Do government buildings needs a release

[CinBrandon]

Do photos of government buildings have to be listed as editorial? Or can they be listed as commercial, without a release? (Since they are "owned by the public").

If they can be listed as comerical, can video's of said building be listed as well? And if so, how does one go about it? The building is certainly "recognizeable," but as soon as "yes" is selected to that question, a release is required.

[RALPH_L]

"owned by the public" is not true. You cannot sell or alter your "owned portion" of the property. If not part of a cityscape photo you do need permission from the occupying agency to sell the photo commercially. If photographing is prohibited by law, you cannot photograph privately.

[Test Screen Name]

Adobe don't have a list (and picture reference) of all the government buildings in the world, to apply special rules. So how could they know?

[Jill_C]

"Owned By The Public" is irrelevant in terms of establishing your right to take photographs or commercialize such photographs. You can take photographs of anything viewable from public property for your own use. For instance, you can peer through the very tall fence that surrounds the White House to take a picture. But that doesn't necessarily mean that you can sell such photographs. Photographing U.S. military / security installations is generally prohibited. Of course, I suppose you know that selling photographs of private property is not allowed without a release from the owner.

Determining exactly the public structures for which selling photos is allowed is challenging. and I've experienced inconsistencies on my submissions. Some images of the Gateway Arch in St. Louis were accepted, others rejected. Exteriors of some state Capitol buildings were accepted; some, but not all interiors of those capitols rejected. Some California Missions (though these aren't public property per se) accepted, some rejected. Some bridges accepted, some rejected. Some images from Bodie State Park (ghost town in California) were accepted, others rejected. I've sort of taken the position that if I have an image of a public structure or building that may or may not pass, if it requires minimal editing to remove logos and signs, I'll submit it and see what happens. 

[Abambo]

Sure. You need a release, as soon as the building is identifiable, and it's the main focus of your picture. If you do not need a release, you will need to prove that. You should not ask the community, but the building owner, if a release is needed.

[Nancy OShea]

First off,  Editorial content is sourced from trusted partners & news agencies.  Adobe Stock does not accept Editorial content from regular contributors. 

Whatever you submit to Stock must be legally cleared for commercial use.  That goes for public or private property, national parks, landmarks and monuments. 

[Jill_C]

Illustrative Editorial does not require property releases,  it it does have to be related to newsworthy current events.

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/illustrative-editorial-content.html

[Abambo]

@Nancy OShea,

Adobe stopped to source editorial news worthy assets from Reuters and a different agency for sports. The content that is still availabe comes from Adobe stock contributors as illustrative Editorial. This will be available for contributors after the first 100 sales or on demand, if you have a quality portfolio somewhere else.

[Nancy OShea]

I'm not sure where Stock is sourcing editorial content these days.  But Editorial and Illustrative Editorial are different things. 

The former is newsworthy like the King's Coronation and war pictures from Sudan or Ukraine.

The latter is conceptual imagery that uses real brands and products to convey messages in journalism.  

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/illustrative-editorial-content.html

It's unclear how or if an image of government building would fit either Editorial category.

[Abambo]

Yes, but today there are only illustrative editorial assets in Adobe stock.