Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 11, 2012, 14:28

MicrostockGroup

MicrostockGroup » Forum » Top Tier - Big 4 » General - Big 4 » Why are microstocks so scared of Apple?

Microstockgroup Sponsors

« previous next »

Pages: [1]

Topic: Why are microstocks so scared of Apple?

(Read 2636 times)

danhowl

« on: June 15, 2010, 10:07 »

#link

It seems like there is an unequal standard of what is trademark infringement when in comes to electronic products as props in photos when it comes to Apple as opposed to other brands. Have anyone else experienced this? I have been getting rejections from images with iPod, iPhone, iPads used as props when similarly trademarked electronic items used as props sail thru. I have shot each Apple product in other brand's protective cases and removed logos and in some case buttons or distinct features. Do microstocks believe that some trademarks carry more weight than others? I'd like to see statute that backs up this concept.


	Ignore \| Logged

pancaketom

« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2010, 10:11 »

#link

Apple is more likely to sue or threaten to sue


	Ignore \| Logged

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2010, 10:20 »

#link

Apple is easily recognised by everyone - including reviewers - as they put a strong accent on design.

Objects by other brands are often similar and therefore considered "generic" - although I am pretty sure at least its designer will always recognise its own product.

My personal view is that objects should *never* be accepted in stock if they are the main subject of a picture - despite removing logos. And should always be accepted as part of a scene. But this is not an official policy, just my wish if I were to rewrite copyright laws.


« Last Edit: June 15, 2010, 10:23 by microstockphoto.co.uk »	Ignore \| Logged

sjlocke

« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2010, 12:29 »

#link

Quote from: danhowl on June 15, 2010, 10:07

iPods et al are actually trademarked. Other electronics just tend to have design patents on them.


	Ignore \| Logged

danhowl

« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2010, 12:46 »

#link

Understanding that iPods/Pad/Phones are trademarked, numerous other electronics that frequently appear as props in microstock are as well. Palms and Blackberry's are no LESS trademarked. I've even had a shot of an iPad that is completely encases in a other-branded case so that the iPad itself is not visable subject to rejection. The shot could have just as easily been completed (and might be in the future) done w/ a piece of cardboard inside the case. The amount that microstocks, especially IS, are gunshy about trademarks seems over-zealous to me.


	Ignore \| Logged

sjlocke

« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2010, 12:49 »

#link

Read what I wrote again.


« Last Edit: June 15, 2010, 12:56 by sjlocke »	Ignore \| Logged

PixelBitch

« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2010, 13:14 »

#link

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but Apple products as props in macro shoots are considered OK, have never had an image rejected for that reason...apparently some time back Apple eased off and the reasoning as I understand it is they gain free promotion from their goodies being in images. Maybe the micros are being a little anal on this matter.


	Ignore \| Logged

danhowl

« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2010, 13:25 »

#link

Quote from: sjlocke on June 15, 2010, 12:49

Read what I wrote again.

Read the topic of the thread again.


	Ignore \| Logged

sjlocke

« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2010, 13:41 »

#link

Ok, since you missed the point, I'll elaborate. Apple, Palm and Blackberry (the words and associated marks) may be trademarks. You cannot show the word Apple, with the bite missing logo, for example. The products they make (the Pre) may not be trademarked, but may be protected by a design patent, which stops others from copying the design and is not as robust a form of protection as the trademark. The iPod, and probably the others, are trademarked ( what they look like ) themselves. This allows Apple to control their use so there is no confusion in the marketplace. While it is up to the end user to work legally, micros tend to try and protect buyers by keeping the collection out if danger ( ie. Avoiding images where trademarked content might not be considered fair use).


	Ignore \| Logged

danhowl

« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2010, 14:22 »

#link

no, I got the point of your post. The point I am making in this thread which you side-step is that other products with trade mark protection seem to pass inspection with microstock more easily than Apple products do.

from the Palm web site:
"Palm owns rights in the distinctive “look and feel” of its product configurations and packaging. This “trade dress” includes the unique style of Palm's phones, handhelds and other products, their packaging, and the layout of their web properties. Palm considers its trade dress to be among its most valuable assets and prohibits others from using it except under express license."

from trademarks.org:
"Trade Dress: Describes a product’s distinctive design, packaging, color or other appearance which makes it unique from other products or goods. Trade dress of a particular product or good is protected under trademark law."


	Ignore \| Logged

sjlocke

« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2010, 14:32 »

#link

" To be protectable, trade dress must be inherently distinctive or possess "secondary meaning" (the public associates the packaging with a single source). Further, the trade dress must be non-functional.

As a rule, for trade dress to be protected, it must be instantaneously identifiable in the mind of the purchaser. This is usually the function of strong sales over a long period, supported by consistent advertising, promotion and publicity. "

I couldn't pick out a Palm from any stack of electronics, but I'll bet you can't find a person who can't identify an i-whatever. Anyhoo, the actual design of the i-Things are recorded in the trademark database for research. I don't know of any such catalog of "trade dress". I would imagine it's a harder thing to protect.


	Ignore \| Logged

Randy McKown

« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2010, 14:48 »

#link

looks a lot like my iPhone to me

so does this one

and this one too

those Chinese !!!!! Grin


	Ignore \| Logged

anonymous

« Reply #12 on: June 15, 2010, 14:54 »

#link

bottom line:
If you shoot photos which contain manufactered products (no matter how well you clone out logos), you run the risk of rejection...


	Ignore \| Logged

sjlocke

« Reply #13 on: June 15, 2010, 15:05 »

#link

Quote from: Randy McKown on June 15, 2010, 14:48

looks a lot like my iPhone to me

so does this one

and this one too

those Chinese !!!!! Grin

Exactly.


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: [1]

« previous next »

Jump to:

Related Topics
	Subject	Started by	Replies	Views	Last post
	Microstocks without categories General Stock Discussion	yupgp	2	729	August 23, 2006, 15:47 by yupgp
	Where Are the Major Microstocks Physically Located? General - Big 4	GeoPappas	11	1976	April 09, 2007, 14:30 by Kngkyle
	earning with microstocks General - Big 4	foto.fritz	0	1130	July 28, 2007, 16:44 by foto.fritz
	What's up with 'apologism' at major microstocks? « 1 2 » General - Big 4	gborce	41	4916	April 16, 2008, 02:59 by leaf
	official : microstocks pay less than a pickle ! « 1 2 3 » General Stock Discussion	Old Hippy	57	4650	June 05, 2009, 03:13 by grp_photo

Microstockgroup Sponsors

MicrostockGroup Email Updates

Microstock Poll Results

Site	Earnings Rating
Top Tier - Big 4
Shutterstock	6.9 0.01
iStock	6.2 0.29
Dreamstime	4.9 0.25
123RF	4.7 0.43

Middle Tier
Fotolia	4.5 0.16
Canstockphoto	3.7 0.4
DepositPhotos	3.6 0.17
Bigstockphoto	3.2 0.3
Veer	3.1 0.18

Low Earners
ClipartOf
isignstock
PhotoDune
DrawShop
Pond5
ClipDealer
FeaturePics
PantherMedia
GraphicLeftovers
Zoonar
Pixmac
PhotoSpin
YayMicro
Cutcaster
ScanStockPhoto
MostPhotos
Stockfresh
Crestock
GraphicRiver
VectorStock
SuperHug
The3dStudio
AllYouCanStock
photaki
ViscoImages
ImageVortex
Vivozoom
PhotoCase
Paxxion
iRockStock
PhotoKore
Regimages
Clipcanvas
RevoStock
StockPhotoMedia

More Poll Results Updated: 2012-02-11

Advertise on Microstockgroup.com | Contact: [email protected]