MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: zeljkok on March 08, 2025, 18:58
-
Recently I spent 6 weeks trekking in Spain, last 2 on Canary Islands. Had a chance to visit spectacular place - Roque de los Muchachos Astrophysics Laboratory on La Palma. Nearby is "Monumento al Infinito" or Monument to Infinity -- more details https://www.starsislandlapalma.es/en/walking-and-observing/astronomical-viewpoint/monument-to-infinity-astronomical-viewpoint (https://www.starsislandlapalma.es/en/walking-and-observing/astronomical-viewpoint/monument-to-infinity-astronomical-viewpoint)
It is a spectacular place, and virtually no offering on stock agencies, so I took couple of shots. Uploaded 2 - horizontal and vertical - as non-editorial to Adobe. Vertical gets accepted
(https://as1.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/12/99/38/26/1000_F_1299382608_8b5fMnOhdAJT0M3Fl53bCReqjW2dBdJm.jpg)
and horizontal rejected for "Intellectual property Refusal" reasons
(https://as1.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/13/12/55/74/1000_F_1312557417_4X7WXIYGpVZt2pX2FdIsaIGszi9ElEbn.jpg)
After uploading as Editorial it goes through. So now there are 2 images of same place, one as Editorial one as Non-Editorial.
To make things even more ridiculous, on Shutterstock Horizontal (Editorial on Adobe) is accepted as RF, and Vertical (Non-Editorial on Adobe) rejected as RF, and accepted as Editorial.
----------------------------
Can anyone comment, should these be Editorial or non-Editorial images? Judging on above, I don't think Reviewers really know and it depends who you run into
-
Both of these images show artwork by a specific artist and should have been accepted as editorial content only.
Editorial content rejections have always been completely random on Adobe. I had so many editorial content rejected where I could not see anything wrong with their rules and I also had photos of one subject accepted and other photos of the same subject rejected.
I think not even reviewers understand Adobe's editorial content rules.
-
Recently I spent 6 weeks trekking in Spain, last 2 on Canary Islands. Had a chance to visit spectacular place - Roque de los Muchachos Astrophysics Laboratory on La Palma. Nearby is "Monumento al Infinito" or Monument to Infinity -- more details
Can anyone comment, should these be Editorial or non-Editorial images? Judging on above, I don't think Reviewers really know and it depends who you run into
I hope you had a wonderful trip. Nice photos. Being a work of art, I believe it's not Public Domain, the artist retains the rights to his or her work, even when they are paid or commissioned. You are right of course about varied reviews, and that comes from different reviewers who don't always know all the minor technicalities. Also every agency seems to have their own views of what's allowed or not and what's editorial. The laws are clear, but an agency can make it's own rules about what's acceptable into their collection.
Nice photos.
-
I think not even reviewers understand Adobe's editorial content rules.
I said that several times & totally agree.
This example is an interesting one. On Adobe there are 5 images of this place, of which now 2 are mine. 1 Editorial, 4 non-Editorial (Just search as customer would for "Monument to Infinity La Palma"). Here is one that is not mine:
(https://as2.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/05/48/95/91/1000_F_548959178_qKYtPkcxNiDVL256jbxl8cOG9ivvysGs.jpg)
It should NOT matter this is nightime shot (fantastic shot btw, and I want to return to this place & spend the night, it is beyond awesome)
Shutterstock has 4 images, of which 2 are mine. 3 Editorial, 1 RF (mine).
Alamy has 2 (both mine) - I have them as no property right now, but might change based on input here on MSG (main reason I posted)
-
Just out of curiosity, could this have any consequences for the photographer (beyond a TOS violation) if a company extensively uses this image in an advertising campaign, even though it should have been marked as editorial content? In such a case, could the financial losses incurred by the company fall on the photographer’s shoulders if the company faces legal trouble because of the image? I sometimes find myself wondering which license category to submit my travel photos under as well...
-
Yes, there could be consequences, and it's important that we are careful as to whether we submit to the commercial or editorial category. Reviewers can always make mistakes but, in this instance, this is clearly a modern work, (built in 1985 I believe), and is the main subject or very prominent in the image. It should only have been submitted as editorial in the first place, because it contains artwork that is the intellectual property of the original artist. It would need a release for the commercial section.
The Shutterstock agreement states the following:
d. the Content and all parts thereof are owned and/or controlled by you, unencumbered and original works and are capable of copyright protection in all countries where copyright or similar protection is available;
This isn't the case if you submit someone else's artwork as commercial without permission.
So, as stated in the agreement further down:
a. You agree to indemnify and hold Shutterstock, its subsidiaries, affiliates, directors, officers, and employees harmless from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and disbursements) arising out of any breach or claimed breach of any of your representations or warranties or any of your obligations under the TOS. You will only be liable for any incidental, consequential, or special damages in the case of third party claims.
In other words, if there is a claim against Shutterstock, and you've breached the agreement, you pay the price.
Whilst it's tempting to try and sneak work in as commercial, it's not really worth the risk.
-
this is clearly a modern work, (built in 1985 I believe)
Whilst it's tempting to try and sneak work in as commercial, it's not really worth the risk.
Correct, 1985
Re "sneaking as commercial" - definitely not what I am after. Hence post here looking for clarification
I just checked "property" field on Alamy. Thank you for input
Related: Nearby is Astrophysics laboratory, famous all over the world, including largest optical infrared telescope in the world. See https://www.iac.es/en/observatorios-de-canarias/roque-de-los-muchachos-observatory (https://www.iac.es/en/observatorios-de-canarias/roque-de-los-muchachos-observatory)
I got loads of shots both outside and inside which I will eventually submit to stock. Outside shots should be commercial, ie.
(https://autumnsky.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p1062898803-10.jpg)
But how about inside shot, showing that telescope?
(https://autumnsky.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p680461837-10.jpg)
-
this is clearly a modern work, (built in 1985 I believe)
Whilst it's tempting to try and sneak work in as commercial, it's not really worth the risk.
Correct, 1985
Re "sneaking as commercial" - definitely not what I am after. Hence post here looking for clarification
I just checked "property" field on Alamy. Thank you for input
Related: Nearby is Astrophysics laboratory, famous all over the world, including largest optical infrared telescope in the world. See https://www.iac.es/en/observatorios-de-canarias/roque-de-los-muchachos-observatory (https://www.iac.es/en/observatorios-de-canarias/roque-de-los-muchachos-observatory)
I got loads of shots both outside and inside which I will eventually submit to stock. Outside shots should be commercial, ie.
(https://autumnsky.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p1062898803-10.jpg)
But how about inside shot, showing that telescope?
(https://autumnsky.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p680461837-10.jpg)
Sorry, I wasn't meaning to imply that you were specifically trying to sneak these in as commercial - I was just making a generalisation. Many contributors do try to do so, as they think it gives the image more value, and others do so because they think mistakenly think it's OK as commercial.
As for the observatory, again it's a modern building and, without a property release, you don't have permission to sell images of it, regardless of whether they are exterior or interior shots.
Roque de los Muchachos Observatory actually has a media policy, (for both interior and exterior shots), that requires advance permission and credit to be added to all publications, which isn't practical for stock:
https://www.iac.es/en/observatorios-de-canarias/roque-de-los-muchachos-observatory/visits (https://www.iac.es/en/observatorios-de-canarias/roque-de-los-muchachos-observatory/visits)
https://www.iac.es/system/files/documents/2022-09/Normas_visita_medios_eng_sede.pdf (https://www.iac.es/system/files/documents/2022-09/Normas_visita_medios_eng_sede.pdf)
Just for the record, I'm not trying to be difficult here, and I'm just pointing out that we all need to do our research and be more aware as, ultimately, a mistake could potentially cost us. The stock companies have the right to pursue us if we have submitted something that doesn't comply with their terms and conditions, and not having permissions makes us ultimately liable.
-
Just for the record, I'm not trying to be difficult here, and I'm just pointing out that we all need to do our research and be more aware as, ultimately, a mistake could potentially cost us. The stock companies have the right to pursue us if we have submitted something that doesn't comply with their terms and conditions, and not having permissions makes us ultimately liable.
No, totally not "difficult" - quite opposite; very helpful in fact. I am processing photos from large trip & it will take awhile till I get here, so it is good to know
Re "Roque de los Muchachos" - first hand experience, info might be helpful. Access road closes at 7pm, but you are still allowed to be in - they just close inbound gate. So post sunset photography is feasible. However access inside buildings with telescopes is restricted; you can't go by yourself. I just booked tour - 1:45min, 25 Euro, nice lady that actually works there & she took us inside & told tons of very interesting info, Spanish and English. There is also Visitor Center nearby with very neat small museum, and if you book Tour you get 50% off. Well worth!
About photography: There are plenty of commercial shots on all Stock Agencies and all commercial (including Adobe). Even on super anal iStock when it comes to Editorial criteria they are not Editorial. So if I am interpreting your post right, this is a breach?
-
About photography: There are plenty of commercial shots on all Stock Agencies and all commercial (including Adobe). Even on super anal iStock when it comes to Editorial criteria they are not Editorial. So if I am interpreting your post right, this is a breach?
I would suggest that any that include this building, (unless perhaps a very wide landscape where the building isn't the primary focus), would need to be editorial.
The problem is that reviewers can't know every photographic policy out there, so it's down the the contributor to check it out. You can get content approved as commercial, as your examples above show, but that doesn't mean that a site can't come after you for compensation, in the event that they are sued for misuse.