Author Topic: street art usually editorial, but some agencies accept them for commercials (Read 6538 times)

kall3bu · « **on:** October 07, 2020, 02:17 »

I am confused about street art, murals, graffities, because Alamy and Adobe seems to accept them sometimes for commercials and most other agencies accept them only for editorial or even do not accept them at all.

To be safe in any way, best is to upload them just for editorial.

But would you try to upload them, as commercial if there are agencies out there accept them for commercials? And as editorial at that agencies who only accept them for editorial?

If the artist of the street art makes problems, who will get the problem? Me, or the agencies who accept them for commercial?

I am planning to upload many street art images from Georgetown, Penang, Malaysia. (As I found out, not to many people buy them, but I keyworded them already, so why not upload them?)

On the other side: Who will buy and use them for commercial? I guess, mostly they just use them for editoral use even if they are set for commercial use, isn´t it?

ShadySue · « **Reply #1 on:** October 07, 2020, 02:33 »

Alamy does not accept Street art commercially and indeed often has purges removing murals etc from their editorial collection. However, you may be confused because they can get accepted at submission stage. That's because you, the professional artist, are assumed to know what you're doing. If you think about it, you don't indicate until after acceptance whether or not you have releases. So you would need to indicate that you do not have releases for the street art. Once you have done that, the responsibility passes to the buyer. To be extra safe, you can indicate editorial use only.
Take care.

kall3bu · « **Reply #2 on:** October 07, 2020, 03:04 »

Thank you for your advice. Of course I was thinking the same especially in case of safeness.
But I indeed found on Alamy some street art murals online to buy for commercial - online already for some years. But as everywhere, it could also just happend by accident that that images are still online for commercials.
Adobe: I wondered very much. But might be also happend by accident.
I will upload them for editorial. Seems even not a big market for them. But before I found out, they will not sale much, I did the keywording already including the right order for Adobe and Alamy and tried not to put to many keywords on them, just the important ones. So, only uploading and submitting left - the smallest part of work.

In gemeral again: Did I get you right? If I upload an image, which gets accepted from the most agencies for commercials, and only sent back for editorial from Getty iStock and other picky agencies, then I will not get problems with the commercials, if somebody use it at commercial, but a property owner or a persons, who at least thinks is recocnizable on the image complains about it? It is then the buyer who get problems?

ShadySue · « **Reply #3 on:** October 07, 2020, 03:17 »

Quote from: kall3bu on October 07, 2020, 03:04

Thank you for your advice. Of course I was thinking the same especially in case of safeness.
But I indeed found on Alamy some street art murals online to buy for commercial - online already for some years. But as everywhere, it could also just happend by accident that that images are still online for commercials.
Adobe: I wondered very much. But might be also happend by accident.
I will upload them for editorial. Seems even not a big market for them. But before I found out, they will not sale much, I did the keywording already including the right order for Adobe and Alamy and tried not to put to many keywords on them, just the important ones. So, only uploading and submitting left - the smallest part of work.

In gemeral again: Did I get you right? If I upload an image, which gets accepted from the most agencies for commercials, and only sent back for editorial from Getty iStock and other picky agencies, then I will not get problems with the commercials, if somebody use it at commercial, but a property owner or a persons, who at least thinks is recocnizable on the image complains about it? It is then the buyer who get problems?

You will probably find in your contract that you will be responsible.

On Alamy, you would be responsible if you said you had releases and didn't. Whether by accident* or design, I've seen files on Alamy which indicate they have releases when I just don't believe it, e.g. a military tattoo* with literally hundreds of musicians parading. Actually, on Alamy, I almost always indicate 'needs release' and 'no release' if there's any sort of property in the image, which would be all street photos. Also they require model releases for tiny bits of people, or even distant, out of focus blurs - images which would normally be accepted everywhere.
*After I saw the tattoo pics, I checked my port and found somehow I had indicated I had releases for an image forwhich I didn't, which was an accident. Luckily, it was a low-risk image; but still, as it was a stupid accident, it could just as well have been a high-risk image, though for these I usually also tick the 'editorial only' box.
https://www.alamy.com/blog/releases-who-what-when-where-why (short version)
https://www.alamy.com/help/what-is-model-release-property-release.aspx (more details)

Lets face it, do you really want to have the bother/expense of fighting a legal case for the sake of a few cents? The 'picky agencies' have decided that they really don't want that sort of hassle and that should be a 'hint'.

kall3bu · « **Reply #4 on:** October 07, 2020, 05:55 »

#Lets face it, do you really want to have the bother/expense of fighting a legal case for the sake of a few cents? The 'picky agencies' have decided that they really don't want that sort of hassle and that should be a 'hint'.#

You are right. I was thinking about setting images editorial which could be commercial on many sites, but not on that picky ones, just to be sure of no risk.

I did a test by uploading ONE street art image for commercial to check, if it is possible on iStock. Like expected, they suggested to submit them as editorial. Then I was braver and submitted directly 65 images as editorial, but got them ALL rejected for copyright problems. I should have submit ONE first in that case too. Well, I will upload my 5 best from that 65 as editorial at other agencies and if non of the 5 getting sold, I better forget about the other 60.

Copidosoma · « **Reply #5 on:** October 07, 2020, 13:51 »

Quote from: kall3bu on October 07, 2020, 02:17

If the artist of the street art makes problems, who will get the problem? Me, or the agencies who accept them for commercial?

Do you really think that any of these agencies are actually going to cover the expense of defending you against a copyright claim?
I think you know the answer to your question.

noelbennett235 · « **Reply #6 on:** October 07, 2020, 16:54 »

Another take on this issue-Builder destroyed the artworks of 21 graffiti artists

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/06/nyregion/graffiti-artists-5pointz.html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #7 on:** October 08, 2020, 08:54 »

Quote from: noelbennett235 on October 07, 2020, 16:54

Another take on this issue-Builder destroyed the artworks of 21 graffiti artists

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/06/nyregion/graffiti-artists-5pointz.html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage

I wonder why they wouldn't hear the case?

"For the most part, graffiti is considered a crime. Thus, if someone has put graffiti on your property, the first thing to do is call the police and report it. If the graffiti was placed with permission, however, and the new owner wishes to renovate and remove the art, it may be wise to consult with an attorney first to determine the legal rights of the respective parties involved. "

Here's another one: European Union’s intellectual property office has denied Banksy’s attempt to trademark his famous Flower Thrower image, saying that the mark is invalid.

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2020/09/21/3-count-banksys-copyright/

There are different interpretations and arguments. Let me say, the stock agencies don't want to be involved with the expenses or defense, so they will take the easiest path and refuse. Artists mostly wouldn't care and in fact would like to brag and show people their Spray Painting work. Others want to play the artist game, free speech, and sue if their criminal painting or drawing is used. It's all very twisted and complicated.

Personally I can't see any reason to shoot or upload graffiti. How much of a demand and market is there? Are the risks worth the reward?

kall3bu · « **Reply #8 on:** October 09, 2020, 04:16 »

It is really a very sensitive theme we should avoid uploading.
I just uploaded the best images on different agencies, all set to editorial and most accepted as editorial.
Pond5 asked for model releases of the real persons in front of the street art/murals. Most of them i could release, but then we still have the problem with the artists right, cause it would be set commercial.
And indeed there cannot be a big market for it, because of the rights of the artists. Might be for some bloggers, who use the editorial version.
But from the beginning I am curious, if blogger are not able to take own images? Or are blogger also write about places they never visited? Strange for me.
However: I decided not to upload more of them and I found some images accidently got set commercial long time ago, when I did not know yet anything about the case. I will delete them.

Thank you to all, who answeres here.

Two things I took for me:
1. Any artwork on the image - do not upload them! Or: If a small part on the image, photoshop it away.
2. Look twice, if an image could be commercial or must be editorial cause of property issue. Upload them to the picky agencies first, if not sure. And look closer for Logos, you might see only on 200%, 100% could be not enough. And if there are Logos or other things to work on, think again, if the image is really that good, that the work is worth it.