PHOTO. Castles in Europe. Property rejection

Displaying 1 to 20 of 20 matches.
puchan
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Sun Feb 3, 2013 8:42AM
"We regret to inform you that we cannot accept your submission, entitled Malbork castle in Poland for addition to the iStockphoto library for the following reasons:

This file includes content that may be subject to copyright or trademark protection. Certain use of this file creates risk of copyright/trademark infringement and we regret that it cannot be accepted, unless this content is removed from the file."


 My photo of the Malbork castle was one of the first in Istockphoto (2005 or 2006). It was accepted and after 2 years then removed as property grounds. Currently, there are about 129 other Malborks in istockphoto but without mine.


Other my photos with castles was removed to. Most castles in Poland are a public buildings.


file_thumbview_approve 

(Edited on 2013-02-03 08:43:36 by puchan)

(Edited on 2013-02-03 08:48:22 by kelvinjay)
lucentius
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sun Feb 3, 2013 8:49AM

European castles are a no-go with iStock.Yes.


There are many images of european castles on the database. Yes.


It's not fair. Yes.


You're onto a loser if you object. Yes.
kelvinjay
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has won a contestForum Moderator
Posted Sun Feb 3, 2013 8:57AM
I'm sure Donald or another inspector may be able to explain it better but, iStock employs evolving intellectual property standards. Sometimes the subjects of photos that didn't seem to pose any significant risk when they were uploaded are later deemed to do so. This is because legal standards change, legal challenges are made and the agencies who license photos have to adapt to these events in order to protect themselves and their contributors. Over the years there have been all sort of content removed such as cruise ships and guitars that had previously been accepted.

When there is such a policy change, the iStock admins take a long time to go through the collection and check each image thoroughly. What that may mean is that, for a time, other people's work is available - they are not all just deactivated en masse.

However, if you can obtain any relevant documentation from the owners of the property, such as getting a signed property release from them, then you can always contact Contributor Relations with that to see if it will satisfy iStock's requirements. The fact that a building may be open to the public, or may even be owned by the state, does not mean that those who manage the building's affairs do not try to sue people who use images of their property without their written consent.

Edited to add: hope this translates well into Google Polish

(Edited on 2013-02-03 09:19:56 by kelvinjay)
puchan
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Sun Feb 3, 2013 9:01AM
I had a lot of sales of this image (or similar, can not remember), but has been removed. Other photographers had more luck. I send to fruition until I hit a more tolerant judge? Little to me does not want to. And in a queue waiting more polish castles, public castles. Our lords are murdered in revolutions, wars... and we have public castles now. Sorry for my google english.
CHBD
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sun Feb 3, 2013 10:33AM

Unfortunately when our country has accepted the so called "evil capitalism"  some of the goverment owned castles and palaces in Poland where auctioned to private individuals with some restrictions that they can be still accessed by public. That said it does create certain problems as far RF licensing but it shouldn't for editorial use. If I were you I would contact contributor relations and ask them if you can re-upload them as editorial. Also try to do a research on properties that you photograph and after verification add a note to the description that the building is in public domain. Poland still has a lot of wonderful castles that are not pivately owned so good luck.


Narazicho i powodzenia
kbwills
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sun Feb 3, 2013 10:39AM

Just resubmit as editorial - resubmitting a rejected image again and again will just annoy the inspectorate (I think it is against the 'rules' anyway...) unless you can get a Property Release as Kelvin suggests (even then it may get rejected - happened to me, so I just gave up trying after a while.


Dont bother to scout or complain to Contributor relations, unless you like to waste your time. 


You might try submitting a lightbox of similar images, to assist iStock in deactivating other problematic images - if that works, then everyone is playing by the same rules. 


Regards


 
donald_gruener
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer SpotlightMember has had a File Of The WeekForum Moderator
Posted Sun Feb 3, 2013 11:03AM

Posted By kelvinjay:
I'm sure Donald or another inspector may be able to explain it better but, iStock employs evolving intellectual property standards. Sometimes the subjects of photos that didn't seem to pose any significant risk when they were uploaded are later deemed to do so. This is because legal standards change, legal challenges are made and the agencies who license photos have to adapt to these events in order to protect themselves and their contributors. Over the years there have been all sort of content removed such as cruise ships and guitars that had previously been accepted.

When there is such a policy change, the iStock admins take a long time to go through the collection and check each image thoroughly. What that may mean is that, for a time, other people's work is available - they are not all just deactivated en masse.

However, if you can obtain any relevant documentation from the owners of the property, such as getting a signed property release from them, then you can always contact Contributor Relations with that to see if it will satisfy iStock's requirements. The fact that a building may be open to the public, or may even be owned by the state, does not mean that those who manage the building's affairs do not try to sue people who use images of their property without their written consent.

Edited to add: hope this translates well into Google Polish :)

(Edited on 2013-02-03 09:19:56 by kelvinjay)



Could not have explained it better myself.
puchan
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Sun Feb 3, 2013 4:15PM


Posted By CHBD:

Unfortunately when our country has accepted the so called "evil capitalism" smile some of the goverment owned castles and palaces in Poland where auctioned to private individuals with some restrictions that they can be still accessed by public. That said it does create certain problems as far RF licensing but it shouldn't for editorial use. If I were you I would contact contributor relations and ask them if you can re-upload them as editorial. Also try to do a research on properties that you photograph and after verification add a note to the description that the building is in public domain. Poland still has a lot of wonderful castles that are not pivately owned so good luck.


Narazicho i powodzenia wink

Where I can take a list of property free castles and palaces? From what I know, only Lancut and the Royal Castle in Warsaw threatened court but lost. Dzieki za informacje.
puchan
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Sun Feb 3, 2013 4:21PM
OK. I'll try to give it as editorial but I have one problem. I cleared all exif with my favorite IrfanView. I've seen too many movies about conspiracy theories and I do not like exifs....
puchan
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Sun Feb 3, 2013 4:27PM
Posted By kelvinjay:
I'm sure Donald or another inspector may be able to explain it better but, iStock employs evolving intellectual property standards. Sometimes the subjects of photos that didn't seem to pose any significant risk when they were uploaded are later deemed to do so. This is because legal standards change, legal challenges are made and the agencies who license photos have to adapt to these events in order to protect themselves and their contributors. Over the years there have been all sort of content removed such as cruise ships and guitars that had previously been accepted.

When there is such a policy change, the iStock admins take a long time to go through the collection and check each image thoroughly. What that may mean is that, for a time, other people's work is available - they are not all just deactivated en masse.

However, if you can obtain any relevant documentation from the owners of the property, such as getting a signed property release from them, then you can always contact Contributor Relations with that to see if it will satisfy iStock's requirements. The fact that a building may be open to the public, or may even be owned by the state, does not mean that those who manage the building's affairs do not try to sue people who use images of their property without their written consent.

Edited to add: hope this translates well into Google Polish smile

(Edited on 2013-02-03 09:19:56 by kelvinjay)

Whew. At first I thought it's about our Prime Minister ...OK. Got it. But the Polish law is quite clear here. I have not heard anyone lost in court by a public monument. But I could be wrong. Thank you.
donald_gruener
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer SpotlightMember has had a File Of The WeekForum Moderator
Posted Mon Feb 4, 2013 2:17PM
We have a general restriction on "European castles." As I recall, this originated when we became aware of restrictions on French chateaux and some German castles, and with research more and more restrictions were discovered, to the point of just making a blanket ban on European castles. I personally am not an expert on castles nor was I privvy to that particular discovery process.

You're more than welcome to file a Scout ticket if you feel the rejection is in error, in particular if you can provide some supporting documentation that no restrictions apply to commercial use of this property.
puchan
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Tue Feb 5, 2013 4:31AM
Posted By donald_gruener:
We have a general restriction on "European castles." As I recall, this originated when we became aware of restrictions on French chateaux and some German castles, and with research more and more restrictions were discovered, to the point of just making a blanket ban on European castles. I personally am not an expert on castles nor was I privvy to that particular discovery process.

You're more than welcome to file a Scout ticket if you feel the rejection is in error, in particular if you can provide some supporting documentation that no restrictions apply to commercial use of this property.



 Thanks for the information. As I wrote most of the castles in Poland (almost all) are owned by the state. Only museum in the inside of castles locks are some laws. And a link (unfortunately in Polish) about the battle of citizens and and photographers with officials:


http://pl.wikinews.org/wiki/2008-03-27:_Kiedy_dowiemy_si?,_dlaczego_nie_mo?na_robi?_zdj??_w_niektórych_polskich_muzeach%3F

(Edited on 2013-02-05 04:51:02 by puchan)
puchan
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Tue Feb 5, 2013 4:57AM

Administracja muzeów, szczególnie Muzeum Narodowego w Warszawie, przyw?aszcza wi?c prawa do dzie? kultury, które zgodnie z prawem autorskim nale?? do domeny publicznej (a przynajmniej znaczna cz??? tych dzie?), czyli ka?dy obywatel, instytucja czy firma ma prawo we w?asnym zakresie do wykorzystywania ich tak?e w celach komercyjnych.


Google trans: Administration museums, especially the National Museum in Warsaw, so appropriates the right to cultural works, which under copyright law in the public domain (or at least a significant part of these works), that each citizen, institution or company has the right to their own use of the for commercial purposes.


Dzia?ania muzeów stanowi? przede wszystkim naruszenie postanowie? Konstytucji RP. Zgodnie z art. 6 Konstytucji, Rzeczpospolita Polska stwarza warunki upowszechniania i równego dost?pu do dóbr kultury, a tak?e udziela pomocy Polakom zamieszka?ym za granic? w zachowaniu ich zwi?zków z narodowym dziedzictwem kulturalnym. Zgodnie z art. 73 Konstytucji, ka?demu zapewnia si? wolno?? korzystania z dóbr kultury.


Google trans:The activities are mainly museums violation of the Constitution. In accordance with Article. 6 of the Constitution, the Republic of Poland shall provide conditions for equal access to culture, as well as provide assistance to Poles living abroad to maintain their links with the national cultural heritage. In accordance with Article. 73 of the Constitution, everyone shall have the freedom to enjoy cultural heritage.


Ah ... those officials like former lords ...
puchan
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Tue Feb 5, 2013 4:59AM
And what about when it comes to the exifs (in editorial)? Are they really necessary?
Difydave
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Feb 5, 2013 10:41AM

Why would you want to remove the exif? It gives at least some proof of which person and which camera created the image, as well as lots of other information which the inspectors here use. You should really include copyright information, a title and keywords as well.


You certainly need to supply the relevent metadata with editorial as it is (as I understand it) expected by buyers for editorial content and is required here in any case.


I was also under the impression that removal of the exif data is against the rules for any upload here. Editorial or otherwise.
puchan
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Tue Feb 5, 2013 10:54AM
Posted By Difydave:

Why would you want to remove the exif? It gives at least some proof of which person and which camera created the image, as well as lots of other information which the inspectors here use. You should really include copyright information, a title and keywords as well.


You certainly need to supply the relevent metadata with editorial as it is (as I understand it) expected by buyers for editorial content and is required here in any case.


I was also under the impression that removal of the exif data is against the rules for any upload here. Editorial or otherwise.

So I set IrfanView and did not know about it. It threw all of the exif data. Earlier also no one ask for exif...I had probably somewhere shots with exif from that session with a beer in hand or with friends but flip exif from photo to photo probably is prohibited.
donald_gruener
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer SpotlightMember has had a File Of The WeekForum Moderator
Posted Tue Feb 5, 2013 11:11AM

Posted By puchan:
And what about when it comes to the exifs (in editorial)? Are they really necessary?


It is required for editorial submissions. We must be able to cross-check the image data with the caption data.

It is not required for main collection submissions - we won't reject for it - but even in the main collection we really really really really don't like it when the EXIF has been stripped.

I would think that pasting in EXIF from another shot would essentially amount to falsifying the data. I would suggest looking for or asking the question in the editorial forum - I would imagine you're not the first person who has wanted to submit an editorial image from which the EXIF is missing. The editorial forum would be a better place to get more specifics about how to deal with that.
Difydave
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Feb 5, 2013 11:17AM

^ Thanks Donald. I guess I should know the rules by now!


At least I erred on the side of caution.


 
Difydave
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Feb 5, 2013 11:31AM
Posted By puchan:

Posted By Difydave:

Why would you want to remove the exif? It gives at least some proof of which person and which camera created the image, as well as lots of other information which the inspectors here use. You should really include copyright information, a title and keywords as well.


You certainly need to supply the relevent metadata with editorial as it is (as I understand it) expected by buyers for editorial content and is required here in any case.


I was also under the impression that removal of the exif data is against the rules for any upload here. Editorial or otherwise.


So I set IrfanView and did not know about it. It threw all of the exif data. Earlier also no one ask for exif...I had probably somewhere shots with exif from that session with a beer in hand or with friends but flip exif from photo to photo probably is prohibited.


If you only have a jpeg, and have lost the exif then you may not be able to recover it. If you have the RAW file then the camera exif will still be in that. Various programs can copy the exif from an original image to either a text type file, or to another file of the same image.
puchan
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Tue Feb 5, 2013 1:12PM
Thanks for comprehensive answer.
This thread has been locked.
Displaying 1 to 20 of 20 matches.
Not a member?Join