Property release missing?

[BrainBeat]

Hi I would love to have just been able to ask support directly over this but can't seem to find a way to do so. I have received a request for a property release for the image below and am curious as to why this is? I am wondering if it is because I have the street numbers visible? If so does anyone know if I had photoshopped out that do you think they might have been accepted straight away?

I have no idea whos house entryways that are but do know where they were taken (the location may be in the EXIF) and I doubt it is worth the effort going to get permission. I  just took the photo as I thought their gates looked interesting and could be sellable. I do wonder why it should be needed anyway as the photo was taken in a public place (on the footpath) and all that is visible is on the boundary of that public footpath there should be no need in my opinion. The only potential way that someone might identify the place is the street number but there is no mention of the street or city. These buildings are not even all that significant would offer little more than what Googles street view dies. I do understand the need to be cautious but this to me seems a bit too far. I would love to hear what people think and any suggestions on how to take building photos without requiring permission. I am not against getting permissions in general but for a house or other building, it may be more trouble than it is worth.

[twaritar3263062]

Moving to Stock Contributor Critique​

[joanH · Accepted solution]

Right you are, the gates are interesting. An artist created them - probably makes things like this and sells them. Even graffiti artists are allowed to claim their original work and require a release if they are photographed. Your part of the agreement with Adobe is that you will verify and obtain releases. The owner of the gates might not want his house-front identified to the world. The owner would need to allow your commercial use of his property.  If you are going to continue submitting contribute to Adobe and want to be accepted, study the information provided by Adobe and interpret it as you will. The following was just posted here today by Adobe Staff. See the ADOBE Guidelines for stock contributors. Releases required. Best regards, JH

Re: Model releases While Photographing Crowds.

MatHayward Jun 13, 2018, 9:05 AM (in response to rrosen1@maine.rr.com)

If there are 100 recognizable people in the image you must obtain and submit 100 separate model releases. We are selling commercial licensing so any recognizable person must give you written permission in the form of a model release before you can sell an image of their likeness.

-Mat

[BrainBeat]

Thanks for that. I understand what you are saying but also felt it should be generic enough that identification of the property might not be an issue. As I mentioned in my original post it is not as if there aren't similar photos of this property (see google street view) and they would not have explicit permission and they are exposing its actual location. Also street photographers takes photos of anything on the street and I would say most would rarely even get vocal permission from most of their subjects and yet they are allowed to sell them as art. True in both cases they are not making the photo available for use by anyone for anything but do still see similarities that still make me wonder why I should need a release.

Now I am very new at this and am not trying to argue but trying to discuss the situation to better understand what is and isn't ok. Would I be right then that in your opinion that if I want to post any photos of buildings I would likely have to find someone to sign off saying that it is ok to use? Even if they are publicly recognisable landmarks?

Also how much of a house or other property is ok before it becomes recognisable? would this have been ok if I had removed the numbers? would it be ok if I just had a single gate? or a window or door or something else? Also is there a limitation on this in terms of time? Technically the design is the architects and not necessarily the owners and each part has been created by different companies under the builder. There is a good chance for example that this entryway could be over 100 years old.

How about a vehicle they are recognisable only by they number plate if I took a photo of say a Ferarri would that be ok as long as the number plate was blanked? Would I need to get permission from the owner on that particular vehicle or maybe from the maker??

With the above questions I am just trying to work out where the line is as to me it seems very grey.

[ricky336]

To your above questions - it depends! Key thing to remember is, can it/they be identified? If so, you need a release! And images on here are for commercial use, so another keyword is commercial! Keep this in mind and it can help to answer your own questions!

For Google Street View, well, it's not being used commercially - so, it is ok (and they are the owners of the technology, so if we want to use their maps for commercial use, we have to pay them as Adobe does for Lightroom with Google Maps).

However, this is another debate about privacy in the world of the internet - Big Brother and all!

[joanH]

Hi, It is truly sad that the copyright laws have pushed huge limitations on photography - especially commercial photography. But, all it takes is one lawsuit over ownership and rights of use and you will understand why the commercial photo businesses are so militant with subject and property releases. It is not going to get better. Therefore, you will need to integrate this step into your offerings - at least your offerings to Adobe Stock. Remember, all of this also protects your property too. Please read the posted information and make a copy for future references. See more guidelines at this site.

To learn more about the  please visit this page: https://www.adobe.com/go/stock-contributor-help

This was posted last Wednesday.

Re: Model releases While Photographing Crowds.

MatHayward June 13, 2018, 9:05 AM

"If there are 100 recognizable people in the image, you must obtain and submit 100 separate model releases. We are selling commercial licensing so any recognizable person must give you written permission in the form of a model release before you can sell an image of their likeness."

Hope this helps a bit. Best regards JH

[BrainBeat]

Did I post in the wrong place? I was struggling to work out where to ask this.

[BrainBeat]

Thanks for your responses so far but I feel I that neither of you have helped me to know where the line actually is for what needs a release and what does not. I guess it may be something hard to define easily and may require me to keep submitting images and see which ones get in if any. Adobe stock is the first stock website I have tried to submit any photos to and have done so because from what I have read others have found it to be a good platform if a bit more picky of what they accept. I do understand the need to standards too and do support that they exist but wonder if they were a little more relaxed if some rejected content might still sell and maybe better than approved content. I guess I can always try this and other images with some other platforms and see how they go.

One thing I would like to get a response on do you think if I anonymise these images (remove the house numbers and mailboxes etc) more would they be more likely to be accepted? or would it still be deemed to be too identifiable and so need 2 releases? I have some I think interesting pictures featuring doors so would like to know if they could be accepted?

[joanH]

Hi, As you stated, you can always try taking away identifying features and resubmit them. You will soon have your own answers that fit your questions. We all must submit to the copyright laws as they stand - no fudging allowed these days. Theft of someone else's artwork is rampant and easier now than ever. It is now and the future for us. Best regards, JH

[BrainBeat]

I have finally gotten around to removing the house numbers and am resubmitting to see if that would make a difference. If not I will at least have a better idea of what needs a property release. Below is a smaller version of what I am submitting.

[BrainBeat]

A quick update. The above image has just been accepted so it would seem front doors like this can be ok as long as they do not have the house number in it too. That is totally fair and by removing the numbers allows customers to add in their own if they want to and don't have to remove them. That means this issue is now closed.

[joanH]

Hi, Thank you very much for sending this update. It lets forum members know this is how our forum can work with happy results for everyone, you the contributor and your forum helping friends. Personally, I am happy to see this added to Adobe Stock.  : + ) JH