Author Topic: Potential copyright issue (Read 2372 times)

Nemo1024 · « **on:** July 07, 2008, 04:02 »

123RF seems to be even more careful than IS.

These four files were rejected with "Potential copyright issue":

Various permutations of these files were accepted at IS, DT, CanStock, Fotolia and Yay. I can't see what's very copyrightable with a generic tray (the isolated images of chocolates in various geometric configurations were accepted by themselves.)

Oh, and this one owas acepted:

tan510jomast · « **Reply #1 on:** July 07, 2008, 10:18 »

I had a couple rejects due to copyright issue too, which I found
justifably prudent to err on the safe side.
IS has an office in Canada, which is quite
strict about copyright issues, our latest headlines being a massive charge on piracy of materials from the web. I guess that could explain IS strictness, but 123RF I am not sure. My only guess is that maybe 123RF reckons the wrapper is pretty identifiable as belonging to the maker of pharmaceuticals. Just guessing, though!

Fred · « **Reply #2 on:** July 07, 2008, 10:25 »

Well 123RF was the only one to refuse this one -- they wanted a property release!!

http://69.90.174.246/photos/display_pic_with_logo/97749/97749,1214942515,2.jpg

tan510jomast · « **Reply #3 on:** July 07, 2008, 13:23 »

Quote from: Fred on July 07, 2008, 10:25

Well 123RF was the only one to refuse this one -- they wanted a property release!!

http://69.90.174.246/photos/display_pic_with_logo/97749/97749,1214942515,2.jpg

Fred, this one I can understand 123RF reason. It appears to be in a private property and the garden seems ornamental. Just like one of my images from a public park. Even though the park is public,
there may be causes of problem by the designer of the statue or the
garden. Better safe than sorry.

Fred · « **Reply #4 on:** July 07, 2008, 14:07 »

Hmmmmmm. Could be Tan. Appreciate the comment.

c h e e r s
fred

Nemo1024 · « **Reply #5 on:** July 08, 2008, 06:27 »

Then I should, probably also just accept (without complaining) the 123RF rejection of the following file (wanting a property release), which was accepted at IS and Yay Micro (DT rejected it for lighting, which I disagree with)

Fred · « **Reply #6 on:** July 10, 2008, 23:42 »

oops!

ichiro17 · « **Reply #7 on:** July 11, 2008, 11:26 »

Quote from: Nemo1024 on July 08, 2008, 06:27

Then I should, probably also just accept (without complaining) the 123RF rejection of the following file (wanting a property release), which was accepted at IS and Yay Micro (DT rejected it for lighting, which I disagree with)

I agree with DT. The lighting looks unbalanced and much more blown out on the left. Interesting that it got accepted to IS....

EDIT: I am viewing from a monitor at work, but colours and brightness aren't too bad

Nemo1024 · « **Reply #8 on:** July 12, 2008, 08:18 »

This is actually a tonemapped HDR image, so the highlights are from a -2EV underexposed image,while the shadows come from a +2EV overexposed one. Without is the windows to the left whoufl have looked comepletely white and the part to the right would have been almost black (that is how the image appears on the "normally" exposed midtones shot.)