Author Topic: Better understanding editorial (Read 5081 times)

Darren Green · « **on:** April 16, 2013, 10:47 »

Some years back (before digital) I spent a few weeks touring Scotland photographing castles. This was at the time just a pet project as I am a bit of a history buff.

When I started uploading to agencies I submitted some images of famous buildings (certain London landmarks) where the building was the main focus of the shot, not just part of a landscape. The images were rejected as I did not have Property Releases (Yes I did submit them as RF)

I have read so much now on property releases on different sites, and some of them seem contradictory, that I'm now slightly confused.

So am I right to understand that if you upload an image of a copyrighted building, for example the Chrysler in New York, that as long as it is uploaded as an editorial image only and not RF then all is well in the world?

Thanks in advance for clearing things up?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** April 16, 2013, 10:51 »

Quote from: Darren Green on April 16, 2013, 10:47

So am I right to understand that if you upload an image of a copyrighted building, for example the Chrysler in New York, that as long as it is uploaded as an editorial image only and not RF then all is well in the world?

First off, don't confuse the type of license (RM/RF) with the usage permissions the buyer gets (commercial/editorial). Editorial usage images can be licensed RM or RF. Commercial usage images cna be licensed RM or RF.

Second, read this:
http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html#8.2

ShadySue · « **Reply #2 on:** April 16, 2013, 11:09 »

Quote from: Darren Green on April 16, 2013, 10:47

Some years back (before digital) I spent a few weeks touring Scotland photographing castles.

I'm sure the rules will be different from agency to agency, but re Scottish Castles, if they're owned by the NTS or HS, iS won't take them (any on there are by mistake, or are old acceptances they haven't culled yet) unless (for editorial use) it's clear that they were taken from a public street, and even then they'll often reject to be on the same side. Worse, if something even looks vaguely like a castle, even some ordinary buildings in Scots Baronial Style can be editorial only, like the castellated old prison officer's house, now offices, on Calton Hill (and there are loads of pics still in the main collection, as they should be). Similarly, I had a pic of the castellated bit of Dublin Castle (the record tower), which is now an office block (plenty older pics in main collection).
Alamy sent out emails ages ago that they won't accept NT or NTS at all, though I think they conceded on the 'photographed from a public street' point, and all sorts of prohibited stuff sneak through there.
I heard recently that SS rejected an image of an English Heritage property (industrial history, not a castle) for their main collection.

It is generally believed that EH, NT, HS, NTS have no basis in law for forbidding commercial photography, but who wants to be the test case? Certainly, the agencies don't want it.

I'm sure someone with info from the other agencies will help with their guidelines.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #3 on:** April 16, 2013, 11:17 »

Read this site: http://www.nationaltrustimages.org.uk/photographic-access

There's also another one for some other UK properties: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/

The National Heritage List for England is the only official and up to date database of all nationally designated heritage assets including: Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments, Protected Wreck Sites, Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields, World Heritage Sites, applications for Certificates of Immunity (COIs), current Building Preservation Notices (BPNs).

You are dealing with these private organizations and they claim all commercial photo rights. Some places you can't even shoot video. Good luck!

These are the people who can give you a property release.

Yes I understand Editorial is a different question, but you are still going to run into a legal morass.

ShadySue · « **Reply #4 on:** April 16, 2013, 11:35 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on April 16, 2013, 11:17

You are dealing with these private organizations and they claim all commercial photo rights. Some places you can't even shoot video. Good luck!

I'm not sure what you mean by private organisations, but English Heritage is "English Heritage (officially the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England) is an executive non-departmental public body of the British Government "
Historic Scotland is an "executive agency of the Scottish Government, responsible for historic monuments in Scotland". Therefore both are public bodies, funded by UK taxpayers and supported additionally by the membership.

NT and NTS are registered UK charities.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #5 on:** April 16, 2013, 11:46 »

They are private enough that they regulate the right to take photos or video and what we can do with it.

Which one manages Windsor Castle? It has severe photo restrictions. If it was public, and public tax supported, should the photo rights be free of restrictions. How does English Heritage charge admission and claim image rights to Stonehenge, I mean, some lost tribe of Beaker People built it 5,000 years ago.

Yes I do understand the manage and maintain. But the whole public vs private is mingled, with the taxes and private support and because of that... They are not public sites. We can't market the images without permission.

That's my point, beyond all the naming and legal technicalities?

Quote from: ShadySue on April 16, 2013, 11:35

Quote from: RacePhoto on April 16, 2013, 11:17
You are dealing with these private organizations and they claim all commercial photo rights. Some places you can't even shoot video. Good luck!
I'm not sure what you mean by private organisations, but English Heritage is "English Heritage (officially the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England) is an executive non-departmental public body of the British Government "
Historic Scotland is an "executive agency of the Scottish Government, responsible for historic monuments in Scotland". Therefore both are public bodies, funded by UK taxpayers and supported additionally by the membership.

NT and NTS are registered UK charities.

Les · « **Reply #6 on:** April 16, 2013, 23:25 »

Quote from: Darren Green on April 16, 2013, 10:47

Some years back (before digital) I spent a few weeks touring Scotland photographing castles. This was at the time just a pet project as I am a bit of a history buff.

When I started uploading to agencies I submitted some images of famous buildings (certain London landmarks) where the building was the main focus of the shot, not just part of a landscape. The images were rejected as I did not have Property Releases (Yes I did submit them as RF)

I have read so much now on property releases on different sites, and some of them seem contradictory, that I'm now slightly confused.

So am I right to understand that if you upload an image of a copyrighted building, for example the Chrysler in New York, that as long as it is uploaded as an editorial image only and not RF then all is well in the world?

Thanks in advance for clearing things up?

One consideration is the quality of those old images. If they were shot with a 35mm camera, most likely the scanned material wouldn't satisfy the latest acceptance criteria.

Darren Green · « **Reply #7 on:** April 17, 2013, 04:59 »

Quote from: Les on April 16, 2013, 23:25

One consideration is the quality of those old images. If they were shot with a 35mm camera, most likely the scanned material wouldn't satisfy the latest acceptance criteria.

EOS 1RT & EOS 1RN, - Velvia and Extachrome 100 - Fuji Drum-scanners. Producing images up-to100mb at 300ppi.

Digital results far surpassing many of the 'main stream' digital cameras that are accepted by agencies today.

A large portion of my online ports are scans. I have had far less scans rejected than digitally shot images.

The question is not the quality of the work, it is the legally acceptable usage.

ShadySue · « **Reply #8 on:** April 17, 2013, 05:15 »

Quote from: Darren Green on April 17, 2013, 04:59

The question is not the quality of the work, it is the legally acceptable usage.

Plus the agencies tend to 'build a fence around the Law'.
Note also that these photography bans are widely assumed to have no legal basis, in fact a volunteer at one place which used to ban commercial photography (but you couldn't see that until after you had bought a ticket when it was in really small print on the back) told me they knew it had no legal standing.
It's what the agencies will/won't take which concerns you.
Also check out Alamy. They won't take NT/NTS properties (unless obviously taken from a public place), I'm not sure what their official position is on EH/HS.

Les · « **Reply #9 on:** April 17, 2013, 06:53 »

Quote from: Darren Green on April 17, 2013, 04:59

Quote from: Les on April 16, 2013, 23:25

One consideration is the quality of those old images. If they were shot with a 35mm camera, most likely the scanned material wouldn't satisfy the latest acceptance criteria.

EOS 1RT & EOS 1RN, - Velvia and Extachrome 100 - Fuji Drum-scanners. Producing images up-to100mb at 300ppi.

Digital results far surpassing many of the 'main stream' digital cameras that are accepted by agencies today.
A large portion of my online ports are scans. I have had far less scans rejected than digitally shot images.

The question is not the quality of the work, it is the legally acceptable usage.

Based on my own experience, I found out that most of my old 35mm images were rather soft. As at that time I photographed mainly to produce images for slide presentations and small prints, the softness in those applications was not a problem and not even visible. Looking back, I would attribute the softness mainly to the rather poor quality of the consumer lenses I used with the 35mm equipment.
So the poor quality of old 35mm images was not necessarily caused by using film, but rather by using inferior equipment and possibly incorrect technique. Sometimes, even the photo lab messed up the films.

In contrast, my images from 6x9 and 6x17 cameras were captured on large format film and with much better lenses, and as Darren points out, they sometimes produced sharper images than one can get today with many digital cameras.