Author Topic: Unreleased Copyrighted Material No Longer Accepted. (Read 20111 times)

ShadySue · « **Reply #25 on:** October 13, 2011, 16:58 »

It was a typical iStock type announcement; no, it was a bit clearer than normal, but pretty pointless as the Is weren't dotted and the ts weren't stroked, so of course people are asking for clarity.
However (hobby horse alert) even if something is totally clear in an admin's sticky, it doesn't seem to count for anything. I'm still waiting - since 19th September - for two editorial rejections for date (captioned date-month-year) to be overturned (Scout upheld the rejection!), although Sirimo's sticky, which is referred to in the rejection notice I was sent, clearly says either month date year or date month year is acceptable.

Sadstock · « **Reply #26 on:** October 13, 2011, 17:19 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on October 13, 2011, 16:22

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 13, 2011, 15:53
Quote from: bhr on October 13, 2011, 15:37
Quote from: RacePhoto on October 13, 2011, 15:22
It looks like an old lithograph, Public Domain if created before 1923

depends on the jurisdiction. Countries have different copyright laws - and it may also depend, in different juridictions for example, on whether copyright has been renewed. There is no single rule which applies which is why the best thing is get legal documentation, provenance etc.

As always I speak from where I am, and in the US, EVERYTHING before 1923, photos, records, books, art... is public domain now, whether renewed or not.

The Gauss image should have been verified when it was uploaded. The Editorial designation is a lazy way for the agencies to license things, without worrying about the actual copyright detals or the facts of law.

That etching was probably made in the late 1800s and if it is, it's PD everywhere that I can think of on this planet. Start thinking Berne Convention which in many instances is more open and lenient than the US laws!

Which laws govern Dreamstine, I don't know for sure.

Dreamstime LLC
1616 Westgate Circle
Brentwood, TN 37027
United States

I think it's 70 years after the artist's death in the US.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.pdf

-----------------
In the U.S. at least, it depends on when the work was created first, then other factors in some cases. If it was created in 1919 but the artist lived another 60 years, the date of his/her death does not matter, only the date of creation. However if the work was created in 1978 or later then 70 years after his/her death rule applies. Thanks to Sonny Bono. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act.

SNP · « **Reply #27 on:** October 13, 2011, 18:51 »

iStock has made it very clear that they don't know what to do about editorial. Getty has made it very clear that iStock's editorial kahunas are in a jar on a shelf...if you'll pardon the crass expression. I don't feel remotely motivated to sell my editorial through iStock. except maybe the 'editorial' snapshots I grab while traveling. and since I'm a nobody when it comes to editorial, Getty couldn't care less about my work either.

so I'll be submitting my best editorial only to agencies that continue to show interest in my work. the biggest obstacle there is my exclusivity at iStock, and currently that's not under consideration. it prevents us from allowing editorial work to be sold RF....but it doesn't matter, I'll still put the work into those agencies that value my editorial images and who have come to me, rather than knocking on Getty doors as quickly as they're slammed in my face.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #28 on:** October 13, 2011, 20:47 »

Quote from: bhr on October 13, 2011, 16:13

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 13, 2011, 15:53
As always I speak from where I am, and in the US, EVERYTHING before 1923, photos, records, books, art... is public domain now, whether renewed or not

Eg some places it is 75 years after the death of the artist. I have no idea whether the person who once reproduced on old image in a book would be considered the artist, in this context. My guess is - yes in some places. These issues are best handled by lawyers IMO.

And even if there are potentially no copyright issues - well that needs to be documented presumably. And there would still potentially be property rights issues. You have to be able to show that you had the right to photogrph the piece of property. Many places restrict this - galleries containing famous art for example. Even art which is hundreds of years old is effectively protected as property.

So, as I said - in the end it always comes back to legal documentation.

If you count the years since 1923 you'll see why EVERYTHING is PD before 1923!

Want a calculator? Not just you but others who are looking at 1978, 1998 laws, changes and new regulations. We were looking at old images and especially the line art from the late 1800's.

No the paintings in the Louvre are not protected, the Mona Lisa is PD. Although it's illegal to take photos in some sections, and some places ban flashes in the museums, no tripods in even more places, so in effect, you aren't going to get a good shot anyway. But if you could, you could sell that image.

Here's a nice easy one because it always depends on creation, registered or not registered, publication place,and the laws at the time. Copyright laws for works that have gone PD, do not change. There's no retroactive renewal. If it's in the Public Domain, it's that way forever.

http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

click_click · « **Reply #29 on:** October 13, 2011, 21:07 »

Quote from: jsnover on October 13, 2011, 13:24

So does that mean those isolated iPhone shots will have to go?

I assume that this only applies to future uploads. iPhone shots can still be licensed, which makes this announcement a joke.

For some strange reason, new, up-to-date legal requirements always only apply to future submission and not to existing IS content, no idea how that would play out in court though...

SNP · « **Reply #30 on:** October 13, 2011, 23:51 »

Quote from: click_click on October 13, 2011, 21:07

Quote from: jsnover on October 13, 2011, 13:24
So does that mean those isolated iPhone shots will have to go?
I assume that this only applies to future uploads. iPhone shots can still be licensed, which makes this announcement a joke.

For some strange reason, new, up-to-date legal requirements always only apply to future submission and not to existing IS content, no idea how that would play out in court though...

I'm frustrated like crazy over iStock "editorial"...but they are removing existing content when it doesn't submit to current editorial policy. they've said it a number of times. TPTB have stated that currently iPhone and iPad etc., images are acceptable. if in future this were to change, they would pull offending content AFAIK.

that being said, there are so many files under Edstock that shouldn't be accepted, period...that I don't blame anyone for lacking confidence in what we're being told

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #31 on:** October 14, 2011, 01:37 »

Quote from: bhr on October 13, 2011, 15:03

ETA: @BaldricksTrousers - I am not completely convinced that an RM image is any more or less likely than an RF image to "sit in a designer's folder for years" ... etc

If that did happen and the image was then reused, the user would simply be in the position of using a stolen image and would be at risk of being sued for that, too.

It is true that our protection lies in the argument that if an image is used in accordance with the terms of the license it is sold under, then no violation will occur. And I do not believe the editorial license is an "advisory" I understand it constitutes an agreement on the terms of use. But, of course, the micros never enforce anything.

I'm sure we all realise that there is a huge grey area between commercial and editorial and I suspect a lot of micro "editorial" goes into that area and a lot more is just used for straight commercial because the micros make the photographers paranoid about faces and signs, not the buyers. many of whom probably don't have the faintest idea of these things. Perhaps that has something to do with the latest move.

I don't know if one of the big brand names could make problems for iStock/us if it could show that iStock could reasonably be expected to know that the sales it is making under editorial licenses are being used for non-editorial purposes and it is making no attempt to prevent that.

If people here think the restrictions are just "advisory", why should buyers know any better?

ShadySue · « **Reply #32 on:** October 14, 2011, 11:10 »

As one of my CN pointed out, why did iStock not get all the relevant skinny from Getty before they started?
What's the point of being in the Getty 'family' without that sort of support.
EdStock has a few statues - will they be purged? If so, will they be restored to RM at Getty.

SNP · « **Reply #33 on:** October 14, 2011, 11:17 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 14, 2011, 11:10

As one of my CN pointed out, why did iStock not get all the relevant skinny from Getty before they started?
What's the point of being in the Getty 'family' without that sort of support.
EdStock has a few statues - will they be purged? If so, will they be restored to RM at Getty.

I don't think anything will be purged that comes from Getty. There are two sets of rules: The Getty rules for their wholly-owned content trucked in to fill our collection. And the rules for iStock contributors, which may as well be shackles. what applies to us doesn't apply to their content. simple as that.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #34 on:** October 14, 2011, 13:23 »

Quote from: click_click on October 13, 2011, 21:07

Quote from: jsnover on October 13, 2011, 13:24
So does that mean those isolated iPhone shots will have to go?
I assume that this only applies to future uploads. iPhone shots can still be licensed, which makes this announcement a joke.

For some strange reason, new, up-to-date legal requirements always only apply to future submission and not to existing IS content, no idea how that would play out in court though...

The last line says: We will be reviewing our content an removing files that longer meet our guidelines. Existing content is included. Or were you getting at, what about something that sold last month?

I'll repeat this again. It's not a law or legal issue, if the images are PD or not protected, it's an agency policy! We can legally sell a license to many of these works that IS has decided they won't take anymore and will be removing. Don't assume that because some agency dictates something that it's based on actual law.

On the other part there are two kinds of licenses, essentially, RF and RM. The buyer is responsible for the use, and the only way one of us or the agency can be brought into it is if someone sells under an incorrect license, say RF when there's no release, or a faked release. RM Editorial has NO release. That's a problem for IS and places selling RF Editorial with no release. What a mess!

Licensee agrees to indemnify and hold Licensor and website harmless against all claims arising out of any breach of this Agreement.

Can someone find an Editorial License that's not RM License or RF License? Say something that's "Editorial License".

I can't. Who knows a copyright attorney who will explain whether it's advisory or mandatory law, for an agency to tell a buyer how an image can or must be used?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #35 on:** October 14, 2011, 13:30 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 14, 2011, 13:23

Can someone find an Editorial License that's not RM License or RF License? Say something that's "Editorial License". I can't. Who knows a copyright attorney who will explain whether it's advisory or mandatory law, for an agency to tell a buyer how an image can or must be used?

The label that is put on a license (i.e. "edit" or "commercial" or "RF" or "RM") means nothing at all. All that matters is the conditions that the license imposes.

The license is a contract between the supplier and a user. There are no magic words in it, just specific conditions that the two parties agree to.

RM, RF and Editorial are completely meaningless terms that convey no real information about what the contractual conditions are. It's only artists who think these terms mean something. Lawyers just look at the usage terms in the small print.

HughStoneIan · « **Reply #36 on:** October 14, 2011, 14:45 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 13, 2011, 16:12

Why hadn't they done their homework/research before opening the Editorial program?
It doesn't inspire confidence in the whole way the site is run these days.
But since I'm always swithering over Alamy or iStock for editorial images, this makes the decision much easier - who knows what they'll deactivate in the future, and not all editorial is something I can shoot again.
And yes, as noted above, an RM buyer at Alamy has actually to specify exactly what use they are going to make of the image, so that's one more layer of reponsibility which falls onto the buyer rather than the seller.

Does anything inspire confidence in how the site is run these days??

RacePhoto · « **Reply #37 on:** October 14, 2011, 16:37 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 14, 2011, 13:30

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 14, 2011, 13:23
Can someone find an Editorial License that's not RM License or RF License? Say something that's "Editorial License". I can't. Who knows a copyright attorney who will explain whether it's advisory or mandatory law, for an agency to tell a buyer how an image can or must be used?

The label that is put on a license (i.e. "edit" or "commercial" or "RF" or "RM") means nothing at all. All that matters is the conditions that the license imposes.

The license is a contract between the supplier and a user. There are no magic words in it, just specific conditions that the two parties agree to.

RM, RF and Editorial are completely meaningless terms that convey no real information about what the contractual conditions are. It's only artists who think these terms mean something. Lawyers just look at the usage terms in the small print.

Just what I was getting at, so someone who licenses an image may or may not follow the license, we have no control, the agency has no control. It's nothing more than an advisory and suggestion.

Here's what I can back for and I have work to do. Honest!

The rejection boilerplate for the new rules: This photograph appears to have been produced at a location or venue where photographic rights are protected, therefore not permitted for any royalty-free use, including editorial. A property release must be obtained and submitted along with the image. Thanks for your understanding.

I won't go into details but it was an authorized out of copyright glass plate negative of a 16th century art work, turned into a positive, 1905 B&W. They are wrong on all counts. BUT, they run the agency and I accept their right, CYA policy or whatever someone wants to call it, to limit or include whatever they want into their sales collection, for whatever reason they want. It was not produced at a location or venue where rights are protected, it is PD and could be licensed RF, there is no property release necessary.

Example:

Here's what the museum says on their website.

Is the Mona Lisa in Public Domain? The external relations department of the Louvre Museum allows works of art contained in The Louvre to be reproduced with the following mention: "Musee du Louvre", the title of the work, and the name of the artist.

Darn nice of them to let us use it with the proper attribution, however!

The Mona Lisa is in the public domain because it was completed in 1506 before copyright law was established. Owned by the French government the painting hangs in the Louvre Museum which permits photography of its public domain paintings. The Mona Lisa can be freely copied, distributed or displayed...

ps they do not allow photography in all sections of the Louvre Museum anymore. Some areas no cameras, no flash, no tripods, no pictures. The reason is the intrusion on other people trying to view the great works. I'm not against that. Just what I'd want to see at the Louvre Museum, some jerk with a camera phone, snapping away in a dim gallery, while I'm trying to look at the artwork.

ShadySue · « **Reply #38 on:** October 14, 2011, 17:18 »

So Lobo's
We will get back in here today with some additional clarity. ... Sorry folks. We will get something together today.
has become Joyze's
We understand this matter may be confusing and frustrating and we're pulling together clearer guidelines that we'll provide next week.
Same old same old. Where's the SpinDoctor when you need him?

SNP · « **Reply #39 on:** October 14, 2011, 17:22 »

something people, including me, need to keep in mind is that when discussing rules...ACTUAL copyright law has limited bearing on policies being written concerning iStock editorial. the policies they are putting together have as much to do with not competing with Getty editorial files located in both iStock and Getty collections. so it doesn't really matter if you're permitted by laws to shoot an artistic work if iStock's policy says you can't upload it...period.

ShadySue · « **Reply #40 on:** October 14, 2011, 17:27 »

Quote from: SNP on October 14, 2011, 17:22

something people, including me, need to keep in mind is that when discussing rules...ACTUAL copyright law has limited bearing on policies being written concerning iStock editorial. the policies they are putting together have as much to do with not competing with Getty editorial files located in both iStock and Getty collections. so it doesn't really matter if you're permitted by laws to shoot an artistic work if iStock's policy says you can't upload it...period.

Of course, it's their ball. But why did they even bother with the editorial thing in the first place. What will they decide is competing too much with Getty next? Sibling rivalry is just sooooo old.

SNP · « **Reply #41 on:** October 14, 2011, 17:28 »

LOL, GREAT question and I have no answer. I'm asking myself the same thing....loved your metaphor though. so true.

ShadySue · « **Reply #42 on:** October 15, 2011, 10:13 »

Why on earth did JJ make a post after joyze's which simply said, "Indeed" followed by a winky?

ShadySue · « **Reply #43 on:** October 19, 2011, 18:03 »

So the post is up, and although it clarifies some things, it doesn't clarify others.
In particular, I don't understand why the Buddha rupa is OK but the other statue further down isn't acceptable. The Buddha rupa takes up more of that image than the one in the bottom does, but has a person in it.
Also, the Buddha rupa is presumably in a private place, where I thought we weren't supposed to be able to upload pics to iStock editorial, whereas the other statue looks like it's out in a public street (but I don't know the work, so may be wrong).

traveler1116 · « **Reply #44 on:** October 19, 2011, 19:05 »

The other statue is from Lima, Peru it is called "the kiss". It does sit outside in a public park. I don't understand the rules yet either.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #45 on:** October 19, 2011, 19:15 »

I think RapidEye's questions are pretty central to figuring out what's going on here. If a newspaper can run an editorial shot of the Louvre or the Eiffel Tower lit up at night, why can't iStock license an editorial-use-only shot for that purpose? Is there really a distinction between the newspaper's employee going out to take the shot and iStock selling them one?

I know they're positioning this as protecting the contributor and iStock from legal action, but I just don't understand how that can be (except if someone uses the shot for something other than editorial).

KB · « **Reply #46 on:** October 19, 2011, 19:22 »

Why is it that SS doesn't have these restrictions on their editorial photos? Aren't they afraid of being sued? Of course, they have their own oddities, where sometimes they require an image to be "newsworthy". But there are plenty examples of non-newsworthy editorials there, too. Ones that iStock will now no longer accept, apparently. For example:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-646905/stock-photo-rocky-statue-philadelphia.html

ShadySue · « **Reply #47 on:** October 19, 2011, 19:22 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on October 19, 2011, 19:05

The other statue is from Lima, Peru it is called "the kiss". It does sit outside in a public park. I don't understand the rules yet either.

Thanks. That one doesn't seem to be in Getty Images, but many other (still in copyright) statues, as the main focus of the image, are on Getty, unreleased.

travelstock · « **Reply #48 on:** October 19, 2011, 23:03 »

I think the approach to this should be to accept the odd rules and upload the material that IS doesn't want to Alamy or elsewhere on a RM basis.

With the new breaking news options, there should be opportunities there that are always going to be closed on iStock.

ShadySue · « **Reply #49 on:** October 20, 2011, 05:54 »

Quote from: holgs on October 19, 2011, 23:03

I think the approach to this should be to accept the odd rules and upload the material that IS doesn't want to Alamy or elsewhere on a RM basis.

With the new breaking news options, there should be opportunities there that are always going to be closed on iStock.

It certainly makes the dilemma of 'where to send?' much easier. Who knows what they'll decide not to accept in the future?
Pastor Scott wrote an excellent reply to Lobo's snide post referring people to Scout or CR, where enquiries often disappear, never to be heard of again. I guess that could be a Policy.
Added: there's a thread on the Alamy forums about deletions for images taken inside museums, but one person says he's had an outdoor sculpture removed also.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Unreleased Copyrighted Material No Longer Accepted. (Read 20111 times)

ShadySue

Sadstock

SNP

RacePhoto

click_click

SNP

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

SNP

RacePhoto

BaldricksTrousers

HughStoneIan

RacePhoto

ShadySue

SNP

ShadySue

SNP

ShadySue

ShadySue

traveler1116

Jo Ann Snover

KB

ShadySue

travelstock

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors