Makes you wonder...

[elvinstar]

I got t his message in my StockXpert inbox today and wondered why they weren't doing this before...

As you know, StockXpert.com was recently acquired by Gettyimages as part of the Jupiterimages acquisition. The StockXpert team is now working closely with our new friends to align our application and submission policies to ensure a legally safe and sound marketplace for selling your images.

In the upcoming weeks, we are going to review the entire Stockxpert collection in order to identify and remove any images that infringe on someone's intellectual property. At the same time, we will be tightening our image approval process to filter out images that we simply do not feel comfortable with.

As an example, any future uploads that contain unmodified NASA images will no longer be accepted. These images will also be removed permanently from the Stockxpert collection.

For images that will be removed from the Stockxpert collection for legal reasons, you will receive a deactivation notice to identify the image(s) that are being removed and, the legal reason that prompted the removal.

We will do our best to provide you with as much information as possible on our evolving intellectual property policies and procedures. Also, we will be updating our FAQ section on Stockxpert to highlight changes to our policies and to better reflect our future legal standards.

We look forward to working with all of you and thank you for your continued collaboration to build Stockxpert into a creative resource that designers everywhere can enjoy.

Best Regards,
The Stockxpert Team
[email protected]

[leaf]

lets just hope they don't start with disambiguation. ... if they do they will go from one of the best sites in regards to upload to the worst.

[lisafx]

Interesting.  Hope the next communication from them isn't something lowering our commissions like they are trying to ram down istock's throat.

[Xalanx]

This would be my last concern. I'm waiting for them to solve the zero views problem. And zero sales on images from march on. Or february on. I stopped uploading to them for now.

[tan510jomast]

Interesting.  Hope the next communication from them isn't something lowering our commissions like they are trying to ram down istock's throat.

lets just hope they don't start with disambiguation. ... if they do they will go from one of the best sites in regards to upload to the worst.

lisa and tyler , my sentiments exactly.

[elvinstar]

Maybe they should worry about getting decent stats in place for us! It would be nice to be able to view all sales for the day on one page with number of dl's from each site clearly marked. Also a way to see month-to-month stats...

[batman]

isn't it a bummer how getty monopolizes this forum lately?  if leaf gets a penny for every mention of getty or related keywords, tyler will be a millionaire by now 

[stockastic]

Exactly what Xalanx said.


I'm thrilled that StockXpert is spending time hunting for old NASA images instead of fixing this problem.   

I too am done with StockXpert.  I started in January and it's been a complete waste of time.

[DanP68]

Stockxpert has been phased out, if my statistics are any indication.  My downloads at "StockXpert" in April were 98% from Photos.com + Jupiter Unlimited.  StockXpert subs + credit sales made up 2% of the downloads.

In March the difference was about 80/20.

In May, although early, it is 95/5.

I would not be surprised if the domain "Stockxpert" was available 1 year from now.  It doesn't seem anyone cares about it anymore.

If you are still contributing there, then you are almost certainly contributing to Photos.com/JUI in actuality.  These are the domains being pushed by Getty, and quite frankly I don't blame them.  Photos.com is a Grade A domain name, best in the business imo.  Jupiter Unlimited piggybacks off the well known Jupiter name.  Stockxpert?  Not even easy to remember.  Cannot blame Getty for pushing the other two.  But I wish the offer was something less of an embarassment than 30c per subs sale.  They are racing to the bottom with the best of them.

[sharpshot]

I still get good sales with stockxpert.  istock has always had stricter copyright and trademark rules than most of the other sites, so it does make sense to bring the same standards to StockXpert.

If they did bring in disambiguation, I would just delete my account.  I don't care if I lose out, there is no way I am wasting time doing that now I have a big portfolio.

[madelaide]

Well, they are not (yet) talking about CA or whatever, just images with legal issues.

[Gregor909]

I'm glad they're doing this!
I'm sick and tired of competing with all those morons who trace their granny's wallpaper and sell it as their own design!

Oh and now at least we know Getty isn't getting rid of StockXpert in the near future.

[microstockinsider]

until I read this i was sure that StockXpert was going to gradually disappear down the drain, the 'hold' on new uploads being shown to buyers and broken parts of the site seem to make sense now, it will be interesting to see if getty also try to style or theme StockXpert to differentiate if from istock - somewhere they can try out new licensing models without damage to istock.

[stockastic]

For a while on the StockXpert forum, an Admin was saying the '0 views' problem was a mystery that was being looked into.  Weeks went by and there was no resolution.  Currently, forum posts on the subject get no official response.   So if this is somehow related to the Getty takeover, someone has been less than forthcoming about that on their forum.

D@mn funny way to run a railroad.

[marcbkk]

This would be my last concern. I'm waiting for them to solve the zero views problem. And zero sales on images from march on. Or february on. I stopped uploading to them for now.

Strange. I had stopped uploading to them as well because it seemed like a dead in the water shell site with no contributor support or anything, but just in the last week I started having some good dollar value downloads. Go figure...

Needless to say I am starting to upload a bit to them again.

[stockastic]

Last time I bothered to check my files on StockXpert, I think I saw that uploads since February  were getting just about 0 views - except for one batch, which somehow escaped death.  So I suspect it's a bug in the way new uploads are added to their database.  It only affects some contributors, some (apparently most) of the time. 

[Norebbo]

For a while on the StockXpert forum, an Admin was saying the '0 views' problem was a mystery that was being looked into.  Weeks went by and there was no resolution.  Currently, forum posts on the subject get no official response.   

That's what is so frustrating about this. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away! I really want to support StockXpert and be patient with them about this, but they aren't making it easy for me.

[stockastic]

I just checked their forum again - no change. Some people still get posting that they get 0 views on new images.  Other contributors chime in and say "gee it works for me."   Um thanks for sharing, people, but for some of us, StockXpert is broken.

'Admin' no longer posts any replies.   

I think there's no one home at StockXpert anymore.  It's just a big web site sitting on a server somewhere, doing its job, maybe wondering what happened to the friendly humans that used to maintain it.

[madelaide]

I had two images deactivated for "copyright or trademark protection."  These are images of the statue of * the Redeemer, a landmark of Rio.  I understand some uses may not be authorized, but possibly they would fall into the "offensive" or such prohibition.  Any travel advertisement of Rio shows the * and I doubt the archdiocese of Rio signed property releases or authorized each usage individually.  Well, ok.

[goldenangel]

I had two images deactivated for "copyright or trademark protection."  These are images of the statue of creepers the Redeemer, a landmark of Rio.  I understand some uses may not be authorized, but possibly they would fall into the "offensive" or such prohibition.  Any travel advertisement of Rio shows the creepers and I doubt the archdiocese of Rio signed property releases or authorized each usage individually.  Well, ok.

I thought the redeemer was public property now?

[madelaide]

I don't know exactly what the situation is.  The statue is located inside a National Park, it was built 80+ years ago and I think it is maintained by the government, but the archidiocese of Rio has some rights over it (I read the federal government gave the statue to them by the time it was opened).  I know that any event, such as movie filming, has to be authorized by the archidiocese.

The family of the architect also claim rights over it, but I believe they can only claim the authorship (even this is disputed), as this was a hired contract.

[goldenangel]

I highly doubt as well that they are issuing property releases for every use of the stature. It was nonsense to deactivate your images for this reason. What's the next step, to take down all the photos of the Golden Gate bridge in SF?

[madelaide]

Ouch!  How was C-h-r-i-s-t's name substituted by "creepeers"?

[willie]

Ouch!  How was C-h-r-i-s-t's name substituted by "creepeers"?

leaf programmed it so

[Phil]

I had two images deactivated for "copyright or trademark protection."  These are images of the statue of creepers the Redeemer, a landmark of Rio.  I understand some uses may not be authorized, but possibly they would fall into the "offensive" or such prohibition.  Any travel advertisement of Rio shows the creepers and I doubt the archdiocese of Rio signed property releases or authorized each usage individually.  Well, ok.

bit like the sydney opera house, you have to pay for commercial use (editorial is ok) including print sales etc.  But everywhere you look is pics of it

[gostwyck]

Ouch!  How was C-h-r-i-s-t's name substituted by "creepeers"?

leaf programmed it so

Works for me __ perfectly.

[leaf]

Ouch!  How was C-h-r-i-s-t's name substituted by "creepeers"?

leaf programmed it so

Works for me __ perfectly.

sorry, it was a anti-swearing measure that back-fired.

I also had an image rejected for copyright - It was a tractor painted with John Deere Green.

[astrocady]

Ouch!  How was C-h-r-i-s-t's name substituted by "creepeers"?

LOL -- Now I understand any your post makes sense!

[stockastic]

John Deere Green my @ss.   Now corporate America thinks they can own the rights to colors.   You can't "invent" or "create" a color. So how can you assert copyright on it?

Are there actually court decisions backing up these weasels or is this just small companies rolling over when they get threatening letters from big law firms?

[RacePhoto]

John Deere Green my @ss.   Now corporate America thinks they can own the rights to colors.   You can't "invent" or "create" a color. So how can you assert copyright on it?

Are there actually court decisions backing up these weasels or is this just small companies rolling over when they get threatening letters from big law firms?

It's not just "corporate America" you need to do some research before you blow smoke. Any distinctive and identifying mark, which is capable of distinguishing the goods and services of one owner from that of another, may be utilized as Trademark and such marks are afforded protection under the law. This includes Caterpillar yellow, John Deere Green, UPS brown trucks and many others. It's not just the color, it's the color and the use.

Same reason why you can't market a product in a bottle that's shaped like a Coke bottle. Or can't create a box for your goods that look like another product's lettering and colors.

This is true around the world, not just corporate America.

Yes there are many court decisions supporting this.

http://www.ladas.com/BULLETINS/1995/0495Bulletin/US_ColorTrademark.html

But read this for how the issue is viewed in many countries.

http://www.ladas.com/Trademarks/MakingSenseTM.html

"The United Kingdom has also recognized and registered colors as trademarks..."
"Although the new German Marks Act, effective January 1, 1995, specifically includes colors and combinations of colors as registrable marks, recently issued internal guidelines of the Patent Office appear to exclude registration for such marks, unless combined with other distinctive features..."
Uraguay: "combinations of colors...shall be eligible for registration as trademarks [although] members may make registrability depend on distinctiveness acquired through use [and] members may require, as a condition of registration, that signs be visually perceptible."
The Mexican Industrial Property Law prohibits registration of "isolated colors, unless ... combined or accompanied by elements such as signs, designs or designations that make them distinctive." (my example, say for instance a Farm Tractor.) 

Some you may recognize:

Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. pink fiberglass insulation
Keds tennis shoes, the blue rectangle on the sole (and you would say, they trademarked a blue rectangle?)

I agree that the laws are crazy and we can't take a picture of a shadow without a model release which really bugs me, this is a world wide problem. But yes, there is case law and there are individual colors, on products and combinations of colors, that are trademarked. Hey anyone want to trademark polkadots?

There was once a small business in personal computers that called itself "Itty Bitty Machine Company" who was forced to change their name because it was using a logo that had ibm in it. (lower case) For real!

[RT]

John Deere Green my @ss.   Now corporate America thinks they can own the rights to colors.   You can't "invent" or "create" a color. So how can you assert copyright on it?

As racephoto has pointed out they haven't copyrighted a colour, they have registered a colour scheme as their trademark which incidently is not just the green it's green and yellow, and to be honest I'm surprised you're shocked at the fact, I know I for one would do the same if I ran a company that had built up a successful business brand around a colour scheme.

The biggest problem lies in the fact that many of the microstock site reviewers don't understand what a trademark is, which is surprising because it's the most simple of things and the word 'trademark' couldn't be clearer, it's to stop a third party carrying on a similar 'trade' using the same or similar 'mark'  as someone else. I could quite legally start up a company manufacturing telephones in the same green and yellow as John Deere without there being any trademark implications, presuming of course they don't make telephones or have registered the colour scheme for all industries.

Also for reference you don't have to register a trademark, I for example use the symbol � after my company name all on my stationery, however if I chose to register it I could then use � which would afford me more protection, but for what I do I don't deem it worthwhile.

[stockastic]

The fact that "everybody is doing it", and that the courts have been smoking the same stuff, doesn't mean it isn't BS. 

What if I decide to paint my own car, and I mix some colors that I like, and they turn out to be a "match" (in someone's eyes)  to John Deere's colors? Let's leave aside the fact that no colors will ever match perfectly.  Can some Deere lawyer tell me I have to repaint my car?   Obviously some of you will say yes.  That doesn't mean it's right, or that in the future, a more enlightened court will throw this phoney trademark cr@p  out on its ear.

Patent trolling has made a lot of money for a lot of people, but the courts and Congress are finally waking up.  Junk patents like Amazon's infamous "one click shopping" may not hold up forever.  The only way this stuff ever gets undone is if people kick back instead of just saying "yes sir Mr John Deere lawyer sir, we'll take care of that right away".

[RT]

What if I decide to paint my own car, and I mix some colors that I like, and they turn out to be a "match" (in someone's eyes)  to John Deere's colors? Let's leave aside the fact that no colors will ever match perfectly.  Can some Deere lawyer tell me I have to repaint my car?   Obviously some of you will say yes.  That doesn't mean it's right, or that in the future, a more enlightened court will throw this phoney trademark cr@p  out on its ear.

Umm I think you've highlighted exactly what I was referring to in my post above when I said people don't understand the very basic fundamentals of what a trademark is, painting your own car the same colour as a John Deere tractor has nothing to do with trademarks. And to further highlight a point, even if you owned your own tractor you could paint it the same colour as a John Deere one and again it would be nothing to do with trademarks.

I'll try and spell it out a bit more clearly for you, a trademark (there's a big clue in the word) is to stop a third party carrying on a similar trade using the same mark as another.

[stockastic]

So if I paint my car those colors I can't sell it?

I see the distinction regarding "trademark" but we're not really talking about the original question. The poster said his photo of a tractor painted in those colors had been rejected. (Let's assume it actually was a JD tractor).  In my layman's understanding of the law, if you want some sort of injunction or remedy,  you have to show damages.

Microstock photographers are not selling tractors, just photos containing tractors.  They are not "using" JD's trademark to sell goods.   They are not even allowed to use "Deere" as a keyword.  The Deere product simply appears in a photo, along with maybe 100 other products - clothing, shoes, handbags, cars - any of which might possibly be made in colors which their manufacturers have claimed as "trademarks.".

I can copyright a piece of music.  I can't claim the Gm7-C7 chord progression as my "trademark" and prevent other musicians from using that combination of notes.

[RT]

The images on microstock sites are Royalty Free, even though the photo of a JD tractor is not trademark infringement the person buying it could then use the image in a manner which would infringe a trademark, and that is why it can't be sold as RF and why it was rejected.

You can photograph anything (within reason) the problem comes with how you sell and or use that image.

[stockastic]

"even though the photo of a JD tractor is not trademark infringement the person buying it could then use the image in a manner which would infringe a trademark"


That should not be my problem. An image could be used for any number of illegal purposes. The manufacturer of that handbag that woman is carrying doesn't want photos of it in circulation because they're used to produce knockoffs.

An image is information.  Neither I nor the microstock have any control over how that information is used by the buyer.

reductio ad absurdum: if every manufacturer of every product tried to assert "rights" similar to what Deere is asserting...

[RT]

An image is information.  Neither I nor the microstock have any control over how that information is used by the buyer.

Exactly which is why you can't sell a photo that features trademarked property as Royalty Free because you don't have control over how it's being used.

And something for you to consider which is why it is your problem, YOU the contributor tick (sometimes virtual) a box every time you upload an image to a site stating the image you're uploading to sell is free from any property rights. So should a reviewer miss a trademark or copyright in an image and the image gets used and it ends up at court YOU the contributor may face legal action. YOU are selling the image, the sites are just an agent, and the answer to your next question as to "why do the sites make a big fuss about it then" is because they also don't want to be involved in any legal issues, it doesn't look good for them. The buyer would turn round and say he was acting in good faith buying an image licensed as royalty free believing it to be free of trademarks, the site will point out that you specified it was free of rights and guess who is left holding the papers as it where!

[sharpshot]

While I agree that we should avoid selling photos with trademark issues, I see royalty free as meaning that the buyer only pays one fee and does not pay any other royalties to the photographer.  I like the way alamy make it clear that it is the buyers responsibility to determine whether a release is required for their intended use.  All the sites should make that more obvious.  How can a photographer or a reviewer know every single trademarked or copyrighted subject?  There are going to be some mistakes made and it should be the buyers responsibility to make sure they are allowed to use the photo for their intended use.

[MikLav]

It's not just "corporate America" you need to do some research before you blow smoke.
<...>
This is true around the world, not just corporate America.

1. It originated from corporate America
2. It went far beyond reasonable limits and is now ridiculous
3. It has nothing to do with the subject of this thread

[stockastic]

I understand that there is some legal basis -in law and in court decisions - for what John Deere is doing.  What I am saying is that those laws and/or decisions are wrong, and make no sense.  

I draw a distinction between something like a logo - which is arguably a creative piece of work - and something like a color combination, which was simply chosen.   If a manufacturer can claim shades of yellow and green,  they can logically claim a geometric shape, or a particular curve, as their "trademark".  If every manufacturer of every product began to assert such rights,  it would be the end of a big part of stock photography.

[RT]

That's something Alamy has recently added, why do you think they did that? Basically it covers them from both sides, look at the upload page, what's the second box you tick. One other thing you might be interested to know is that although Alamy have added that statement it's not on the majority of the distributor sites they use.

Royalty Free license is to do with royalties but also has no restrictions regarding how the image is used in terms of industry, a Rights Managed license on the other hand does and that's the way to go for things like this.

As for a photographer or reviewer not knowing about every trademarked subject, you're part right - a reviewer can't and thats why we as contributors tick the box to say it hasn't and thats the line of defence any site would use I'd imagine, but it is our job as photographers to take reasonable steps to find out about the content in the images we sell. You can argue till the cows come home about it being the buyers responsibility but look at it from a logical point of view, who is in the best position to know or research about what is in the image - the photographer who took the shot or the buyer?

Trademark and other right infringements happen every day and I'd wager a guess than for 99.9% of them nothing happens even when the person with the right is aware of it, it's their choice, would a well known car manufacturer invoke their rights say if they saw one of their cars featured in an ad for car polish with a slogan like 'Only to be used on the best cars in the world' probably not I'd say, but if it was used in an ad for a breakdown recovery firm with the slogan 'we'll come out each and every time you break down' I'd have thought the lawyers would be on the case. It is a 'right' and they can choose how and when they use it.

Imagine this, you're in court and the judge asks the buyer "what steps did you take to establish whether the image had any trademarks" and the buyer replies "the person who took the photo stated that there were none, and here's my proof that he did so" and they produce the contributor upload terms with the part highlighted where you've said there are no trademark subjects within the image.

[stockastic]

The only thing I, as a photographer, could be expected to recognize as a trademark would be a logo or name.  I can't be expected to determine whether the color combination of any object in my photo is claimed as a "trademark".   If I took rural landscape photo with a JD tractor in the background, and JD came after me claiming damages, I can only hope that a judge would agree with me that a reasonable person might not be aware that any visible part of the tractor constituted a trademark.

Isn't that the whole meaning of "trademark" -  a recognizable, identifiable, registered "mark"?   "Tradecolor" and "Tradeshape" are not words.  Yet.

[madelaide]

So if I paint my car those colors I can't sell it?

Trademarked colors? These legal rules of intellectual property have gone too far...

[RT]

The only thing I, as a photographer, could be expected to recognize as a trademark would be a logo or name.  I can't be expected to determine whether the color combination of any object in my photo is claimed as a "trademark".   If I took rural landscape photo with a JD tractor in the background, and JD came after me claiming damages, I can only hope that a judge would agree with me that a reasonable person might not be aware that any visible part of the tractor constituted a trademark.

Isn't that the whole meaning of "trademark" -  a recognizable, identifiable, registered "mark"?   "Tradecolor" and "Tradeshape" are not words.  Yet.

I don't make the laws and whether you agree with them or think they make sense is irrelevant, and by the way what you mentioned above about claiming rights for geometric shapes and curves does happen, in fact it happens a lot in the car industry, trademarks are just one part of property law there are five parts in total.

Have a look on the Shutterstock website for the thread when Ford contacted them, be warned it'll probably raise your blood pressure.

[Phil]

John Deere Green my @ss.   Now corporate America thinks they can own the rights to colors.   You can't "invent" or "create" a color. So how can you assert copyright on it?

Are there actually court decisions backing up these weasels or is this just small companies rolling over when they get threatening letters from big law firms?

like mcdonalds yellow, apparently theirs is limited to the food industry.  although a yellow 'm' is not

[stockastic]

I've already seen that Ford thread and had it in mind.   (As and aside, I'm sure protecting the Mustang "shape" from stock photography will help them avoid bankruptcy. Whoops, Fiat just bought them. )

Our feelings about whether a law makes sense aren't irrelevant, because bad laws can be rolled back or changed, if enough people kick back.  I think this "trademark" stuff has gone over the edge and will not stand the test of time.  It's already happening with junk patents.  Yes intellectual property deserves protection but choosing a color for a tractor doesn't qualify as an intellectual achievement.

I've learned some things from this discussion.

[RacePhoto]

It's not just "corporate America" you need to do some research before you blow smoke.
<...>
This is true around the world, not just corporate America.

1. It originated from corporate America
2. It went far beyond reasonable limits and is now ridiculous
3. It has nothing to do with the subject of this thread

1. NO
2. Maybe, that's opinion
3. Only a distant possibility

The marking of goods for various purposes, including identifying them from those of other traders, dates back to ancient times. In the same way, the existence of rules governing the use of such marks goes back to the medieval craft guilds.

It was only in the 19th century that people began to think of marks, which had become distinctive of a trader's goods, and so attracted valuable goodwill, as a type of property. In the middle of that century, the right to take action in the courts against infringement of a trade mark came about, even when there was no intention to deceive on the part of the infringer.

The usefulness of such an action was, however, limited by the need for a trader to prove that the mark concerned was in fact capable of distinguishing his goods, and that it belonged to him.

You can even trademark something that doesn't exist.  "We are unlikely to see Homer Simpson�s favorite beer anytime soon, at least in the US. Matt Groening (creator of The Simpsons TV show) has stated that he will not license the Duff trademark for a real beer, over concern that it would encourage kids to drink. Fox TV and Groening sued an Australian producer of Duff in 1995."

Somehow these are not originating from Corporate America!

Australia: 1905 � a pine tree logo, still in use by Fisons plc. for chemicals.
Hong Kong: 1874 � Nestle's Eagle Brand for condensed milk.
Japan: 1884 � a design of a seated figure, registered for pills and wound dressings.
United Kingdom: 1876 � The Bass Red Triangle was the first trademark to be registered under the Trade Mark Registration Act 1875.

The point is, that if something is trademarked, we can't be selling images of it, because someone using that trademarked design or item, would be infringing on the registered trademark by using it commercially. It would be use without permission.

Trademarks are used to protect the producer but also protect consumers from buying fraudulent products that looks like the real thing. It's not a one way street.

Anyway the argument goes, we can't use them in photos we sell, no matter what opinion one might have about logic vs law.

[Pixart]

Bugger.  I just got busted for a John Deere as well.  My best selling photo at StockXpert is now offline....  Still for sale on Photos.com of course.  Oh well, soon it will no longer sell for less than 31 cents anywhere...

[willie]

Bugger.  I just got busted for a John Deere as well.  My best selling photo at StockXpert is now offline....  Still for sale on Photos.com of course.  Oh well, soon it will no longer sell for less than 31 cents anywhere...

I am aware of john deere green being off limits. but caterpillar. If you search IS,SS.etc you find caterpillar yellow machines . some even with the keyword caterpillar, and with 100-1000 downloads.
Confused here !

[stockastic]

To me the issue is not whether there should be trademarks, or whether stock photos should not contain trademarks.  The issue  is - what can reasonably, fairly, logically, sensibly be claimed as a trademark?   

What is happening now isn't just the application of well-established trademark law to stock photos. It's a crazy extension of the term "trademark" to include things like color combinations. 

[epixx]

Although trade mark laws haven't changed much, practices certainly have. I've just had a number of train photos removed because of this, and it makes me wonder what on earth the owners of the trains will gain by that. They design and paint their trains in a certain way to get exposure, but they only want exposure that they can control, which reduces the same exposure tremendously. There are obviously two sides of this, but I'm afraid the corporate world is shooting themselves in the foot, if we look at the long term consequences.

There was btw. a case a few years ago about a Ford Mustang club who had printed a calendar with their classic Mustangs. Ford made them destroy the entire print run. And then people wonder why they go bankrupt?

[RacePhoto]

Bugger.  I just got busted for a John Deere as well.  My best selling photo at StockXpert is now offline....  Still for sale on Photos.com of course.  Oh well, soon it will no longer sell for less than 31 cents anywhere...

I am aware of john deere green being off limits. but caterpillar. If you search IS,SS.etc you find caterpillar yellow machines . some even with the keyword caterpillar, and with 100-1000 downloads.
Confused here !

Oops I shouldn't have mentioned it, now the trademark and copyright police will come and take away all your bull dozer photos. 

I think this is just as dumb as others, I'm just trying to deal with the law and face it because we don't have a choice. I think the agencies are going crazy with the rejections. Pretty soon we'll only be able to take photos of mud and dirt. Bricks will be protected by the manufacturer. 

Let me end my portion of this debate with the one point that I think is missed too often. It's not the photo, it's how people use it. If we were allowed to upload the photos and the final user was responsible, then the whole problem is solved. Who knows better what they want to do with what they buy and how to use it, than the buyers? Oh wait, people who have small newsletters and websites, don't have legal teams, and may know less about the law than we do. So we get the over regulation by the agencies.

[epixx]

Pretty soon we'll only be able to take photos of mud and dirt. Bricks will be protected by the manufacturer. 

They are getting there. I just had this removed from StockXpert:



I don't know how to make a ship image more generic unless I only show a dark silhouette against the sunset   

So ships are out, together with cars and trains. Airplanes are next, I suppose...

[fotografer]

He must have changed his mind then because it's actually for sale at the Simpsons ride at Universal Studios in Florida and I have seen it for sale in Europe.A quick check on internet showed that it's been for sale since the summer of 2008.

You can even trademark something that doesn't exist.  "We are unlikely to see Homer Simpson�s favorite beer anytime soon, at least in the US. Matt Groening (creator of The Simpsons TV show) has stated that he will not license the Duff trademark for a real beer, over concern that it would encourage kids to drink. Fox TV and Groening sued an Australian producer of Duff in 1995."

[astrocady]

What gets me, is that manufactures PAY to have their products used on television shows and in movies --- even to have billboards advertising their product appear in the background of a scene, but yet we can't have that same product out of focus and in the background of one of our photos.

[stockastic]

One thing I learned during my years in corporate jobs is that internally, it's all fad-driven and runs in cycles. This year,  "protect your trademark" is being pushed by the legal people because it gives them a nice bullet-point for their year-end PowerPoint  Send out a few threatening letters and get  quick bend-overs from some little companies.  It costs nothing and looks like you've done something.

But actually enforcing these wild claims in the courts would take time and money, so that's not likely to happen unless a big company thinks a trademark violation is actually hurting the bottom line.

My point is that this will eventually pass.  It will become a dead issue due to lack of enforcement.  Outside of a couple of junior lawyers, no one at John Deere really cares if their tractors show up in stock photos here and there.

[RT]

My point is that this will eventually pass.  It will become a dead issue due to lack of enforcement.  Outside of a couple of junior lawyers, no one at John Deere really cares if their tractors show up in stock photos here and there.

What will eventually pass?

 I don't think you realise that Leaf having his tractor image removed was nothing to do with John Deere asking for that to happen, Stockxpert are having a clear out and deactivating any images that 'might' have trademarks in them. I've had a couple of shots deactivated because Harley Davidson have trademarks, this is despite the fact that neither of my shots were Harly Davidson motorcycles, and if you read through the thread quite a few people are having shots deactivated.

I hope you haven't started a campaign against JD thinking they'd singled out Leaf and his tractor shot 

[Karimala]

No shots of recognizable cell phones isolated on a white background.  Just had a Motorola Razr phone deactivated.

[willie]

well, the big thing last christmas we sold out on were bluetooth headsets, GPS, for both cars and motorbikes, I wonder how many tried submitting some isolated works already.   

 

[stockastic]

RT, John Deere may be totally innocent, I have no way of knowing, but does it really matter? Obviously the microstocks have received enough threats from big companies, claiming enough weird stuff as "trademarks", that they've decided they have to get rid of all recognizeable products. It's now a witch hunt.

[RT]

Well I'll make this my last post on this matter because I don't think you get the whole point of property rights, and you're clearly against the whole thing. But I just want to point out that not having images that feature "weird stuff as trademarks" is nothing new and it certainly isn't a microstock thing, it's been like that since the dawn of stock, you've never been allowed to sell images Royalty free for commercial use featuring anything that is covered by property rights whether it be on a micro, mid or macro stock agency.

[Pixart]

John Deere's green and yellow color scheme, the leaping deer symbol, and John Deere are trademarks of Deere & Company.

So... really, if I change the wheel wells and the yellow stripe to just green, it is no longer a color scheme?  Not that I'm inclined to do so.