Probably need a property release.  It's a private University.

I'd never have dreamed of putting my Harvard photos into a main collection, but hey, there are several in iStock's main collection, one with >500 dls and one uploaded on 29th April this year, so either they give away permits easily and cheaply or ...
If the first possibility is correct, it may be worth trying to get one. I'd be astonished if it was given cheaply for non-editorial stock, but WDIK?

It depends on what you are shooting, from where.   It's private property if you step off the public street to take your photo.   I think it's well settled law that if you shoot private property from the public street, you can use the photo if it's an old building, which would apply to most of the buildings at Harvard.  (If it's a newer one with a unique design, the architect/owner can claim copyright in the design.)    If people want to enforce privacy against being photographed from the public street, they have to build a tall fence.

There's also a fair bit of inconsistency about this among reviewers.   I recently submitted two photos of Oxford University a few days apart.   One was rejected for needing a property release, and an almost identical one was accepted.   It was a 300 year old building, so not much risk of copyright.

Quote from: MarcvsTvllivs on May 11, 2012, 07:48

"Images taken on the Harvard University campus are unacceptable as commercial content or editorial."

One of the most stupid rejection reasons on Shutterstock. And especially annoying because my Harvard pictures sell well. What . is the rationale behind this? There are hundreds of images taken on Harvard campus on SS right now, by the way. Some of them mine. *sigh*

It's private property so it's not 'stupid' at all. Go and get yourself a permit here;

"Filming and Photographing on Campus

The media relations offices request that people interested in taking or contracting photographs or filming the campus for commercial or news purposes seek permission from them first. To request the mandatory permit, please contact HPAC Media Relations at 617-495-1585."

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/for-journalists/#film

It should have taken you about 5 seconds to find that information for yourself. Your post was 'stupid' not the SS rejection reason.

Quote from: Danybot on May 13, 2012, 08:24

It depends on what you are shooting, from where.   It's private property if you step off the public street to take your photo.   I think it's well settled law that if you shoot private property from the public street, you can use the photo if it's an old building, which would apply to most of the buildings at Harvard.  (If it's a newer one with a unique design, the architect/owner can claim copyright in the design.)    If people want to enforce privacy against being photographed from the public street, they have to build a tall fence.

Isn't 'shot from public street' the rule for allowable editorial? That's certainly the case in the UK (though some micros err on the safe side even so). For commercial use, it's not 100% certain, but who wants to be the legal case for micro prices?

From the standard English reference book, Gray and Gray, Elements of Land Law, 4th edition, p. 229:  "It is no trespass to watch your neighbour's pursuits in his garden, as long as you do not enter his land, even if you use binoculars to improve your view... the onus has been cast on the aggrieved landowner to frustrate external visual access by raising his own boundary fence or other barrier."   

From the ACLU, https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers:

"Taking photographs of things that are plainly visible from public spaces is a constitutional right � and that includes federal buildings, transportation facilities, and police and other government officials carrying out their duties. "

Generally, the legal distinction between editorial and non-editorial is that you can use the photo editorially even if there is a copyrighted design in it.  Shutterstock, however, often imposes a stricter standard.  The photos sell for pennies, and they already have something like 20 million of them in stock.   As you pointed out, it's not worth their while taking a risk of a lawsuit, even if they are likely to win it.   

However, it is rather funny how inconsistent the rules are from site to site, and even from reviewer to reviewer at the same site.   At iStock, they are not fussy about buildings, but if you show the back of anybody's head in the photo, even if his mother wouldn't recognize him, it has to be editorial, while SS (quite sensibly) doesn't seem to worry about that.   

Ok, I should have made one thing a lot clearer: the thing I think is "stupid" is to have a general rule that excludes pictures taken on a campus from editorial licensing. I wasn't suggesting they should allow the use of Harvard logos in commercial stock.

Also, the fact that there is plenty of pictures that fall within the exclusion being sold on the site, with creative licenses is pretty "stupid".

I don't know anything about the workings of SS, but in this case, it seems it's the same as iS.
You'd think as soon as they discovered that images of something might lead them liable to legal action, they'd chain a serf to the servers to expunge all images of same, but it seems not to work that way.

Well, iStock accepts my editorial stuff from Harvard campus like a trooper.

It's just very Shutterstock to have broad exclusions on perfectly legal things. I understand their very restricted editorial concept (only newsworthy images) but of course that is exactly the type of images one can shoot on Harvard - or any major - university's grounds: Celebrities giving speeches, graduation ceremonies and the like.