoates · #10 (**permalink**) 06-24-2008, 03:19 PM

When you get right down to it it is impossible to shoot any picture that doesn't have somebody's property in it. Okay, maybe tabletop shots, if you own the table and backdrops. Or sky shots, providing any clouds showing don't resemble a person, place, or thing. I just laugh at the rejects in this area and move on. Not worth the argue time.