Copyright in the year 2016?

<p>Over the years I have attempted to create a body of work which I hoped might be acceptable to picture libraries. In this, I have often heard the comment from amateur photographers that I was being too "timid" in avoiding including recognisable people etc. in my pictures. At the same time, I have heard many grumbles from pros along the lines of "If this copyright business gets any worse, we'll only be able to photograph the sea!" It seems this day has arrived. I made an initial submission to iStock and included many of the sepia beach/sea views which can be seen in my PN portfolio. These pix were accepted for the most part - the one below wasn't, the reason given being that it included a recognisable person and a signed model release would be required. Sure enough there is a figure in the picture, about 300 yards away and actually outside the depth of field zone of this shot, taken handheld with a Fuji GW690III. Artistically I do not consider this figure important from a compositional point of view and I intend to retouch it out and e-submit the pic, but I have to say this ultra-strict interpretation of copyright law has surprised me. What do other PNers think?</p><div></div>

<p>This has nothing to do with copyright law.</p>

<p>Jeff, thanks for your brilliantly incisive response. Yes, to be absolutely correct, the agency's concern (and paranoia) relates not to a copyright infringement but to privacy considerations. In the case of the image below, the concern was "... due to concerns relating to privacy and related property rights, we cannot accept this file unless this information is removed, or a property release is obtained ... " Any views on this?</p><div></div>

<p>The problem for stock agencies is that someone could sue them, claiming that was shot while they were there. Even though it may not be recognizable, the stock agencies don't want to deal with the possible lawsuit, even if it's difficult to prove. Just the cost of the lawyer responding to frivolous claim is probably more than the photo will generate. As a result, the agencies will be very careful, probably far more careful than their clients.<br>

<br />Also, it's unlikely that anything you get online will help sway them.</p>

<p>I took a photo in the basement of an old bank just before it was destroyed. I was with a stock agency at the time that really wanted it but wanted a property release. I went to the new owners of the property and they said they couldn't sign it because they had no knowledge of what was in the photo and wouldn't sign it. There was no way to find anyone connected with the bank, it had been closed for years. So it didn't go in even though it was a good photo and I sold it several times on my own.</p>

<p>I've run into the same problem with Shutterstock, and I think it's basically a CYA policy on steroids. One example occurred when I submitted a shot of an old pickup truck partially buried in sand by a flash flood. I don't recall the exact wording of the reject, but it basically cited concerns over ownership of the truck (which, by the way, had been buried there for several years prior to the shot - and still is.) I had to search pretty hard to find the source of the problem, a Ford logo, and cloned it out. I resubmitted the shot, and it was accepted. Go figure...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, to be absolutely correct, the <strong>agency's concern</strong> (and<strong> paranoia</strong>) relates <strong>not to a copyright</strong> infringement . . . but to <strong>privacy considerations</strong> . . . or a <strong>property release</strong> is obtained ... " <strong>Any views on this?</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> In order, my views are:</p>

<p><em><strong>agency's concern</strong> (and<strong> paranoia</strong>) relates <strong>not to a copyright</strong> infringement</em><br /> Agencies simply don't want the hassle dealing with a multitude of wild claims, (as Jeff mentioned costs more to answer a silly claim than the image will generate) - so that, in my view is not "paranoia" - it is just smart business.</p>

<p>*</p>

<p><em>but to <strong>privacy considerations</strong></em><br /> As well as the two examples not being a copyright issue, I think they are not about privacy issues, either: there are about "release" issues and about "usage rights". That is to say the requirement for a release(s) necessary for any commercial use of the image.</p>

<p>*</p>

<p><em><strong>Any views on this?</strong></em><br /> As a general comment, often all these topics (e.g. copyright; model releases; property releases; privacy issues; usage rights - etc) get muddled up in discussions. I think it is best to be both articulate and specific in these types of conversations, if we want to have the best quality outcomes.</p>

<p>WW</p>

Looking at your photo, Impreety sure their concern with someone's rightshas to do with tjehouseand not theperson,

especially sinceyou mention "property rights".

<p>Thanks guys, your responses were helpful - a "CYA policy on steroids" is certainly operative here.<br>

@WW: copyright; model releases; property releases; privacy issues; usage rights - etc. You are right that it is important to make a distinction between these, I am clear about this in my mind, certain picture libraries aren't! Their attitude is good business in the sense that, at today's prices for image licenses, any transactions need to be smooth and right first time with no complications, since these would instantly consume any profit margin. <br>

The fact that agencies err on the side of extreme caution is less important to me than gaining a reasonable understanding of the way they think, so that I can be as sure as possible that submissions will be accepted without queries back and forth. Happily iStock seems to be quite keen on abstract landscapes and studio shots, so there is some prospect of being paid modest amounts for something I enjoy doing anyway (and, within reason, setting off the cost of photo gear as a business expense :-)).<br>

Once again, thanks to all.</p>

David, read the iStock contract carefully. It might make you take on all of the legal and financial liabilities for how the

photo is used including responsibility for any expenses iStock or its owners incur for their mislabeling, selling, or

licenscing the images they accept.