MicrostockGroup

In have just received an e-mail from iStock telling me that they are deactivating one of my images that has a car in it because (in their words) they are:

" ... taking up this leadership role by implementing a change in our policies, and improving the standards for content that is accepted into the collection."

This is the image:



It's been a steady seller since I uploaded it last autumn, not brilliant, but it's earned me over $20.

And the reason they give for deactivating it is:

"... we can no longer accept most images of cars where the vehicle is depicted as a product or represents more than 20% of the image as the main focus of the photograph. Luxury and exotic cars are not acceptable regardless of size, context or alterations done to the image."

I'm appealing. I mean ... are they going to remove every image featuring a car that's more than a dot on the horizon? What are they afraid of?

Litigiophobia (I made that word up) seems to be spreading wider and wider.

What is really funny is that the tags "BMW", "Ferrari", "Jaguar" (Car Manufacturers' Brand Names), etc. still exist.  You would think that they would get rid of the tags first, so that you couldn't search for those images.

I always found it funny that they don't want images of brand name products, yet their own tagging system contains them.  Kleenex, Boeing, Pepsi, McDonalds, etc. are all there.

You gotta trust them on this. It's new policy to protect both THEM and YOU from serious legal action for copyright breach.

Heh ... looks like my old car.

Just to clarify things (and please correct me if I'm wrong), but iStockphoto are protecting their buyers from legal action, not themselves or their contributors.

My understanding is that a photographer cannot be subject to litigation for taking a photo of a copyright design.  It's the publisher who uses it that is liable.  This makes sense when you realise that it's difficult to hold a photographer responsible for how his/her images are used.

I'm sure most contributors here will have had images rejected by one or more agencies for copyright issues but accepted at others. It happened to me very recently with some farm machinery that was a copyright design (all John Deere equipment, apparently). I didn't know it was copyright until I got the rejection, but by that time many other agencies had accepted it. 

As a buyer, I would be less comfortable buying images from agencies that weren't covering my back in this way!

Well spotted! They're always saying that iStockphoto operates independently of Getty, so I'm not surprised by such a discrepancy in their operations. Other microstock agencies have expressed concerns over the level of sophistication among their own buyers. Perhaps iStockphoto perceives their buyers as requiring more protection from themselves than Getty buyers.

Hi from Gland (that will make sense to a Swiss resident).

Okay ... agreed. Car design is copyrighted. If you are going to be making cars you can't make ones the same shape and size etc. as BMW. That's perfectly right and proper. But we're not making cars.

The whole point of my photograph is not the car (which is intentionally blurred, and questionably identifiable) but the weeds growing into the picture. I even alluded to it in the title - 'Taking over'.

But, okay, so they're scared of litigation. Why stop at cars? Certain makes of buses, and lorries and railway engines, ships and boats, yachts, and even bicycles are all identifiable. Presumably their design is copyrighted.

Planes too (sorry Sharply _done). In fact, planes are far more identifiable than cars.

Then furniture. A lot of furniture from big manufacturers (for example, think of a Scandinavian company whose name begins with I and ends with A) is easily identifiable by its design.

Then houses too. And interiors. And tools used in workshops. And kitchen equipment ...

... the list goes on.

What's there left to photograph? Flowers?

You don't know who will actually use your photo and for what purpose.

But you're right: it is very delicate to know what is copyrighted or not.

We are photographers and not lawyers and as you, I often wonder what is copyrighted and why. For example, IS reject most of my illustrations containing a generic world map. I got rejection for a photo of a teddy bear. There are also issues with english coins and I got rejection at some site for a photo of a US dollar bank note, not for copyright reason, but because it is forbidden under US law. And also for a champagne bottle because I let some text such as "brut impérial" on the cork.

My last rejection at IS was for a photo of a DVD disk: I had removed all trademark, but there was a barely visible serial number which is the reason why IS do reject it (white all other site do accept it).

IS is definitively the site which do take copyright issue the more seriously (too seriously?). We have to live with it I guess.

There you've got it! You've hit the nail on the head.

The buck should stop with the user of the image. Not the photographer, nor the agency.

Trouble is, in these litigious times, the suing party and their lawyers will go for anyone they think they can get money out of.

Well...crazy, of course. The world is turning into a madhouse - and the whole thing is driven by lawyers and accountants. Soon there will be no free air to breathe. If taking a picture of a car is not allowed because of copyrights - then maybe it would be reasonable to take car companies to the court for putting their logos in front of my eyes all day round - which is an invasion of privacy. I have no duty to watch their bloody logos, but I am forced to - no way to avoid it...

This is a copyright protection concept reduced ad absurdum: they claim to own the light reflected from their product. What an idiocy... and even larger idiocy that the "law" makes it accepted and acceptable...

If I had enough money - I would do just that.

Aaaaaaaaghh! iStock are going to start pulling pictures of apples next!

I give up. I'm gonna take up the nice quiet hobby of underwater needlework.

I heard that a Kiss rockstar "? name" have copyrighted the orange. Just make a search for flower and see how many picture there is...

I think I will make me a niche whit pictures of plain white sheets of paper.

Actually the rumor is that Gene Simmons (from the rock band Kiss) patented the word "O.J" (as in orange juice), but I don't think that you can patent a word.  They might have meant trademark, but either way I'm not sure how true it is.