submitting picture to stock photography agency

<p>Hi, <br /><br />I wish to know if there might be some risk, for the photographer, in submitting picture to stock photography agency. I mean, if the agency accepts the picture, might the photographer be involved if somebody claims something? </p>

<p>What do you mean by "claims something"?</p>

<p>Antonio - </p>

<p>Second John's question - </p>

<p>But here's a little help: <br>

1) if there are people in the photo - doesn't matter if it's 1 or 50 the stock agency (if they reputable) will not accept it without a signed model release from each person in the photo. If you forge them - yes - the people could "claim something". </p>

<p>2) if there is a trademark or trademarked logo such as Coca-cola sign or Ford emblem then the stock agency will ask that you clone / photoshop it out and refuse the photo. </p>

<p>3) If there is a landmark building or private place in the photo - and it's not part of a bigger cityscape or landscape - then the stock agency would require a property release. This one got me once - I submitted a photo of a local building to a stock agency that has / had a musical score on the side of the building - it was a triple gottcha with the stock agency - 1) no property release from the owner of the building and 2) an image of a copyrighted work (the music) and 3) an image of a copyright work of art (the artist copyrighted the painting) - so they rejected it. Nice image though - I still have a copy of it on my wall. </p>

<p>Basically if you're dealing with a good stock agency - they don't want trouble any more than you do and they will reject upfront any image that doesn't have the appropriate releases. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>I disagree with David on a couple of points. There are "good" agencies out there (Alamy for one) that doesn't require releases. In their set-up you simply mark each photo as having or not having model and/or property releases. Naturally images without released can't be offered as RF. <br /><br />Photos without releases are more limited than photos with releases in what they can typically be used for. Editorial usage typically doesn't require any releases. Editorial usage typically pay less than commercial usage but it's not bad. My latest sales through Alamy were for $450 and $225 for editorial usage in text-books.<br /><br />I have plenty of images on Alamy that are licensed to publications all over the place that have no releases even though there are clearly identifiable people in the photos. The same goes for photos with buildings, both private and public. For example, houses in the "hood" with gang graffiti, curb side of houses as police swat/tac approach to serve warrants, etc. Not to mention hundreds of photos of people being arrested, ticketed for traffic violations, inmates in prison, and so on. I clearly mark my photos as not having releases and I take great care to be accurate in the caption information given for each photo. <br /><br />David is absolutely right though that the vast majority of agencies much prefer it, and in some cases require it, that your images have releases. It is important though to know that there is an alternative.</p>

<p>100% in agreement with Mikael.</p>

<p>Now; if at all possible, released imagery (licensed), will provide far more opportunity for sales in other markets.</p>

<p>I track my images on the few stock agencies I have contracted with and have noticed a pattern.<br>

Released images are viewed and (zoomed) far more than images w/o releases.</p>

<p>Thank you very much for helping. Sorry for having delayed my post but due to the italian time zone. I posted late last night and came home from office few minutes ago.<br>

Your answers help me understanding better the matter. I'd add some example to explain better some of my doubts.<br>

Let's pick as an example. I performed a search on www.istockphoto.com for the following words: "spaghetti sauce fork". I got some result that are quite similar to me, especially the ones that show the fork sorrounded by the spaghetti covered with the sauce and the basil. So, might one of those photographers accuse somebody else for copying his picture ? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Antonio:</p>

<p>I think you answered your own question... "...some result that are quite similar...." I don't know about Italy but in the US you cannot copyright an Idea. For example, a picture of a soccer player kicking a goal is an idea. Two photographers will shoot the same player making a goal in a game. The pictures will be dang close in content however each will be unique and a photo editor will choose the one he/she prefers for publication. Each photographer can still sell the photos for what they can get as long as they do not violate any laws related to the subjects rights - those rights may extend beyond the player to the league and even the teams uniform. Sans a spaghetti sauce logo I think your images are yours to market as you want - no photographer will sue you for infringement.</p>