sign of a bike property or not

[Guest Stockfotoart]

.

[John Walker]

I would.

[Guest Stockfotoart]

yes me too, thanks, have a good week end

[Guest Stockfotoart]

 

-

[Doc]

Generally speaking malls themselves are private property so if you are in doubt, I would mark it as "yes" to property and "no" to having a release

 

Kumar

[Bill Brooks]

Generally speaking malls themselves are private property so if you are in doubt, I would mark it as "yes" to property and "no" to having a release

 

Kumar

 

 

and if you want to, designate it as RF and check the editorial only box.

[John Mitchell]

Interesting question, but what exactly is a "simple sign of a bike"? Can you describe what it looks like? Is there any writing on the sign, or is it just a generic-looking symbol painted on the wall?

[spacecadet]

[Kumar]

Looks like a routine "no bicycles" civic sign. Seems good for RF. No release should be necessary here - unless of course the sign is on a private property, and the property itself is identifiable (doesn't look like).

 

Kumar, India

[spacecadet]

That's not the image in question. Just an example for John.

[Guest Stockfotoart]

-

 

[John Mitchell]

In my IP I used the term „property“ or „protected property“ as alamy uses it in the IM.

 

I wonder if one can draw the conclusion that the sign of a bike is „protected property“ only because it's drawn on a mall wall. If there is „Whatever“ on any wall of a mall this „whatever“ doesn't make it protected property BECAUSE the wall itself belongs to the mall. That's how I see it.

 

Anyway my question focus entirely on the sign of the bike itself and if it is „protected property“ or not.

 

This is the sign in question.

 

The whole question of what is and isn't considered property gets very confusing. I'd be tempted to make it RF editorial only -- as Bill suggested -- if you have the new manage images.

[Guest Stockfotoart]

 

-