Author Topic: Statues, monuments and public buildings (Read 6043 times)

AncientDweller · « **on:** May 22, 2018, 12:53 »

Greetings,
I am relatively new to the world of stocks. I have one question. How do you handle releases for public buildings or details of facades of some old buildings, city monuments, random anchored small boats in port etc?
I ask this because some of my photos were rejected because of possible copyright violation.

Brasilnut · « **Reply #1 on:** May 22, 2018, 13:11 »

Welcome,

Submit them as editorial with the proper caption.

As for those small boats in the port, you can clone out the logos/names and should be fine to submit as commercial.

Good luck

tickstock · « **Reply #2 on:** May 23, 2018, 18:05 »

There isn't one answer, it depends on the subject, the country, the age, etc...

ShadySue · « **Reply #3 on:** May 23, 2018, 18:15 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 23, 2018, 18:05

There isn't one answer, it depends on the subject, the country, the age, etc...

... and the fluid policies of each agency.

unnonimus · « **Reply #4 on:** May 24, 2018, 15:31 »

you said: "I am relatively new to the world of stocks. I have one question. How do you handle releases for public buildings or details of facades of some old buildings, city monuments, random anchored small boats in port etc? "

the answers to your questions are here: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ41.pdf for the US.

in general: all buildings built before 1990 do not have copyright protection. boats never have copyright protection. details that are utilitarian (such as windows and doorways) cannot be copyrighted.

copyrights protect works of art (literature, music, etc). a building is not a work of art.

most countries will have similar laws however i have seen exceptions in some countries.

unnonimus · « **Reply #5 on:** May 24, 2018, 15:43 »

this is interesting:

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/copyright-architectural-photos.html
Except for buildings that cannot be viewed from a public space, the copyright owner of a post-1990 building (the architect, developer, or building owner) cannot prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the building. See 17 U.S. Code § 120, which covers the scope of exclusive rights in architectural works.
Therefore, photographers need to be concerned only when entering private property without permission to take a photo of a post-1990 building. Such photos may result in a claim of copyright infringement.

ShadySue · « **Reply #6 on:** May 24, 2018, 18:26 »

As always, what unnonimous is irrelevant.
Only the policies of whichever agency/ies you're submitting to is relevant for stock.

mindstorm · « **Reply #7 on:** May 24, 2018, 18:52 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 24, 2018, 18:26

As always, what unnonimous is irrelevant.
Only the policies of whichever agency/ies you're submitting to is relevant for stock.

Yep. Can we block this fool? He does nothing but muddy the water and confuse the newbies that come here for RELEVANT information.

Unnonimous info is fine if you are selling the images on your own. Through your wholly owned website, printing on a T-shirt. Whatever.

His nonsense has absolutely ZERO relevance in the arena of selling to stock agencies though. The agencies make their own rules. They cannot allow things that the law prohibits, but there is nothing stopping them from drawing the line closer than the law allows.

unnonimus · « **Reply #8 on:** May 25, 2018, 05:34 »

I thought this was a discussion forum?

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** May 25, 2018, 05:40 »

Quote from: unnonimus on May 25, 2018, 05:34

I thought this was a discussion forum?

What's the point in discussing irrelevancies with someone who has (next to, or) no stake in the business, but is probably either an image thief or a parochial troll with too much time on their hands, who takes delight in misleading newbies posting genuine questions.

mindstorm · « **Reply #10 on:** May 25, 2018, 10:59 »

Quote from: unnonimus on May 25, 2018, 05:34

I thought this was a discussion forum?

This is a discussion board with a specific focus -- STOCK photography. This is not a discussion board for legal technicalities, or for who is the best president. It has a specific focus, and anything outside that focus is not wanted.

Worse than not wanted, it is absolutely counter to the purpose of the forum, since it just confuses those who come here to learn about stock photography.

AncientDweller · « **Reply #11 on:** May 29, 2018, 11:54 »

Thank you all for answers. It was unclear for me, is there some "universal" criteria to judge photos you upload. For example I photographed some old building with stone faces on facades, photo gets rejected. Or some statue that gets accepted on some sites, and other rejected because of possible copyright issue.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #12 on:** May 29, 2018, 12:06 »

Quote from: AncientDweller on May 29, 2018, 11:54

Thank you all for answers. It was unclear for me, is there some "universal" criteria to judge photos you upload. For example I photographed some old building with stone faces on facades, photo gets rejected. Or some statue that gets accepted on some sites, and other rejected because of possible copyright issue.

The short answer is "No" its down to each Agencies interpretation of the law and how well they communicate it to their inspectors. You could of course do your own "research" and constantly complain that the agencies are wrong......but I'm not sure that would be plagarism or fair use ;-).

unnonimus · « **Reply #13 on:** May 29, 2018, 12:15 »

you said: "It was unclear for me, is there some "universal" criteria to judge photos you upload."

when I get a rejection that I do not understand, I contact customer support and ask them to explain why, and once I understand why they rejected it, I avoid filming it in future sessions. in general, if you comply with the strictest company then you will comply with most of them.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #14 on:** May 29, 2018, 14:57 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 24, 2018, 18:26

As always, what unnonimous is irrelevant.
Only the policies of whichever agency/ies you're submitting to is relevant for stock.

Correct, not the laws that matter but what the agencies decide they will accept or reject.

unnonimus · « **Reply #15 on:** May 29, 2018, 15:27 »

you said: "As always, what unnonimous is irrelevant."

everything I write in this discussion forum is relevant. thankyou

tickstock · « **Reply #16 on:** May 29, 2018, 22:04 »

Quote from: AncientDweller on May 29, 2018, 11:54

Thank you all for answers. It was unclear for me, is there some "universal" criteria to judge photos you upload. For example I photographed some old building with stone faces on facades, photo gets rejected. Or some statue that gets accepted on some sites, and other rejected because of possible copyright issue.

Like I said earlier it depends on which country you are shooting in. Castles in Europe may have different protections than you would expect in other parts of the world. Basically each country/locality can have its own specific rules. Where was the photo taken (country and was it on private property or somewhere that has entrance tickets for example), who was the creator, when did they make it, when did they die, who owns the building or who manages the property, etc... There are a lot of factors that go into what is acceptable or legal to license.

unnonimus, US laws aren't the only ones relevant here.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #17 on:** June 01, 2018, 23:45 »

Quote from: unnonimus on May 29, 2018, 15:27

everything I write in this discussion forum is relevant.

True, but everything you write in this discussion forum is relevant to something that is irrelevant to the discussion.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #18 on:** June 02, 2018, 10:04 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 29, 2018, 22:04

Quote from: AncientDweller on May 29, 2018, 11:54
Thank you all for answers. It was unclear for me, is there some "universal" criteria to judge photos you upload. For example I photographed some old building with stone faces on facades, photo gets rejected. Or some statue that gets accepted on some sites, and other rejected because of possible copyright issue.
Like I said earlier it depends on which country you are shooting in. Castles in Europe may have different protections than you would expect in other parts of the world. Basically each country/locality can have its own specific rules. Where was the photo taken (country and was it on private property or somewhere that has entrance tickets for example), who was the creator, when did they make it, when did they die, who owns the building or who manages the property, etc... There are a lot of factors that go into what is acceptable or legal to license.

unnonimus, US laws aren't the only ones relevant here.

Correct Tick, and for those reasons and more, there is no universal answer which is what the OP was asking. All depends on the agency, what they wish to take or not, the laws are far to varied to have a universal world legal answer. Plus what's legal in one country isn't in another. I think the agencies that don't take easy right of panorama shots, are just being cautious.

The other answer, just make them Editorial, is fine, but what's the use of having a photo available with an unusable license. Good if the idea is "how many images do I have", not how many sales can I get from some effort.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Statues, monuments and public buildings (Read 6043 times)

AncientDweller

Brasilnut

tickstock

ShadySue

unnonimus

unnonimus

ShadySue

mindstorm

unnonimus

ShadySue

mindstorm

AncientDweller

Pauws99

unnonimus

YadaYadaYada

unnonimus

tickstock

SpaceStockFootage

Uncle Pete

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors