Skip to main content
M
Mark24421314357d
Participant
May 18, 2022
Answered

Help with Intellectual Property Natural History Museum

  • May 18, 2022
  • 6 replies
  • 1161 views

Hi, I wonder if anyone might be able to tell me why my photo of the blue whale skeleton at London's Natural History Museum got rejected for reasons of 'intellectual property rights' ?

 

There are many photos that are similar that are available on Adobe Stock so I am struggling to determine exactly what intellectual property rights are infringed when there are so many similar images available. I thought it might be because it is a recognisable building, but my photos of other famous buildings have been accepted.

 

Also, I had a photo of crowds of people playing with bubbles in a square in Paris rejected for the same reason - are bubbles someone's intellectual property?!

 

I'm new to contributing and just trying to establish what the rules are, so I know what I can and cannot submit.

 

Thanks for any info - files attached.

This topic has been closed for replies.
Correct answer reedesign1912

I would also add to @Test Screen Name list of IP in your bubbles photo, the Minnie Mouse ears on the two young girls.  Disney is very protective of its IP.

6 replies

Abambo
Community Expert
AbamboCommunity Expert
Community Expert
May 19, 2022

I'm confident that the skeleton is copyright protected. But as it is obviously an inside picture, you anyhow need a property release for the location. You will also need a model release for each of the people in the picture.

 

For the second picture, you will also need a model release from each of the persons in the picture. As for the IP violations, I would look for logos and design elements that may be protected. Shoes are nice logo catchers, especially on sneakers. I've selected here some items that you need to pay attention to:

 

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer
M
Mark24421314357dAuthor
Participant
May 19, 2022

Thank you for the reply and for taking the time to highlight some of the issues - as I say, I am a beginner contributor, so it is really useful for me to get so much input and advice on the tricky IP rights and what to look out for in any images that I submit.

 

Obviously my second image is far too complex to do this, but if it were a simpler picture than I assume that editing out logos, TM's and brand names etc., would mean that an image would become acceptable?

 

Thanks again for all the input.

 

 

Abambo
Community Expert
AbamboCommunity Expert
Community Expert
May 19, 2022
@Mark24421314357d wrote:

 

Obviously my second image is far too complex to do this, but if it were a simpler picture than I assume that editing out logos, TM's and brand names etc., would mean that an image would become acceptable?

 

No, because you do not have model releases.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer
Nancy OShea
Community Expert
Nancy OSheaCommunity Expert
Community Expert
May 18, 2022
quote

There are many photos that are similar that are available on Adobe Stock

=========

"Editorial Use Only" is quite different.  It's factual, newsworthy and for journalistic use only (i.e. war photos). The image cannot be used for commercial purposes.

 

You can take pictures at most public venues to hang on your wall (personal use).  But you can't sell them commercially without a permit and/or written permission from the venue's owners.  That's why museum's have gift shops.  They want customers to buy their licensed merchandise.  😉

 

Some fossils are owned by the people who discovered them.  In some cases, that custody never changes even when the fossils are put on public display.   Do your research beforehand to ensure that what you're intending to sell commercially is legally cleared for that purpose.  Nobody wants to be caught in a messy, expensive lawsuit.

 

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert
M
Mark24421314357dAuthor
Participant
May 18, 2022

Thank you so much for the advice on these images, I hadn't understood the meaning of 'recognisable' - I had thought of it in the wider sense of the word rather than being recognisable by oneself. The main children in the image are actually my own children! And I did wonder about the mickey mouse ears!

 

Regarding the Natural History image, I suppose they would require a permit for commercial photography... Do you think it is worth photoshopping out the signage and seeing if the image is accepted? the reason for submitting it in the first place was to gauge what is and what is not submittable as it's not a very original image!

    reedesign1912
    reedesign1912
    Inspiring
    May 18, 2022

    Creating commercial stock photography in public settings with multiple people is very difficult.  There are so many challenges with logos on shirts, shoes, backpacks, recognisable phones, vehicles, signage or even buildings or public artwork for that matter.  At least with your children, you would be able to get model releases.  🙂

     

    Regarding the photo from the Natural History Museum, I actually wouldn't bother spending much time on it.  There are some technical issues including the fact that the whale skeleton isn't in sharp focus throughout.  It looks like you had a very shallow DOF (F2) and that was probably to make up for low light inside the museum.  However, it also prevented you from getting the skeleton in focus in its entirety.

     

    If you are new to stock photography, here are some resources that you might find helpful:

     

     

    Best of luck with your future submissions.

    Rob R, Photographer
    M
    Mark24421314357dAuthor
    Participant
    May 18, 2022

    Thanks for the info Rob and constructive comments. Thanks also for the links there is some useful information for me on there! I will forget the museum image, as you say the DOF is a bit shallow - also the Natural History Museum is actually a non-ticketed venue (free of charge) but one cannot expect a moderator to know that unless they have been and I think reading your links that ticketed venues require a release - I am learning!

     

    Thanks again for the input and advice.

     

     

      reedesign1912
      reedesign1912Correct answer
      Inspiring
      May 18, 2022

      I would also add to @Test Screen Name list of IP in your bubbles photo, the Minnie Mouse ears on the two young girls.  Disney is very protective of its IP.

      Rob R, Photographer
      T
      Test Screen Name
      Legend
      May 18, 2022

      To add to that, you will also need a permit or license from the museum allowing commercial photography. And you should be careful in keywording and titling images not to use trade names.

        T
        Test Screen Name
        Legend
        May 18, 2022

        The skeleton (if it is original, not a cast) is free of IP, and the building is over 100 years old. But you need a property release for the signage. Adobe might decide you need model releases too.

         

        It's hard to be sure of the IP in the second picture, but I suspect recognisable shoes. Plus, identifiable shop bags. Maybe too the bottle on the blanket. But moving on, you have an absolute need of model releases on this picture. Recognisable people need releases, and at least 11 people - including minors - could easily be recognised by themselves or relatives.

          Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
          Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices