Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Pro Digital Corner | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2017 · Some beginners quest about microstock pics

  
 
MickeK
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Some beginners quest about microstock pics


New on this site. Have plans to try a couple of stock sites and deliver som pics. Beginner in that area and have checked out a bit around what can be in photos and not. A few quests comes to mind refering to persons and buildings.

I understand that persons you can identify in the pic has to sign a model contract. Have standard form for that and fully understand how to handle a situation when I plan a specific shooting with persons in.

However, I'm interested in the 'grey zone' of pics with random people in a pic. Naturally a person can be indetified even at some distance, especially those living in the same area.

And if I take photos of let's say a soccer game? It seems like impossible if you need a model contract from each player appearing.

How do I interpret those rules of content? Is it just a big no-no for any pic with people (without signed model form) in it, if they're not at far distance enough. For example, I have a nice pic from Times Square NYC. You can see faces. Impossible as a stock pic?

And for that matter there's some rule around buildings as well. Perhaps prohibited just if you enter a company area? Can such a plant or building be in a pi as long as I'm outside?

Let's start with those quests. Would really help me to plan my shootings.



Nov 23, 2017 at 05:41 AM
Mikehit
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Some beginners quest about microstock pics


This is really tricky one because much of the noise about model release and building release come from US where the rules are quite different to the EU and (from where I sit) the UK.

Microstock agencies ask for model release not because it is required but because they want to avoid any possible problems. It also depends on if the photograph is for commercial purposes (advertising etc) or for reportage - for example using someone's photo to advertise a product is different to taking a shot of a soccer match with identifiable people in it.
Then you have the issue of people being a 'public space' and the expectations of privacy. So a soccer game in a public park may be (and I say 'may' be') different to a game in a stadium on private property.

As I understand it, model release has zero legal standing in UK but is virtually mandatory is US. I don't know about the rest of Europe. Same for building releases and a lot of the discussion is around whether the building is the main focus (pardon the pun) of the picture or just happens to be there. Are you playing on the iconic nature of the building or is it a cityscape? Are you stood on private land when you took it or on public space?

Another example is understanding what the issue actually is. e.g. there is a lot of crap spoken about how it is illegal to photograph the Eiffel Tower. Wrong. Anyone can photograph the Eiffel Tower, but using the picture for commercial purposes is restricted. The owners of the Eiffel Tower have copyrighted not the Eiffel Tower as such but the lighting arrangements around it - so you can sell a picture of the tower in daylight, but if you take a picture of it at night it becomes more of a grey area.

So whenever you take advice you have to understand if the people are talking about actual legal restrictions or whether it is rumour about of what they have heard, and the country they are talking about. Then consider that an agency may not be just regional (Europe vs US vs Asia) but have to consider sales in across regions so they play safe to avoid any problems, real or imagined.

Yes, it is a minefield but the key thing is that the issues lie not with the person taking the photo but with the end user (the magazine/advert publisher).



Nov 23, 2017 at 06:33 PM
MickeK
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Some beginners quest about microstock pics


Thank's a lot Mike for the useful reasoning around a subject that is new to me and obviously a mystery even without a newbie mind .

So far I read some advices if you're aiming at uploads to the big agencys. A first step is appearently to be accepted as contributor and that you might have to try a couple of times. Anyhow, IF you're in you need some strategy and upload the kind of pics advertisors look for. So, apart from the quality, you have to adapt to US-restrictions I guess, as any customer is able to order. Tricky if you don't sort out everybody or anything that you don't have some release. I will check out around items and situations that might be special demand for and if I need people I plan to use the standard form. What I have to offer the model is another task for later on - why not one or two daughters .

The reason I asked around the soccer example was that it might be that people actually performing sports might be a subject. A bit unclear if such a picture can be taken at an actual game or if you have to set it up with models.

Was at the Monza races this year as well but ther's a lot of photo restrictions on my ticket. None of those pics can't be used in advertising. Naturally. But I'm just curious, if I do some kind of 'arty' picture and sell it for private use?

BTW: You're still EU isn't you?



Nov 24, 2017 at 08:20 AM
glort
Offline
• • • •
[X]
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Some beginners quest about microstock pics



Asking legal advise on a photo forum is like asking lawyers how to take pictures.

Mike is spot on. There is a lot of noise and absolute crap on forums especially about legalities. People tend to parrot what they read someone else say who is repeating what the guy before him said and.... The fact is no one has a clue and 90% of internet myths are nothing more than an opinion and overwhelmingly, a completely wrong one.

There is a LOT made of Privacy on forums. Here in Oz, there is NO right of privacy but the Current affair Rabble rousing TV educated will argue that, or whatever else suits their agenda all day long. Completely incorrectly!
You need to KNOW fact from fiction as and where it applies to YOU and not what the situation for someone else, somewhere else may be.

This is a tough business within a tough business to start with so I hope you realise that there is no easy money to be made in stock. Although you might be looking at it as some pocket money, the responsibilities are the same whether it be part of full time and so will the costs be in getting proper legal advise. Being sued is a favourite and grossly overblown topic of the fearmongerers but in this case where it is highly likely any pic you sell may be used for promotional and widely seen purposes by potential a large company, it is a real risk if you do something wrong because you were working on flawed opinion or a set of rules that just don't exist or apply where you are.

If you potentially start playing with the big boys, you have to make sure you have your big boy pants on and have made yourself aware of the right rule book.
Part time for Tiddly wink money or full time to earn a fortune, part of the game is knowing the actual rules that apply because if you break them, you might just get sent off permanently.

If you can't afford it or the income from the idea is not there to pay for qualified answers, then just don't go there until you absoloutley know what you can and cannot do as it applies to YOU and YOUR situation.




Nov 25, 2017 at 07:28 AM
gschlact
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Some beginners quest about microstock pics


MickeK wrote:
Thank's a lot Mike for the useful reasoning around a subject that is new to me and obviously a mystery even without a newbie mind .

So far I read some advices if you're aiming at uploads to the big agencys. A first step is appearently to be accepted as contributor and that you might have to try a couple of times. Anyhow, IF you're in you need some strategy and upload the kind of pics advertisors look for. So, apart from the quality, you have to adapt to US-restrictions I guess, as any customer is able to order. Tricky if
...Show more

Ohotos of Art are not commercial as you imply. However if it is of a specific someone, that someone has heir right to likeness and privacy. Meaning they have the right to control and partake in any monies made because ofmtheir likeness. However there is still gray area whether or not the photo was bought because it was specifically them? Rulings have been made on both sides of this gray area.



Nov 25, 2017 at 12:55 PM
Mikehit
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Some beginners quest about microstock pics


gschlact wrote:
Ohotos of Art are not commercial as you imply. However if it is of a specific someone, that someone has heir right to likeness and privacy. Meaning they have the right to control and partake in any monies made because ofmtheir likeness. However there is still gray area whether or not the photo was bought because it was specifically them? Rulings have been made on both sides of this gray area.


Exactly what I was talking about. It depends where you live and where you take the pictures. In EU, UK and (from glort's comments) Oz, in a public area there is zero expectation of privacy. None. If I took a picture of someone on the streets in UK and used that as a successful ad campaign for my website, they would have zero expectation of any recompense. If I took their picture and printed a poster there is nothing in UK law to say that I owed them a penny from any earnings. Part of the issue is that law adapts and evolves, so if I made a fortune out of a set of images of a member of the public a court may come to the conclusion it is only fair to share some of the earnings and that would set a new precedent - and this is where model releases come in: in the UK they help avoid any future litigation but are not mandatory.

If you take a picture of a famous person and use that in an advert/poster there is a question as to whether you used their famous face to boost its earning potential and that is where 'image rights' comes in but a member of the public could never make that claim.

But even with famous people, it is not taking the picture that is restricted it is how it is used.



Nov 27, 2017 at 03:30 PM
Mikehit
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Some beginners quest about microstock pics


But I'm just curious, if I do some kind of 'arty' picture and sell it for private use?



Not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean you do something to make an abstract image and a colleague likes it an pays you for a copy? I would guess what they want to do with it is irrelevant and I doubt the law makes a distinction between this and what we as laymen understand as 'commercial' use: you have sold the image and it now has commercial value. If their limitations are on using it for advertising you will probably be in the clear but make sure you understand the T&Cs.

Of course, a lot of people who wilfully ignore copyright do so on the assumption that the copyright holder will not bother going to the effort of suing them especially if it is for pennies. So you take your choice....






Nov 27, 2017 at 03:37 PM
flash
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Some beginners quest about microstock pics


Just to clarify. In Oz, you can photograph who you want in a public space. That does not mean you can use those images as you want. You'll have no issues for editorial, reportage or artistic purposes. You can not use someones likeness to advertise endorse or sell a product or service, without permission. THAT'S what a model release is for. Same for property releases.

Say you have a photo of me walking down the street drinking a Coke. You can use that image in a book, or website as a reportage. You could make a painting from the photo. However The Coca Cola Company couldn't use that photo to sell fizzy drinks unless there was a model release.

Generally it's not taking the photo. It's how it's used. And here, that's the responsibility of the entity using the image, not the photographer. Stock agencies won't make money if the images they provide are usage limited so they often require a model or property release before they'll accept an image.

Here's a decent overview of Australian usage laws.

http://4020.net/words/photorights.php

Gordon



Dec 04, 2017 at 04:10 PM





FM Forums | Pro Digital Corner | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.