MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Concentration camp (WWII) RF images rejected  (Read 2676 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 15, 2010, 12:58 »
0
Hi,

Scouts from big stock agency rejected my images (taken in Auschwitz) with the info that they contain elements protected by Intellectual or Industrial property laws.

Could you please help me understand that in terms of 'laws breaking' - what was wrong, because I cannot find a reason why open, historical, public place can be copyrighted (World Heritage List in 1979 on the basis of criterion 6), and images uploaded (most of them) did not contain memorabilia or properties mentioned in this property law (contacted mentioned Museum and asked lawyer working in this 'area'.

So where is the problem? Is the rejection just internal policy or is there another important reason...?

Pawel


« Reply #1 on: October 15, 2010, 13:05 »
0

« Reply #2 on: October 15, 2010, 13:37 »
0
Thanks for the link, I know this thread.
Unfortunately, scouts and moderators (especially in istock) use similar excuse to reject everything containing word 'Auschwitz'.
So... sometimes not existing 'Nazi war memorabilia', sometimes 'elements protected by Intellectual or Industrial property laws'?
As I said before - people in Museum and lawyer don't see any problem, Fotolia and iStock do?

Pawel

« Reply #3 on: October 15, 2010, 14:13 »
0
That's probably just the boilerplate rejection.  There's no "We don't accept Holocaust stuff." button.

« Reply #4 on: October 15, 2010, 14:52 »
0
That's probably just the boilerplate rejection.  There's no "We don't accept Holocaust stuff." button.

No there probably is, its right next to the we don't accept Apple(s) button at Bigstock .

« Reply #5 on: October 15, 2010, 15:22 »
0
Thanks for the link, I know this thread.
Unfortunately, scouts and moderators (especially in istock) use similar excuse to reject everything containing word 'Auschwitz'.
So... sometimes not existing 'Nazi war memorabilia', sometimes 'elements protected by Intellectual or Industrial property laws'?
As I said before - people in Museum and lawyer don't see any problem, Fotolia and iStock do?
Pawel

Such sensitive subject matter belongs in the world of editorial-use-only photography IMO. It trivialises the issues (and any other equally significant issues) if these sorts of images are sold for commercial use in the same collections which also include handshakes and pretty models. There should be a layer of editorial or bureau interjection which takes a subjective opinion about these sorts of things.

« Reply #6 on: October 15, 2010, 17:56 »
0
Sorry but even if all intellectual property laws were adhered to how many images of concentration camps would you sell? I'll tell you, exactly zilch.

« Reply #7 on: October 15, 2010, 18:57 »
0
Sorry but even if all intellectual property laws were adhered to how many images of concentration camps would you sell? I'll tell you, exactly zilch.


Why wouldn't they sell if they are good?

Some examples:
>30 sales http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-6666326-no-escape.php
>80 sales http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2104949-jewish-memorial-gates-at-dachau-germany.php

Might not be much, but more than zilch.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2010, 18:59 by Perry »

« Reply #8 on: October 15, 2010, 22:40 »
0
Sorry but even if all intellectual property laws were adhered to how many images of concentration camps would you sell? I'll tell you, exactly zilch.


Why wouldn't they sell if they are good?

Some examples:
>30 sales http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-6666326-no-escape.php
>80 sales http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2104949-jewish-memorial-gates-at-dachau-germany.php
Always happy to stand corrected. Thanks.

Might not be much, but more than zilch.

« Reply #9 on: October 15, 2010, 22:50 »
0
Thanks for the link, I know this thread.
Unfortunately, scouts and moderators (especially in istock) use similar excuse to reject everything containing word 'Auschwitz'.
So... sometimes not existing 'Nazi war memorabilia', sometimes 'elements protected by Intellectual or Industrial property laws'?
As I said before - people in Museum and lawyer don't see any problem, Fotolia and iStock do?
Pawel

Such sensitive subject matter belongs in the world of editorial-use-only photography IMO. It trivialises the issues (and any other equally significant issues) if these sorts of images are sold for commercial use in the same collections which also include handshakes and pretty models. There should be a layer of editorial or bureau interjection which takes a subjective opinion about these sorts of things.

I agree put in RM (and make more)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
1504 Views
Last post December 15, 2008, 00:15
by RH
6 Replies
2276 Views
Last post October 05, 2009, 18:36
by a.k.a.-tom
20 Replies
5968 Views
Last post December 28, 2009, 23:41
by cappi
6 Replies
1195 Views
Last post July 26, 2012, 14:00
by CD123
9 Replies
2721 Views
Last post December 07, 2012, 13:49
by WarrenPrice

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors