wildstallion
Senior Member
You have to upload it as editorial otherwise it will be rejected.
Selling photos on stock photo sites
- Thread starter djchris
- Start date
You have to upload it as editorial otherwise it will be rejected.
V
vince123123
Guest
That's probably because these stock sites are either over-conservative or have no clue on intellectual property laws in Singapore.
Taking a photograph of a building in Singapore does not infringe on the copyright in the building.
Taking a photograph of a building in Singapore does not infringe on the copyright in the building.
but let's say if the photograph is used as commercial stock? the owner of the photograph makes money out of it, is it considered an infringement?
wildstallion
Senior Member
Its an infringment due to copyright issues, especially if the buidling still have their logos on it. Without releases from all building you MUST submit as editorial, and even then it may be rejected. Vince, it doesnt matter what the Singapore rules are, the stock sites have to apply the rules from their governing country.
V
vince123123
Guest
It is not an infringement under Singapore law, as infringement actions under Singapore law seldom depend on the divide between personal and commercial usage to establish liability.
V
vince123123
Guest
Are you sure that the rules from their governing country applies in all cases? Are you sure that all stock site countries would consider it to be infringement? Even laws in the United States vary from state to state.
Choice/Conflict of law and forum are complex topics which are not practical to go in depth to here. I thus only commented on the Singapore position.
In the stock industry, it isn't even clear who the potential plaintiffs and defendants are going to be. A Singapore company owning the building attempting to enforce its copyright in the United States will have an uphill task ahead of it (especially given that it can't even enforce any rights against the Singapore photographer who took the picture).
Stock sites are taking the prudent approach, as they are unlikely to lose much business from imposing higher requirements to contributers. They will probably also want releases for everything under the sun - heck they will probably even want a release of a photograph that I took for my dog. The reason is because of the massive volume of photos going through their databases, they would take a safe, high standard to minimise their downside exposure.
Choice/Conflict of law and forum are complex topics which are not practical to go in depth to here. I thus only commented on the Singapore position.
In the stock industry, it isn't even clear who the potential plaintiffs and defendants are going to be. A Singapore company owning the building attempting to enforce its copyright in the United States will have an uphill task ahead of it (especially given that it can't even enforce any rights against the Singapore photographer who took the picture).
Stock sites are taking the prudent approach, as they are unlikely to lose much business from imposing higher requirements to contributers. They will probably also want releases for everything under the sun - heck they will probably even want a release of a photograph that I took for my dog. The reason is because of the massive volume of photos going through their databases, they would take a safe, high standard to minimise their downside exposure.
i see, thanks for the knowledge and enlightenment on this issue! are you a lawyer by profession?
V
vince123123
Guest
I think that one's profession or qualifications is irrelevant in an online discussion - what's more important is the points brought up and the ability to substantiate the points made. Just because one is a lawyer or judge doesn't automatically make him correct 
Anyway, for the above case, my opinion is based on Section 64 of the Copyright Act
.
Anyway, for the above case, my opinion is based on Section 64 of the Copyright Act
.wildstallion
Senior Member
You make a very good point. I assume that these stock companies have to cover themselves for every country that will be using the site, but using their own countries legislation as the backbone. For example, iStock uses the laws of Alberta Canada in its release forms, as thats where its based.
I guess it keeps them from being liable most of the time, but in the long run, rejecting photos due to silly issues like that above will cost them some money.
i saw all photographer's portfolio in different stock photos sites. Intresting... in my case fotolia approved 15 but dreamstime only 3 sofar. Dreamstime is a bit tough to approve the photos. Will you process the photos in photoshop before submission? My all selected photos are directly from camera.. i have not much idea about the photoshop adjustments.. may be this is one of the reason of rejecting my photos.
processing is good but not definitely necessary. if the composition and colours and sharpness you think that all of the above mentioned are good to go then why not? you can just submit it.
processing creates alot of noise and artefacts rubbish and my bad habit is processing in jpeg haha but dreamstime accepts so does shutterstock. istock is too particular..my rejection rate is going skyhigh i think..haha
Thanks you very much for your reply.. i visited your dreamstime portfolio and all are nice works... Did u give any property release for any photos?
qing02051981
New Member
my rejection rate at istock is high sky too. haha...
wildstallion
Senior Member
Mines ok at istock, on about 85% or something, once you know what to look for you dont often get rejected unless their having a stupid day....
About buildings copyright in stock photo; it depends on the building owner. However if your image had 4 or more buildings, then you're free to use the image, unless that 4 or more buildings all belonged to the same owner and represented a commercial property branding.
I had been registered with shutterstock and dreamstimes, and I make the most from shutterstock; averaging US$60-100 per month. Contributors of illustrations (vectors) generally earn more than photographers.
My images at Shutterstock is here:
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery.mhtml?id=56120
PM me if you needed a referral or clarification.
I had been registered with shutterstock and dreamstimes, and I make the most from shutterstock; averaging US$60-100 per month. Contributors of illustrations (vectors) generally earn more than photographers.
My images at Shutterstock is here:
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery.mhtml?id=56120
PM me if you needed a referral or clarification.
About buildings copyright in stock photo; it depends on the building owner. However if your image had 4 or more buildings, then you're free to use the image, unless that 4 or more buildings all belonged to the same owner and represented a commercial property branding.
I had been registered with shutterstock and dreamstimes, and I make the most from shutterstock; averaging US$60-100 per month. Contributors of illustrations (vectors) generally earn more than photographers.
My images at Shutterstock is here:
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery.mhtml?id=56120
PM me if you needed a referral or clarification.
nice portfolio, do you think your SS requires constant upload to maintain the sales? after little upload my SS sales became stagnant and after i uploaded again my portfolio gained exposure and sales picked up briefly again. So since you're more experienced, i'm just curious if this is the case. Could you verify this? thanks
About buildings copyright in stock photo; it depends on the building owner. However if your image had 4 or more buildings, then you're free to use the image, unless that 4 or more buildings all belonged to the same owner and represented a commercial property branding.
I had been registered with shutterstock and dreamstimes, and I make the most from shutterstock; averaging US$60-100 per month. Contributors of illustrations (vectors) generally earn more than photographers.
My images at Shutterstock is here:
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery.mhtml?id=56120
PM me if you needed a referral or clarification.
nice portfolio, do you think your SS requires constant upload to maintain the sales? after little upload my SS sales became stagnant and after i uploaded again my portfolio gained exposure and sales picked up briefly again. So since you're more experienced, i'm just curious if this is the case. Could you verify this? thanks
nice portfolio, do you think your SS requires constant upload to maintain the sales? after little upload my SS sales became stagnant and after i uploaded again my portfolio gained exposure and sales picked up briefly again. So since you're more experienced, i'm just curious if this is the case. Could you verify this? thanks
Probably, but the sales is across the whole portfolio, not just the newer ones. But in general, the more images you have, the more likely the higher the sales, isn't it.
I travel quite often, and make sure I bring along a camera. Many photographs I take were done with stock photography in mind. Just upload when I return. I always believe that I should gain a bit financially from the photographs, rather than letting them sit in the HDD.
my opinion of stock is the same as your second paragraph. doing something more meaningful financially haha..although not a serious stock photographer but at least it made me demand more standard in my own pictures which I benefited alot.
so i suppose sales are random and not based on upload exposure ya
wildstallion
Senior Member
I completely disagree. Upload exposure is vital in my opinion.
With Shutterstock you usually have to keep uploading reguarly otherwise your downloads will fall and in some cases stagnate. I always get a significant boost when I upload reguarly. Can turn a $20 month into a $100 month very quickly.
With Shutterstock you usually have to keep uploading reguarly otherwise your downloads will fall and in some cases stagnate. I always get a significant boost when I upload reguarly. Can turn a $20 month into a $100 month very quickly.
Similar threads
