Jump to content

Tattoo Property Release....hahahahaha


Recommended Posts

Missing Tattoo Property Release: A tattoo property release is required for this submission but was not provided. Content containing works of art, such as tattoos, require a property release from the artist of the work.

some of the photos I took recently for the stock have been discarded with this excuse, tell me if one should ask the tattoo artist, who maybe doesn't do that job anymore or maybe he's deceased, the release of the tattoo he did to a person years ago and that you don't even remember. And when it comes to VIPs full of tattoos what do I do, am I going to ask an Angelina Jolie for the release for tattoos that she has on her whole body? Photographs uploaded to another agency and already put up for sale without problems, at this rate shutterstock will lose photographers, tired of uploading photos and then discarding them for similar things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not an excuse.  This rule has been around for years and is on the known Restrictions list here: https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/Known-Image-Restrictions-Objects-and-Subjects

Some tattoo designs are in public domain and some are not and since nobody knows all designs and knows which ones are in public domain and which one are not, the rule is a good rule. There are numerous copyright law suits involving tattoos and they are almost always ruled in favor of the tattoo artist (as far as I know)

You can try editorial. (Something you would do if you submit a picture of Angelina Jolie anyway)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Milleflore Images said:

Thanks. We're fine here, we live near the beach, but what's happened to Australia as a whole has been really upsetting and has a lot of long term consequences. 

Most things will recuperate, but will take decades or longer. Other things will never recuperate 

 

 

......... With apologies to Matteo for hijacking his thread ...........

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Rudy Umans said:

Most things will recuperate, but will take decades or longer. Other things will never recuperate 

 

 

......... With apologies to Matteo for hijacking his thread ...........

I was thinking the same thing. Apologies to the OP.

We can move it over to the hummer thread, Rudy if you like.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Rudy Umans said:

It's not an excuse.  This rule has been around for years and is on the known Restrictions list here: https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/Known-Image-Restrictions-Objects-and-Subjects

Some tattoo designs are in public domain and some are not and since nobody knows all designs and knows which ones are in public domain and which one are not, the rule is a good rule. There are numerous copyright law suits involving tattoos and they are almost always ruled in favor of the tattoo artist (as far as I know)

You can try editorial. (Something you would do if you submit a picture of Angelina Jolie anyway)

+1

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Milleflore Images said:

I was thinking the same thing. Apologies to the OP.

We can move it over to the hummer thread, Rudy if you like.

no problem.

 

As for the post, it is the first time in years of photography and agencies that I have had such a request, getty, alamy etc ... have never asked for such things, whether it is an RM or an RF, editorial or not. I find this very exaggerated, as well as impossible to have such information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see it for a tattoo that is actually art. As annoying as it is, when you have a model release and still have to upload as editorial because of the tattoos.

But I've gotten this rejection for a tattoo that was a simple triangle. I mean, really? A triangle is precious art that has to be protected??

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Milo J said:

I can see it for a tattoo that is actually art. As annoying as it is, when you have a model release and still have to upload as editorial because of the tattoos.

But I've gotten this rejection for a tattoo that was a simple triangle. I mean, really? A triangle is precious art that has to be protected??

 

just for understand this is the tattoo, a normaly classic tattoo without any importance

CHIN9993b.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ulrich Willmunder said:

It's a tatoo, it's visible, Shutterstock doesn't want it. Their site, their rules. End of story.

 

Also it's grainy as hell and out of focus, but with the quality of reviews these days, you might get away with that...

 

the only ones, no other agency asks for such things, a good way to lose sellers,  for the rest it is a crop of a particular, for that it is blurred, I can do my job

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Juha Saastamoinen said:

If someone steals your picture, says it's a normally classic picture without any importance. Is that ok...

pity that this is just a crop of a detail of a much larger photo, so before speaking I would count up to 10 .... in another agency, much more important than shutterstock, they were all loaded without problems. Lately this site has been losing a bit, it was enough for me to see the mess they created me with the Venice Film Festival photographs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Matteo,

every site has their own rules, and when you sign up to be a contributor, you can find them and read them. It's your job to know what's permitted.

It doesn't do any good to scream about the rules here; you CHOSE to agree with them when you signed up.

What other agencies do and accept is completely beside the point.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sari ONeal said:

Matteo,

every site has their own rules, and when you sign up to be a contributor, you can find them and read them. It's your job to know what's permitted.

It doesn't do any good to scream about the rules here; you CHOSE to agree with them when you signed up.

What other agencies do and accept is completely beside the point.

 

as said in years and years of work this is the first time that I have been asked for such nonsense, neither Getty, Alamy, nor others ask for similar things because they know that it is impossible to request similar things

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Matteo Chinellato said:

as said in years and years of work this is the first time that I have been asked for such nonsense, neither Getty, Alamy, nor others ask for similar things because they know that it is impossible to request similar things

As I tried to explain to you, it is not nonsense. If you think it is nonsense, then maybe stock is not for you.

The other agencies are taking a risk that SS is not willing to take, which is not only for their protection, but also for yours!

Needless to say that I agree with SS on this one.

Anyway, we can only help people that want to be helped, so suit yourself. Why don't you send SS an email, telling them that you think they completely suck instead of (somewhat cowardly) complaining here on the forums?

I am out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rudy Umans said:

As I tried to explain to you, it is not nonsense. If you think it is nonsense, then maybe stock is not for you.

The other agencies are taking a risk that SS is not willing to take, which is not only for their protection, but also for yours!

Needless to say that I agree with SS on this one.

Anyway, we can only help people that want to be helped, so suit yourself. Why don't you send SS an email, telling them that you think they completely suck instead of (somewhat cowardly) complaining here on the forums?

I am out.

already done, vague explanations as done with the photos of the Venice film festival when they had given me a Case Number for this, making me waste money and time, for this I don't put pictures here anymore

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2020 at 2:13 PM, Matteo Chinellato said:

the only ones, no other agency asks for such things, a good way to lose sellers,  for the rest it is a crop of a particular, for that it is blurred, I can do my job

Some might say following the rules of the site you're submitting to is part of the job...

 

I'm pretty sure removing those tatoos in post work would have been much quicker than the time spent bitching on the forums about a long established and well documented rule of the site.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ulrich Willmunder said:

Some might say following the rules of the site you're submitting to is part of the job...

 

I'm pretty sure removing those tatoos in post work would have been much quicker than the time spent bitching on the forums about a long established and well documented rule of the site.

I have no time to waste in photo editing, as well as I never do, if the photos are fine ok, otherwise loaded elsewhere, no problem

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Matteo Chinellato said:

I have no time to waste in photo editing, as well as I never do, if the photos are fine ok, otherwise loaded elsewhere, no problem

Cool. Just upload (shots with tatoos) elsewhere. Perfectly fine. :)
SS doesn't want tatoos. Their loss. You argueing about it however is just you loosing time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...