pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Everything seems to be copyrighted  (Read 3019 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 07, 2007, 06:18 »
0
One of my lastest uploads is this one:

http://www.123rf.com/photo_2019466.html

In 123 was accepted, but it was not in Bigstock for this reason:

"Potential copyright / trademark / privacy issue with photo (could be: copyrighted art, visible logo, license plate number, etc) sorry..."

There are hundreds of towers like that in the stock sites, why this is not valid like any other classic or ancient tower? What are they afraid of? How can I avoid this stupid rejections?


« Reply #1 on: November 07, 2007, 07:21 »
0

 How can I avoid this stupid rejections?


You can't.

Live with it.

It's part of the pleasure and pain of submitting to microstock sites.

« Reply #2 on: November 07, 2007, 07:26 »
0

« Reply #3 on: November 07, 2007, 09:12 »
0
Thats really unfair, they have rejected a lot of footage for the same reason, and Ive seen many pictures published with the same subjects. They hate me   :'(

« Reply #4 on: November 07, 2007, 09:26 »
0
well it is no doubt a grey area - like cars, and backs of peoples heads.

Some sites say yes, some sites say no.  Some reviewers say ok, some say no... and so on......

« Reply #5 on: November 07, 2007, 12:36 »
0
Your problem is probably that you've got the manufacturer's name slap bang in the middle of the clock!

« Reply #6 on: November 08, 2007, 22:20 »
0
One of my lastest uploads is this one:

http://www.123rf.com/photo_2019466.html

In 123 was accepted, but it was not in Bigstock for this reason:

"Potential copyright / trademark / privacy issue with photo (could be: copyrighted art, visible logo, license plate number, etc) sorry..."

There are hundreds of towers like that in the stock sites, why this is not valid like any other classic or ancient tower? What are they afraid of? How can I avoid this stupid rejections?


take out the manufacturers name and retry.  every site and reviewer is different I've been knocked back for
being able to read the "...DEN" part of 'holden' on a jacket (about 4 of 12 sites),
squiggly lines and a large E as 'artwork' on a jumper (less than 1/2 of jumper visible)  - 2 of 12 sites
and the one I love
"The National Company 19..." engraved above a wheel on a steam train, Istock was the only to pick this up, they told me where it was and I had to play with the contrast with the monitor I had at the time and I could just read it at 100%.  Somehow even if it got used for a billboard, I dont think 'the national company' are going to sue me :):)

« Reply #7 on: December 03, 2007, 05:54 »
0
Your problem is probably that you've got the manufacturer's name slap bang in the middle of the clock!

Was about to write the same ;-) SY

« Reply #8 on: December 03, 2007, 11:42 »
0
Probably youre right, Ill retry cloning the manufacturer name.

Thanks all.

« Reply #9 on: December 13, 2007, 18:52 »
0
So even though in their rejection reason it says "could be...visible logo", why don't they just write "manufacturers name in center of clock needs to go" so you know exactly what they are talking about? That's what always cracks me up. Another rejection reason that cracks me up is "overfiltered" when the photo I have submitted is straight out of the camera.

All the sites seem to dish out review hell at one point or another.

PhotoDuneMicrostock Insider

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
13 Replies
2866 Views
Last post March 22, 2008, 14:37
by fintastique
9 Replies
4613 Views
Last post March 27, 2009, 20:29
by madelaide
65 Replies
9903 Views
Last post March 24, 2010, 15:48
by hqimages
46 Replies
8369 Views
Last post April 29, 2010, 07:09
by click_click
4 Replies
1202 Views
Last post April 02, 2010, 15:13
by willie

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors