Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: JoeKitchen on April 03, 2010, 07:20:36 pm
-
I am an Architectural Photographer and most of my work is commissioned based, but on days like today, I often go out and create images because I love to do it. Then they set on my hard drive collecting digital dust. I am wondering what avenues are out for selling them through stock and what stock agencies would be best to go to considering I shoot architecture, interiors, and hospitality?
-
http://www.livedinimages.com/ (http://www.livedinimages.com/)
-
I am an Architectural Photographer and most of my work is commissioned based, but on days like today, I often go out and create images because I love to do it. Then they set on my hard drive collecting digital dust. I am wondering what avenues are out for selling them through stock and what stock agencies would be best to go to considering I shoot architecture, interiors, and hospitality?
http://www.viewpictures.co.uk/ (http://www.viewpictures.co.uk/)
http://www.arcaid.co.uk/ (http://www.arcaid.co.uk/)
an other two
-
You can call Esto. They maintain a large stock library.
-
http://www.viewpictures.co.uk/ (http://www.viewpictures.co.uk/)
http://www.arcaid.co.uk/ (http://www.arcaid.co.uk/)
an other two
+1 on both!
-
I had an email today about a 30% off promotion from Getty Images, so I logged on to see at what price they were offering high-res pictures.
I found a picture and I was dismayed to find that it was less than 10 Mega-pixels... so I opted for live chat:
Dick: Hi, do you have any high res images?
Kirsty: Of course all of our images are at high res once purchased.
Dick: The image I looked at was less than 10 mega pixels... how do I filter and select images of 60Megapixels and above?
Kirsty: Do you mean megabytes?
Kirsty: If that is what you mean then i'm afraid no we cannot filter by file size
Dick: No, Mega-pixels.
Kirsty: We don't work in megapixels i'm afriad
I see that Joe Cornish has a photo or two on Arcaid, so they might be worth trying... does any other agency pay real money for quality (high res) photographs?
-
I had an email today about a 30% off promotion from Getty Images, so I logged on to see at what price they were offering high-res pictures.
I found a picture and I was dismayed to find that it was less than 10 Mega-pixels... so I opted for live chat:
Dick: Hi, do you have any high res images?
Kirsty: Of course all of our images are at high res once purchased.
Dick: The image I looked at was less than 10 mega pixels... how do I filter and select images of 60Megapixels and above?
Kirsty: Do you mean megabytes?
Kirsty: If that is what you mean then i'm afraid no we cannot filter by file size
Dick: No, Mega-pixels.
Kirsty: We don't work in megapixels i'm afriad
I see that Joe Cornish has a photo or two on Arcaid, so they might be worth trying... does any other agency pay real money for quality (high res) photographs?
Interesting story, but seems likely. I have not decided yet which stock agencies I will approach yet (been working on redoing my website and hope to have it done this week), I have noticed that a lot of them have horrible architectural imagery, especially Getty. Horrible lighting and timing, perspective and optical distortions, sometime I really want to call these photographers up and explain you can remove that digitally if you dont have the right camera or lenses. With the major stock agencies, it looks like you almost have to shoot with bad quality and distortions to get on the site.
On a different not, I am not in the habit of getting property releases from the land owner in an interior job. Should I be doing that? You cant sell interiors if you dont have one right?
-
I had an email today about a 30% off promotion from Getty Images, so I logged on to see at what price they were offering high-res pictures.
I found a picture and I was dismayed to find that it was less than 10 Mega-pixels... so I opted for live chat:
Dick: Hi, do you have any high res images?
Kirsty: Of course all of our images are at high res once purchased.
Dick: The image I looked at was less than 10 mega pixels... how do I filter and select images of 60Megapixels and above?
Kirsty: Do you mean megabytes?
Kirsty: If that is what you mean then i'm afraid no we cannot filter by file size
Dick: No, Mega-pixels.
Kirsty: We don't work in megapixels i'm afriad
I see that Joe Cornish has a photo or two on Arcaid, so they might be worth trying... does any other agency pay real money for quality (high res) photographs?
Getty's standard for accepting files (digital or film) has been 50MB for some years now, in digital terms they accept images from 1Ds (MkI, 11MP) and up.
Yair
-
Interesting story, but seems likely. I have not decided yet which stock agencies I will approach yet (been working on redoing my website and hope to have it done this week), I have noticed that a lot of them have horrible architectural imagery, especially Getty. Horrible lighting and timing, perspective and optical distortions, sometime I really want to call these photographers up and explain you can remove that digitally if you dont have the right camera or lenses. With the major stock agencies, it looks like you almost have to shoot with bad quality and distortions to get on the site.
On a different not, I am not in the habit of getting property releases from the land owner in an interior job. Should I be doing that? You cant sell interiors if you dont have one right?
absolutely crucial to get release forms signed from the owner or legal representative
no reputable stock agency will take your photos without it.
m
-
absolutely crucial to get release forms signed from the owner or legal representative
no reputable stock agency will take your photos without it.
m
Technically, in the UK, I think, there is no need for model release or property release on any photo taken from public property, or on property accessible to the public... but if it was an international agency (as I am sure they all are) they would insist on...
-
Technically, in the UK, I think, there is no need for model release or property release on any photo taken from public property, or on property accessible to the public...
If you want to end up in court, sure.. No client in their right mind would license an unreleased image for commercial purposes and no agent/agency/portal of any standing would
represent an unreleased image for more than editorial licensing purposes.
You might be confusing ones right, in the UK or elsewhere, to photograph from public property but your options to license images without release are mostly limited
to some editorial uses
Mark
www.marktomalty.com
-
You might be confusing ones right, in the UK or elsewhere, to photograph from public property but your options to license images without release are mostly limited to some editorial uses
Mark
www.marktomalty.com
...so you are saying that it is legal to take the picture but not to use (sell) it except, perhaps, for editorial?
-
...so you are saying that it is legal to take the picture but not to use (sell) it except, perhaps, for editorial?
I would think "Editorial" would cover most uses for architectural images. The micro's don't have a problem selling RF no released images from what I can see. type in "The Gherkin" quite a choice. I sell aerials of buildings, no release and RM.
Kevin.
-
Do you need property releases for images taken form public ground like the two images below? I think that it would be impossible to get a property release for the one of Chestnut St but I think it is a sellable image. How would I sell that?
-
Do you need property releases for images taken form public ground like the two images below? I think that it would be impossible to get a property release for the one of Chestnut St but I think it is a sellable image. How would I sell that?
In my opinion, the first image is technically not from a public viewpoint. You're standing outdoors, yes, but you're on the building's grounds still, as long as you're on the sidewalk adjacent or any of it's property. In fact, you're still under the building. Add to that the potential issue with the other shot from across the street: for that you may want to go back and research the heavy handed lawsuit(s) brought some years back by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame against the marketing (e.g. posters, postcards, etc.) of any photographic images of it's building, even from what's considered public viewpoints - some at quite some distance away. This is a potential minefield without having rock solid property releases. I would tread very, very carefully. People now realize better the potential value of images - especially iconic ones, and if they happen to own the property that you're making money from by selling it's image, you may invite legal action if it's been shot without permission and a signed release. I and my assistant have been asked (more like escorted) to step off the sidewalk and into the street by security staff from a building at my back (opposite the one I was shooting) because I was (in their mind) standing on private property, and that "viewpoint" was private, and - again, this was from the sidewalk.
Richard
-
Rock and Roll Hall of Fame against the marketing (e.g. posters, postcards, etc.) of any photographic images of it's building
What sort of marketing would involve making postcards and posters of the rock n roll hall of fame? Were they just selling postcards and posters to tourists?
-
I'd imagine it would be tough to get a property release for exteriors of iconic structures unless you were commissioned to photograph the building from it's property owner. I rarely ever see stock architectural photographs being used beyond editorial. I imagine it would be a different case if a company decided to use a stock photograph of a building for their marketing campaign, but normally companies don't have any interest in the photographs of buildings outside of editorial unless it's their own building or they were involved in the design process.
It's the company that buys the use of the photograph to know in what way it can be used (clearly stated in the licensing agreement). For me, I don't need to get property releases because I don't want my commissioned photographs to be used beyond editorial.
-
What sort of marketing would involve making postcards and posters of the rock n roll hall of fame? Were they just selling postcards and posters to tourists?
Ok, I'll put it simply. He was making money from the images of their building. As I recall, the photographer simply got some great shots of the building from quite some distance (public viewpoint) at dusk in particular, made posters, postcards, etc. and privately marketed the images. It's a cool building, they were nice shots. He treated them as stock to make an income, on his own. He got seriously sued for copyright infringement. This was the first case of this type and caused quite a stir. I believe ASMP got involved with this one.
-
I rarely ever see stock architectural photographs being used beyond editorial....For me, I don't need to get property releases because I don't want my commissioned photographs to be used beyond editorial.
Interesting, how can you differentiate what's stock and what's not???
Anyway, that may be the norm for you if you just shoot corporate exteriors, but depending on the subject matter, you may want to rethink that because there can be a day when someone from marketing at Sub Zero (or wherever) emails saying, "We love the incredible way our new walk-in wine cellar looks in that article of you shot in XXX Architecture and we want to license it for International, 5-year unlimited ad, point of purchase, and brochure use." Would $xx,xxxx be agreeable?
-
Well, that can be the norm, but you may want to rethink that because there can be a day when someone from marketing at Sub Zero (or wherever) emails saying, "We love the incredible way our new walk-in wine cellar looks in that article of you shot in XXX Architecture and we want to license it for International, 5-year unlimited ad, point of purchase, and brochure use." Would $xx,xxxx be agreeable?
Good point. Any of you other architectural photographers include property release forms for all your projects? I'd rather not have to bother the client and property owner. I wonder if there is a way to cover this within the assignment contract.
-
Its funny you should mention that lawsuit and that he got sued for copyright infringement. This past friday I attended a copyright seminar offered by the ASMP and in the copyright act of 1976 it states (not word for word) that a photography of a 3 dimensional object is not a violation of the 3-D creator's copyright and that the photographer owns the copyright to the image. Did he win or loose, or just settle? I can image that a federal lawsuit would be pretty expensive to defend.
But getting back to Jon's point, how do you get property releases for jobs when you where not commissioned by the land owner? I would love to be able to sell images from commissioned jobs, but I usually never work for the land owner, especially on private residences.
-
The photographer did get sued, but you did not mention he WON. There is no case president against any photographer or film production shooting from public property. The Flatiron building in New York also sued stating the building was trademarked, I believe they also lost. Look up the blog http://www.photoattorney.com/ (http://www.photoattorney.com/) and property release. ( Blog Post (http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=401) ) My contract has a property release for all projects I shoot, but I am shooting on the property.
Ok, I'll put it simply. He was making money from the images of their building. As I recall, the photographer simply got some great shots of the building from quite some distance (public viewpoint) at dusk in particular, made posters, postcards, etc. and privately marketed the images. It's a cool building, they were nice shots. He treated them as stock to make an income, on his own. He got seriously sued for copyright infringement. This was the first case of this type and caused quite a stir. I believe ASMP got involved with this one.
-
The photographer did get sued, but you did not mention he WON. There is no case president against any photographer or film production shooting from public property. The Flatiron building in New York also sued stating the building was trademarked, I believe they also lost. Look up the blog http://www.photoattorney.com/ (http://www.photoattorney.com/) and property release. ( Blog Post (http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=401) ) My contract has a property release for all projects I shoot, but I am shooting on the property.
This is what I thought. I know stock agencies almost always require it to save their butts for any future law changes, but I'd rather sell my own architectural images than have getty, or even corbis handle them.
Do you have separate paperwork for the property release, or is it just an additional line or two in the contract?
JB
-
The photographer did get sued, but you did not mention he WON. There is no case president against any photographer or film production shooting from public property. The Flatiron building in New York also sued stating the building was trademarked, I believe they also lost. Look up the blog http://www.photoattorney.com/ (http://www.photoattorney.com/) and property release. ( Blog Post (http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=401) ) My contract has a property release for all projects I shoot, but I am shooting on the property.
Pixjohn,
That goes without saying. Can you imagine all the paperwork we'd be trotting out at each shoot if they had won? All of us in the arch photo world would be working much, much differently if that case had been won. And we'd all be daily reciting that legal decision as a rueful mantra. Whether the case was won or lost was not what I was driving at. I was pointing out that thanks to the legal profession, people/corporations are trending toward viewing images of their property (especially iconic ones such as the Flatiron Bldg.) as proprietary, even if shot from a public viewpoint. I mention it more as a cautionary tale, outlining the fact that some have already attempted to sue even when there is no precedent, merely because they have deep pockets. My experience is that this "guarding" of private property images has slowly come increasingly into my discussions with clients, and will likely continue to do so. Anyway, as they say, "forewarned is forearmed."
A separate property release would be best. ASMP has them available if you're a member.
Here's a quote from their site that might prove helpful and finishes by reinforcing why I told my tale of Cleveland,
"Conversion. ... there is an offense called conversion, which means that you used another’s property to your own personal gain without the owner’s permission. It is a bit like copyright infringement, which covers intangible property, except it covers tangible property. If I rent out your house while you are away without your permission, I have converted it to my personal gain. That is conversion. The question is this: Is it conversion if I rent out a picture of your house for an advertisement without your permission? The picture of your house is not your tangible property. Is the photo of the house the equivalent of the house (at least for these purposes)?
We know of no case that has ever settled those kinds of questions. ASMP advises that property releases be acquired whenever possible because we don’t want to see you be the test case."