Attention: These forums are no longer active. The iStock Contributor forums have moved to the Contributor Community site.

Extension of Castles in Europe exclusion

Displaying 1 to 17 of 17 matches.
versevend
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Posted Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:34AM
Hi All,


I've just had an image of a fairly famous, unlogoed building in Edinburgh rejected under the "Castles" criteria. The Castles issue is one thing and still full of contradictions but, hey at least I can see why they might be rejected. However, in this case, the builiding in question is an apartment block and not a castle so where is the line drawn? Plenty of other examples of similarly iconic buildings on Istock so what's the issue here? Has anyone else noticed this?

I have asked a second time for a re-evaluation as the first response did not address the simple fact that this building was NOT a castle so maybe once they twig that, they'll allow it through but it seems to me that this proscription is extending and I just need clarity so I don't waste time and shutte actutations/disk space on shooting stuff that wont be accepted.


Max.

(Edited on 2012-08-24 00:36:44 by versevend)
davidf
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto VideographerExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:08AM
I had the Tower of London rejected for the castles of Europe reason. Thought that was a bit rough but I'll upload them as editorial eventually.


Posted By versevend:
Hi All,


I've just had an image of a fairly famous, unlogoed building in Edinburgh rejected under the "Castles" criteria. The Castles issue is one thing and still full of contradictions but, hey at least I can see why they might be rejected. However, in this case, the builiding in question is an apartment block and not a castle so where is the line drawn? Plenty of other examples of similarly iconic buildings on Istock so what's the issue here? Has anyone else noticed this?

I have asked a second time for a re-evaluation as the first response did not address the simple fact that this building was NOT a castle so maybe once they twig that, they'll allow it through but it seems to me that this proscription is extending and I just need clarity so I don't waste time and shutte actutations/disk space on shooting stuff that wont be accepted.


Max.

(Edited on 2012-08-24 00:36:44 by versevend)

DaveLongMedia
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:11AM

The worst is having images deactivated of buildings that are most definitely not copyrighted. Whose interest is it to blindly deactivate a file that is selling well for absolutely no reason.


At the V-E-R-Y least, we could receive an email stating suspicion of infringement and give us the chance to prove otherwise or to provide a release.


Where is the logic?
Lobo
This user has the power to wield the BanHammer, a weapon forged in the fires of hell for that get-off-my-planet quality you can't get anywhere else. You betta reckonize.Forum Moderator
Posted Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:05AM

Posted By DaveLongMedia:

The worst is having images deactivated of buildings that are most definitely not copyrighted. Whose interest is it to blindly deactivate a file that is selling well for absolutely no reason.


At the V-E-R-Y least, we could receive an email stating suspicion of infringement and give us the chance to prove otherwise or to provide a release.


Where is the logic?

Do you have releases?
DaveLongMedia
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:18AM

I can get them because I know the adminstrators of the property. I have been told first-hand that they aren't necessary thouogh because the property in question is simply not copyrighted.


Many of these images were uploaded before the policy was ever even mentioned here, so even it were copyrighted, I would have no option to upload the release once obtained.


My point is why just brazenly deactivate the image without warning? Why not at least give us chance to obtain the releases and upload them to existing images?
Lobo
This user has the power to wield the BanHammer, a weapon forged in the fires of hell for that get-off-my-planet quality you can't get anywhere else. You betta reckonize.Forum Moderator
Posted Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:29AM
Well let's make some lemonade out of your specific lemons and get all that to Conttibutor Relations to review. I appreciate your point but here we are. Your point isn't lost on the minimal notifcation.
DaveLongMedia
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:22PM

Contributor relations message sent a few hours ago.


Thanks for considering the notification. Would be beneficial to everyone involved methinks.
koi88
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloads
Posted Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:24PM
Posted By DaveLongMedia:

I can get them because I know the adminstrators of the property. I have been told first-hand that they aren't necessary thouogh because the property in question is simply not copyrighted.


I thought every private property is "kind of" copyrighted? I thought need a property release for every private building. 


On the other hand, I thought that public buildings, such as most castles, don't need a release when shot from a public road.


 hope istock knows what they're doing. 
BrettCharlton
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sun Aug 26, 2012 2:15AM

A few years ago the owners of the Eifel tower tried to copyright it.  It was thrown out of court. They did manage to copyright the illuminated version because that was a recent artictic creation.


Copyright can last for anything between 25 and 75 years after the creators death. I doubt if there is any court that would uphold a copyright claim on a Castle built in the 13th century (700+ years after the last brick was laid) and now in public ownership, as so many are.


It is easy to understand the owners of a private castle getting upset if they find themselves constantly featured in commercial promotions without consent but this reaches far beyond the owners of castles.  My own house features in a Christmas TV commercial that get shown every year.  That contract was struck between the production company and the previous owner - An interesting sceanrio!!


 
lucentius
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sun Aug 26, 2012 2:44AM
It's probably not a question of whether or not it's copyrighted. They would have to spend too much time making absolutely certain it wasn't. Poor use of time for marginal gain.
inhauscreative
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Sun Aug 26, 2012 10:34AM
MDoubrava
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Posted Sun Aug 26, 2012 2:01PM
It has happened to me several times. It makes no sence  to discuss the rules here, whatever unrationality there might  be.
DavidCallan
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:12AM
William the Conqueror (circa 1066) had the Tower of London designed and built. I'd enjoy debating the issue of copyright with anybody who takes iStock to task for selling images of the Tower now, but it appears iStock would prefer to err on the side of caution. It won;t be long before animal lovers fervently defend the right of God's creatures not to be photographed for stock. Anybody got tips on how to get an African buffalo to sign a model release?
DaveLongMedia
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:38AM

To add to the hassle this policy causes, when you actually do get the email that your image has been deactivated (without any prior warning or opportunity to obtain a property release), there is no way to view exactly what image has been deactivated. Many of my images have very similar titles and with a portfolio of over 2000 images, it's tough to remember exactly what image had what title.


So, iStock could you please:


1 - Warn us first that an image "Might be subject to copyright" and give us the chance to prove otherwise or obtain a property release


2 - When you do deactivate an image, please either include a thumbnail in the email or let us still view the thumbnail on the server.


Is that asking too much from the world's leading microstock agency, to whom many of us have pledged exclusivity?
RichLegg
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:54AM

Posted By DaveLongMedia:

To add to the hassle this policy causes, when you actually do get the email that your image has been deactivated (without any prior warning or opportunity to obtain a property release), there is no way to view exactly what image has been deactivated.

You can see a list of your deactivated files on the My Uploads page (http://www.istockphoto.com/my_uploads.php). Change the dropdown selection from "Active/pending files" to "Deactivated files" and press the refresh button.
DaveLongMedia
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:13PM

Ah, thanks!


Now that I can see one of my recently deactivated images, I have an even harder time understanding why it was deactivated.


Fristly, the fortress in this image is not subject to copyright and secondly, it is miniscule in this composition!! The gardens in the foreground and all of the other buildings have nothing to do with the fortress. Why deactivate an image where a non-copyrighted fortress is such a minor part of the composition?!?!


/r3lWDVWM


So far, contributor relations have been useless, providing only general "copy and paste" types of responses. I have offered to provide a release, but have not even been instructed how to go about doing that for images that are currently in the collection.
Lobo
This user has the power to wield the BanHammer, a weapon forged in the fires of hell for that get-off-my-planet quality you can't get anywhere else. You betta reckonize.Forum Moderator
Posted Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:50AM
How about go get those releases, rather than tell us you can get them. Go get them thar releases and contact Contributor Relations with the documents.

Have a great Wednesday.
This thread has been locked.
Displaying 1 to 17 of 17 matches.
Not a member?Join