MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: everything in the world is copyrighted  (Read 24671 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 27, 2010, 16:53 »
0
I just had a photo of a sock monkey rejected by IS.  Yes,  a sock monkey - a kid's stuffed toy.  And they reason was "content that may be subject to copyright or trademark protection."  Apparently they've received threatening letters from the National Sock Monkey Assocation.  Or maybe I should have attached a release signed by S. Monkey.

So, stuffed toys are out. I guess all toys are out. Come to think of it, what's the difference - legally - between a sock monkey and the dinnerware and cutlery in food shots? Isn't any manufactured product today to some extent the work of a designer? 

I give up at this point. What's left to submit?  I shouldn't even bother to point out that IS already has several photos of sock monkeys. Or maybe they were stock monkeys.

 


« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2010, 16:56 »
0
A couple of istock photographers got around this problem by making their own stuffed toys to their own designs.

« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2010, 17:00 »
0
Is the toy the main subject?  It is normally the problem, unlike silverware in food shots. But sometimes it's just the very specific brand that can not be used in any way.

« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2010, 17:02 »
0
I had that problem with an image of a young girl playing with a home made rag doll.  

Sometimes this is so ridiculous.  But, what can we do?

vonkara

« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2010, 17:10 »
0
everything in the world is copyrighted It look like it

What I got rejected for copyrights in the last 2 years... represent almost 50% of my rejections
- Open books (text is copyrighted, sometimes even because of the cover without any informations on)

- Vehicles (ambulance, police cars, sometimes vintage cars, limousine, ect) all logos removed, even sometimes with modified elements, either on white or included in a concept background

- Cloth (like checked picnic cloth, red and green velvet background and some random cloth with patterns)

Plus many I can't remember now. There is many things I have never try because I knew it could be rejected, most of them are toys like dominos ect

« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2010, 17:13 »
0
madelaide, I could not imagine a more generic, anonyomous sock monkey. The photo is nothing but a dead-on face shot, that's the gimmick. People might by it for use as an avatar, or other forms of humor.  SS and DT already accepted it.

I had several other crazy rejections today. A bunch for isolations containing "areas that are too feathered or too rough". Not only can I not find any spots I could improve, they're essentially identical (in this regard) to others in the same batch that were approved, and much better than similar shots I did months ago that were accepted.

I'll just wait a while and resubmit them all and I'll bet they get in.  It's worked in the past, as has appealing to 'scout'.  If only these reviewers would attach the slightest clue as to what they're seeing wrong.

« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2010, 17:16 »
0
Vonkara (and others), I think part of what is going on is that these microstocks already have images of these subjects, which they are not systematically removing, and they're thinking they're legally covered in some sense just by rejecting new ones.

Too bad for them. My sock monkey was way better than the ones the have.  :)

This photo was also my first rejection at CutCaster - for "limited commericial value".  Ok, I see that CC has no sense of humor.  I've already sold this one a couple of times at SS.

nruboc

« Reply #7 on: February 27, 2010, 17:34 »
0
News Flash: Microstock agencies announce they will only accept nudes since all clothing has been deemed copyrighted.

« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2010, 17:37 »
0
A bunch for isolations containing "areas that are too feathered or too rough". Not only can I not find any spots I could improve, they're essentially identical (in this regard) to others in the same batch that were approved, and much better than similar shots I did months ago that were accepted.
I got the feathered or too rough inspector too this week. Normally they attach the problem section but not here. Similars from the same series were accepted before without any problem. Of course I can all "resubmit" them but that takes too much time for an XS sale once in a while. I wonder who can see the difference between a 1 or 1.5px feather on a 21MP image used as XS in a sidebar. They sell well on SS for double the price (0.38 vs 0.19) and that will do.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2010, 17:40 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #9 on: February 27, 2010, 17:44 »
0
The really aggravating thing is that months ago they were accepting shots of mine which weren't as good as these - my isolation techniques have improved.  I can do most of it photographically now.

In one case there was no feathering or hand isolation done at all.  I'm clueless on that one.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #10 on: February 27, 2010, 18:01 »
0
The really aggravating thing is that months ago they were accepting shots of mine which weren't as good as these - my isolation techniques have improved.  I can do most of it photographically now.

In one case there was no feathering or hand isolation done at all.  I'm clueless on that one.
I've gotten some of those too which were well deserved, but some were not and it seems if the isolated product has a rough texture to it they call it noise...if it has a furry type texture on the outer edges they call it bad isolation. I don't even mess with resubmitting those.

« Reply #11 on: February 27, 2010, 18:22 »
0
I love getting the "areas that are too feathered or too rough" rejection when my isolation is done 100% in camera. I would laugh if it didn't make me so mad!

« Reply #12 on: February 27, 2010, 18:30 »
0
One time they reject photo of travel bag with small wheels and guess reviewer imagination?
In the middle of the wheel is hexagonal head of imbus screw which is shaft of that plastic wheel and reject it for trade mark/copyright issue?!?
 :o

« Reply #13 on: February 27, 2010, 18:40 »
0
The root of this problem seems to be IStock's "image thing".  While promoting themselves as having better images than the competition, they've created a culture of cavalier rejection and over-the-top inspection criteria.  

All of my "problem" images have already been accepted by SS, FT and DT - that's because I don't submit anything to IS until it's already been accepted by the other 3.  

My acceptance at SS, DT, FT is very high, and when I get a rejection I always see the reason.  IS is just ceasing to make sense to me.   If SS ever offers exclusivity, with incentives, I'm out of IS that day.

 
« Last Edit: February 27, 2010, 18:47 by stockastic »

« Reply #14 on: February 27, 2010, 19:28 »
0
The sock monkey thing doesn't surprise me.

http://www.sockmonkey.com/

« Reply #15 on: February 27, 2010, 20:09 »
0
Yes, someone, somewhere, has a copyright on the sock monkey, or at least the pattern for making one (and I didn't photograph the pattern).  That was my point.  Just about any product with style - be it a toy, an article of clothing,  a car or a pipe wrench - was 'designed' and may have some sort of copyright on it, and could be recognized in a photo -at least by its designer.  Office furniture.  Tableware. Even the layout of a circuit board is intellectual property.  Say doesn't the teddy bear in that shot look awfully like Pooh...?

The absence of logos is no longer enough to assuage the fears of IS's lawyers.  


My reading of this Wikipedia article is that the 'sock monkey' appeared by1932 or possibly earlier.  In 1955 the Nelson Knitting Company (sockmonkey.com) was awarded a patent on the pattern for making a sock monkey. There is no mention of a copyright on the design:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sock_monkey
« Last Edit: February 27, 2010, 20:23 by stockastic »

« Reply #16 on: February 27, 2010, 20:24 »
0
For me, IS is the most frustrating site to upload to.  Not because of the process; because of the reviews.  I stopped bothering with them a long time ago.  Every now and then I toss a photo there to see how it goes.

I just do not know what to expect.

Cityscape photo rejected for keyword: business (rejected for that one keyword, thats it)
Model wearing a necklace that is a fake dog tag: image contains a license plate (even if it did, you can't even make anything out on it) the only text on it was the birthdate of his child.
San Jacinto Monument: rejected for keyword ( Battle (Historical War Event) ); I guess you have to be in the historical war event itself to use that keyword?

I can go on and on and on... so I don't anymore...

I guess the exclusives there do not have to worry about my images taking sales, although I still get multiple payouts a month with just 265 images.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #17 on: February 27, 2010, 20:25 »
0
Yes, someone, somewhere, has a copyright on the sock monkey, or at least the pattern for making one (and I didn't photograph the pattern).  That was my point.  Just about any product with style - be it a toy, an article of clothing,  a car or a pipe wrench - was 'designed' and may have some sort of copyright on it, and could be recognized in a photo -at least by its designer.  Office furniture.  Tableware. Even the layout of a circuit board is intellectual property.  Say doesn't the teddy bear in that shot look awfully like Pooh...?

The absence of logos is no longer enough to assuage the fears of IS's lawyers.  


My reading of this Wikipedia article is that the 'sock monkey' appeared by1932 or possibly earlier.  In 1955 the Nelson Knitting Company (sockmonkey.com) was awarded a patent on the pattern for making a sock monkey. There is no mention of a copyright on the design:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sock_monkey

I believe the patent on it would be the copyright. Patents are in place so people can't copycat a product and claim it as their own. Now I'm not sure how that works with images but I'd assume that would be copyright infringement.

« Reply #18 on: February 27, 2010, 21:05 »
0
I believe the patent on it would be the copyright. Patents are in place so people can't copycat a product and claim it as their own. Now I'm not sure how that works with images but I'd assume that would be copyright infringement.


The 1955 patent is on the pattern (set of directions) for making a sock monkey from one of their "Red Heel" socks. They knew their socks were popular for making sock monkeys and they wanted to capitalize on it, so they drew up a pattern and got a patent.  The actual 'sock monkey' concept goes way back, and as far as I can see, is not copyrighted - and Nelson Knitting didn't invent it.

Here is an ETSY page for a person who sells all sorts of hand made sock monkey variations:

http://www.etsy.com/shop/THEMONKEYSHOP
« Last Edit: February 27, 2010, 21:21 by stockastic »

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #19 on: February 27, 2010, 21:20 »
0
Here's the free pattern on that patent. Maybe they should be in trouble for copyright infringement.... :D

« Reply #20 on: February 27, 2010, 22:12 »
0
Here's the free pattern on that patent. Maybe they should be in trouble for copyright infringement.... :D
All Nelson had was a patent on a particular way to make a sock monkey from a particular type of sock (theirs).  You could  create your own pattern, that's ok too.  As far as I could find by  Googling there is no copyright on the term "sock monkey" or the image of a sock monkey.  It's like "teddy bear".  

Someone has a patent on the CFL light bulb.  But you can still sell photos of fluorescent bulbs, and the microstocks have tons of them.  The patent is on the process and materials for making them - not on the appearance of the bulb.    

I can certainly believe that a reviewer might suspect the sock monkey is a copyrighted image and they're probably being told to reject if they have the slightest doubt.  The interesting question to me, now, is - could I get it approved if I told them otherwise?  I'm guessing not.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2010, 22:14 by stockastic »

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #21 on: February 27, 2010, 22:25 »
0
The interesting question to me, now, is - could I get it approved if I told them otherwise?  I'm guessing not.


I think you are probably guessing right.

« Reply #22 on: February 28, 2010, 04:49 »
0
The interesting question to me, now, is - could I get it approved if I told them otherwise?  I'm guessing not.

If you believe you have proof enough, you should submit it to Scout with all the information and links you can provide. The executive team then will decide about your image. If your image is found to be acceptable, you can later on provide this information to inspectors by adding a note in the file description.

« Reply #23 on: February 28, 2010, 05:20 »
0
I love getting the "areas that are too feathered or too rough" rejection when my isolation is done 100% in camera. I would laugh if it didn't make me so mad!

It just means that there isn't a clearly defined boundary, in some areas, between the subject and the background. It is not suggesting that you've done anything when processing the image, quite the reverse in fact. Simply shrinking the image to a smaller size can often improve the situation enough for the image to be accepted.

« Reply #24 on: February 28, 2010, 07:02 »
0
I love getting the "areas that are too feathered or too rough" rejection when my isolation is done 100% in camera.
I'm always checking at 300% around the edges. It can happen that edges are bleached out (especially hair) when your background is more than 1.5 stop overexposed. It's not because it's done in cam that it is good per se (I plead guilty).

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #25 on: February 28, 2010, 08:17 »
0
As it's a human process, different inspectors are stricter than others. I had one image rejected for 'copyright' recently when I'd already had a few others accepted from the series. I've Scouted it (which I very seldom do) to see if the rejection is valid, and if so should I deactivate the others in the series, and pointing out the hundreds of similars already on the site. (I guess they could all have PRs,  ;), but I've given up writing to ask for PRs, as I never once got a reply, not even a refusal, either by email or by snail when I tried.)
It seems to me that as soon as they decide something is unacceptable, they should 'search and delete' immediately - at least 90% of images would be easily found by keywords.
And as for keywords -again, differences between inspectors. I recently had 'traditional festival' removed from a photo of Easter eggs (I guess they want to see people celebrating the festival), yet I've wikied several images accepted in the last month with over 20 'factual' words which were totally wrong in the apples and chairs model (I never wiki concepts, emotions etc as they're far too subjective). (Of course, the words may have been added after inspection, but you can often tell if so.)

« Reply #26 on: February 28, 2010, 16:38 »
0
The sock monkey thing doesn't surprise me.

http://www.sockmonkey.com/


Now there's and idea. I wonder what their Return per SM is and how many they sell. It can't be hard to do. I've got a WHOLE drawer full of socks just sitting there when I could be making $1000's of dollars. I'll start a blog "How I made money in my sleep with Sock Monkeys".

*, Monkeys are already being done. I need to be more original,diverse, maybe Sock Meerkats or something. I'm in the wrong business. I'll let you know how it goes and link to my blog.

« Reply #27 on: February 28, 2010, 19:27 »
0
I love getting the "areas that are too feathered or too rough" rejection when my isolation is done 100% in camera.
I'm always checking at 300% around the edges. It can happen that edges are bleached out (especially hair) when your background is more than 1.5 stop overexposed. It's not because it's done in cam that it is good per se (I plead guilty).

That all makes sense.  However, since the inspectors aren't providing any specifics to go on...  

Let's face it, if we're really checking and tweaking details at 300%, we're not doing stock photography, we're just playing somebody's senseless game.  This last eperience was a wake-up call  - I realized how far I'd been sucked into a nonsensical pursuit of 19 cent sales.  It's going to be a long time before I submit to IS again.  

I just do not know what to expect.

That's it exactly.  
« Last Edit: February 28, 2010, 19:36 by stockastic »

« Reply #28 on: March 01, 2010, 04:40 »
0
I actually don't have problems with IS rejections lately. My acceptance ratio moves up every month. The only thing that I can't understand sometimes is artifacting. Sometimes I simply can't find what the reviewer saw as artifact. I'm starting to think it's a halo that appears sometimes around very bright objects...
Otherwise, I'm fine with IS rejections....which I can't tell for Fotolia...

« Reply #29 on: March 04, 2010, 05:15 »
0
I love getting the "areas that are too feathered or too rough" rejection when my isolation is done 100% in camera. I would laugh if it didn't make me so mad!

They just hate it when a white edge fades naturally into a white background. I think they want everything to be lit so the background has to be cut off by some photoshop guru and then they can decide whether the artificial edge looks natural (if it is too natural, it will get a "feathered or rough" of course)

« Reply #30 on: March 09, 2010, 10:32 »
0
Ok, so now cityscapes are copyrighted also?  I have submitted a few Houston Cityscape images to Shutterstock.  All logos removed, and this is not about the quality or technical aspects of the image.  I have received this each time I have tried to submit them (I figured someone reviewing these maybe did not understand that "Modern buildings are TM" response).

Do all cityscapes have to be editorial now?  I sure hope not.


Trademark--Contains potential trademark or copyright infringement--not editorial.
Modern buildings are TM

« Reply #31 on: March 09, 2010, 11:10 »
0
They just hate it when a white edge fades naturally into a white background. I think they want everything to be lit so the background has to be cut off by some photoshop guru and then they can decide whether the artificial edge looks natural (if it is too natural, it will get a "feathered or rough" of course)

That's exactly what I concluded. I've given up - I feel like if I tried to rework these images to make them acceptable to IS, I'd actually be making them worse and would hurt their chances elsewhere in the future.  I'll try submitting them to IS again in the future, maybe different people will review them. 

« Reply #32 on: March 09, 2010, 11:12 »
0
Do all cityscapes have to be editorial now?  I sure hope not.

Maybe they don't want real cities anymore, just vectors.    That's the future - everything will be synthetic, no more releases, no more legal issues.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2010, 11:17 by stockastic »

« Reply #33 on: March 09, 2010, 11:48 »
0
Quote
Trademark--Contains potential trademark or copyright infringement--not editorial.
Modern buildings are TM

I know that certain buildings are off limits...like the Hancock Building in Boston. I was under the impression, though, that buildings that were part of a cityscape were ok. For instance, if you just took a shot of the Hancock Building and submitted...not. If the Hancock Building were part of the Boston cityscape...ok.

But I'm not surprised...it's getting pretty ridiculous. I agree...everything will have to be synthetic. And don't you worry...the man will find a way to control that, too.  ::)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #34 on: March 09, 2010, 12:15 »
0
Do all cityscapes have to be editorial now?  I sure hope not.

Maybe they don't want real cities anymore, just vectors.    That's the future - everything will be synthetic, no more releases, no more legal issues.
There could be an upside for RM/Editorial.   :D

« Reply #35 on: March 09, 2010, 15:15 »
0
I am honestly thinking to just start listing everything editorial that is even close to any issue.  After taking the shot, removing the logos, then getting them rejected for silly reasons like this; I will just shot and submit editorial to save time.

With the natural flood of images that will just increase with this stock model, I am sure the reviewers are being told to error on the side of caution.

As all the emails and interviews have been saying lately, "Stock is dead..."   ;)

« Reply #36 on: March 09, 2010, 15:17 »
0
FYI, one of my appeals for bad isolation and "feathering" was just answered with "the inspector selected the wrong rejection notice. "  The real issue was a black border that I'd added - they don't want it.   I thought the border made sense in this case, but never mind that, I'm fine with the clarification.  

But this makes me wonder if my other recent "isolation" rejections were mistakes too.  



 
« Last Edit: March 09, 2010, 15:19 by stockastic »

dbvirago

« Reply #37 on: March 10, 2010, 14:43 »
0
This was removed from SS because it is the same color as a John Deere. Logos aren'e enough, I have to change its color?


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #38 on: March 10, 2010, 14:59 »
0
This was removed from SS because it is the same color as a John Deere. Logos aren'e enough, I have to change its color?




According to their legal notice http://www.deere.com/en_US/deerecom/privacy_legal/legalnotice.html:
"John Deere's green and yellow color scheme, the leaping deer symbol, and John Deere are trademarks of Deere & Company. "

« Reply #39 on: March 10, 2010, 15:17 »
0
Oh yeah, lawyers now control who can use which colors. Hadn't you heard?  John Deere owns green and yellow.  They invented those colors.

 I hope that on some future date we start to get court rulings on intellectual property, copyright etc. that make rational sense. It's totally nuts at this point.

CCK

« Reply #40 on: March 10, 2010, 15:25 »
0
This was removed from SS because it is the same color as a John Deere. Logos aren'e enough, I have to change its color?

Same here. No logos, just the colour. It was a good seller, so I try to slightly change the green and yellow in PS and submit again.

« Reply #41 on: March 10, 2010, 15:26 »
0
Oh yeah, lawyers now control who can use which colors. Hadn't you heard?  John Deere owns green and yellow.  They invented those colors.

 I hope that on some future date we start to get court rulings on intellectual property, copyright etc. that make rational sense. It's totally nuts at this point.

I'm not sure what's nuts about being able to protect the use of your branding or intellectual property.  Should it be allowed for another tractor company to ride the reputation of JD by making green and yellow tractors?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #42 on: March 10, 2010, 16:41 »
0
Oh yeah, lawyers now control who can use which colors. Hadn't you heard?  John Deere owns green and yellow.  They invented those colors.

 I hope that on some future date we start to get court rulings on intellectual property, copyright etc. that make rational sense. It's totally nuts at this point.

I'm not sure what's nuts about being able to protect the use of your branding or intellectual property.  Should it be allowed for another tractor company to ride the reputation of JD by making green and yellow tractors?
Yebbut there's a huge gap between a rival company making a tractor of the same colour scheme (and presumably it's two very, very precise shades) and using a photo with a tiny JD tractor in the background.
It's just that no-one knows where the line is.

« Reply #43 on: March 10, 2010, 16:43 »
0
Oh yeah, lawyers now control who can use which colors. Hadn't you heard?  John Deere owns green and yellow.  They invented those colors.

 I hope that on some future date we start to get court rulings on intellectual property, copyright etc. that make rational sense. It's totally nuts at this point.

I'm not sure what's nuts about being able to protect the use of your branding or intellectual property.  Should it be allowed for another tractor company to ride the reputation of JD by making green and yellow tractors?
Trademarking (it's trademarking not copyright) particular colours is an interesting and money making issue for lawyers. Cadbury's are pretty active trying to prevent other companies selling chocolate from using the "Cadbury purple" on their products (at least in Aus).  They lost their most recent case. They were trying to use the trade paractices act rather than IP legislation, arguing that people would be confused into mistaking other brands of chocolate for Cadbury's. Just shows the lengths that big companies will go to to protect their branding - even if they don't have a legal leg to stand on. You wouldn't want to be caught i teh cross fire of a dispute like that even if the law was on your side in the end.

« Reply #44 on: March 10, 2010, 16:49 »
0
I'm not sure what's nuts about being able to protect the use of your branding or intellectual property.  Should it be allowed for another tractor company to ride the reputation of JD by making green and yellow tractors?

So today, if I want to market my new toaster, and I flip through the Pantone color chips and pick 2 I like - I'm supposed to find out if they're already claimed?

To me the term "intellectual property" sort of implies something that involves innovation, creativity, invention. Not just some exec saying "yeah, I like green and yellow, let's go with it".   Intellectual property might be - an industrial process, a software algorithm.  Not a color choice.

« Reply #45 on: March 10, 2010, 16:56 »
0
So today, if I want to market my new toaster, and I flip through the Pantone color chips and pick 2 I like - I'm supposed to find out if they're already claimed?

I would assume you would do due diligence to find out if those colors had been trademarked by another appliance company.

« Reply #46 on: March 10, 2010, 17:15 »
0
So today, if I want to market my new toaster, and I flip through the Pantone color chips and pick 2 I like - I'm supposed to find out if they're already claimed?


I would assume you would do due diligence to find out if those colors had been trademarked by another appliance company.


Ok, here's your John Deere Kitchen Accessory Set:
http://www.johndeeregifts.com/product/home+&+garden/kitchen/john+deere+green+kitchen+accessories+set.do

Does this mean  that now I can't sell a green towel?  Or submit a stock photo of a green oven mitt?

Will the court use a colorimeter - following which, my lawyer challenges the certification of the shop that recently calibrated that unit...
« Last Edit: March 10, 2010, 17:24 by stockastic »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #47 on: March 10, 2010, 17:23 »
0
So today, if I want to market my new toaster, and I flip through the Pantone color chips and pick 2 I like - I'm supposed to find out if they're already claimed?


I would assume you would do due diligence to find out if those colors had been trademarked by another appliance company.


Ok, here's your John Deere Kitchen Accessory Set:
http://www.johndeeregifts.com/product/home+&+garden/kitchen/john+deere+green+kitchen+accessories+set.do

Does this mean  that now I can't sell a green towel?  Or submit a stock photo of a green oven mitt

Ooooh, that's cheeky: these are green and white, not green and yellow. Maybe Celtic FC won't like it.  :o

RT


« Reply #48 on: March 10, 2010, 17:52 »
0
Oh yeah, lawyers now control who can use which colors. Hadn't you heard?  John Deere owns green and yellow.  They invented those colors.

 I hope that on some future date we start to get court rulings on intellectual property, copyright etc. that make rational sense. It's totally nuts at this point.

Maybe you should look up what a trademark actually is, John Deere don't own those colours and aren't claiming to, they have trademarked those colours which in basic terms means they have protected the use of those colours against someone else using them on a similar product.

A trademark identifies a 'mark' used in a certain 'trade'. Simple isn't it.

« Reply #49 on: March 10, 2010, 17:56 »
0

Maybe you should look up what a trademark actually is

Where did I say "trademark"?  

RT


« Reply #50 on: March 10, 2010, 19:26 »
0

Maybe you should look up what a trademark actually is

Where did I say "trademark"?  

You didn't you said "Lawyers now control who can use which colors" and  "John deere owns green and yellow"  neither statement is accurate and shows that you don't understand what the issue is about, which is why I suggested you looked up what a trademark means, maybe then you'd understand why and how John Deere (not lawyers) are able to control (not own) certain colours.
It might also help you understand why your comments about 'selling a green towel, submitting a stock photo of a green oven mitt and marketing your toaster in two colours you've picked' are as you put it earlier 'nuts'

RacePhoto

« Reply #51 on: March 10, 2010, 22:15 »
0

Maybe you should look up what a trademark actually is

Where did I say "trademark"?  

You didn't need to, the argument you are making has to do with trademarked colors, in combination, on agricultural equipment. Also it's not just any green and yellow, it's John Deere Green and yellow which is an exact color. I believe the paint is only made by one licensed company.

John Deere had registered the colour combination green-yellow for agricultural machines as a CTM based on acquired distinctiveness.

A toaster is not agricultural equipment. :)

Now someone tell me how you can protect Ayers Rock (not just a rock!) which is a natural feature of the planet. And before you jump into cultural understanding and religion, the American Indians could have the rights to the Grand Canyon on the same basis. See where it's getting a bit silly to claim a whole mountain is protected? :D Yellowstone? Devils Tower? Niagara Falls, want me to make a huge list of native significant sites?

If Ayers Rock is a NT site like the rest of the UK, not public land, and not supported by taxpayer dollars, they could restrict any photography within the park area, but not all photography of the mountain, should someone be outside the area they own and manage.

« Reply #52 on: March 10, 2010, 23:33 »
0

Maybe you should look up what a trademark actually is

Where did I say "trademark"?  

You didn't need to, the argument you are making has to do with trademarked colors, in combination, on agricultural equipment. Also it's not just any green and yellow, it's John Deere Green and yellow which is an exact color. I believe the paint is only made by one licensed company.

John Deere had registered the colour combination green-yellow for agricultural machines as a CTM based on acquired distinctiveness.

A toaster is not agricultural equipment. :)

Now someone tell me how you can protect Ayers Rock (not just a rock!) which is a natural feature of the planet. And before you jump into cultural understanding and religion, the American Indians could have the rights to the Grand Canyon on the same basis. See where it's getting a bit silly to claim a whole mountain is protected? :D Yellowstone? Devils Tower? Niagara Falls, want me to make a huge list of native significant sites?

If Ayers Rock is a NT site like the rest of the UK, not public land, and not supported by taxpayer dollars, they could restrict any photography within the park area, but not all photography of the mountain, should someone be outside the area they own and manage.
Uluru (Ayers Rock) is not on public land - it's owned by the  Pitjanjara  -  The land is only managed by the National Parks people. The owners let you in on condition you respect their beliefs and don't do stuff that would offend them.

RacePhoto

« Reply #53 on: March 11, 2010, 17:56 »
0

Maybe you should look up what a trademark actually is

Where did I say "trademark"?  

You didn't need to, the argument you are making has to do with trademarked colors, in combination, on agricultural equipment. Also it's not just any green and yellow, it's John Deere Green and yellow which is an exact color. I believe the paint is only made by one licensed company.

John Deere had registered the colour combination green-yellow for agricultural machines as a CTM based on acquired distinctiveness.

A toaster is not agricultural equipment. :)

Now someone tell me how you can protect Ayers Rock (not just a rock!) which is a natural feature of the planet. And before you jump into cultural understanding and religion, the American Indians could have the rights to the Grand Canyon on the same basis. See where it's getting a bit silly to claim a whole mountain is protected? :D Yellowstone? Devils Tower? Niagara Falls, want me to make a huge list of native significant sites?

If Ayers Rock is a NT site like the rest of the UK, not public land, and not supported by taxpayer dollars, they could restrict any photography within the park area, but not all photography of the mountain, should someone be outside the area they own and manage.
Uluru (Ayers Rock) is not on public land - it's owned by the  Pitjanjara  -  The land is only managed by the National Parks people. The owners let you in on condition you respect their beliefs and don't do stuff that would offend them.

Well there's the answer. Private property, so they can "call the shots" or restrict them. :) The Director of National Parks connection also puts it out of reach because of their restrictions. If you can get a shot and not be on their land, it's fine. Same as castles,monuments, gardens, historic sites, and everything else that's regulated by the National Trust. The Director of National Parks has a 99 year lease on the property. They can restrict what you do on their property.

However I still don't understand someone claiming you can not take or sell a picture of a 500 million year old rock formation. This returns to the "everything in the world is copyrighted" topic. It is a naturally formed mountain!

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #54 on: March 11, 2010, 18:56 »
0
Hmmmm
I was thinking of booking a trip to Madagascar (actually, I was booked last year,but they cancelled the trip of FO advice following the coup). I got a 'general information' pdf in today which inter alia said:
"NB: Extortionate camera fees are sometimes charged at the National Parks to those who seem to be taking photographs in a professional capacity (i.e. EU305 per person per park)."
Note that at today's exchange rates that's about US$417 per park. The trip I was looking at includes six national parks.
Looks like it's back to the drawing board.  :'(

RacePhoto

« Reply #55 on: March 11, 2010, 20:10 »
0
Hmmmm
I was thinking of booking a trip to Madagascar (actually, I was booked last year,but they cancelled the trip of FO advice following the coup). I got a 'general information' pdf in today which inter alia said:
"NB: Extortionate camera fees are sometimes charged at the National Parks to those who seem to be taking photographs in a professional capacity (i.e. EU305 per person per park)."
Note that at today's exchange rates that's about US$417 per park. The trip I was looking at includes six national parks.
Looks like it's back to the drawing board.  :'(

Didn't you always want to own a G11?  :)

Just read about the coup, people cutting the endangered Rosewood in rain forest, corruption up. Tourism down 70% based on warnings. Sounds scary enough that if I won a free trip I might pass it up.

Looks like a pretty place.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #56 on: March 12, 2010, 12:16 »
0
Hmmmm
I was thinking of booking a trip to Madagascar (actually, I was booked last year,but they cancelled the trip of FO advice following the coup). I got a 'general information' pdf in today which inter alia said:
"NB: Extortionate camera fees are sometimes charged at the National Parks to those who seem to be taking photographs in a professional capacity (i.e. EU305 per person per park)."
Note that at today's exchange rates that's about US$417 per park. The trip I was looking at includes six national parks.
Looks like it's back to the drawing board.  :'(

Didn't you always want to own a G11?  :)

Just read about the coup, people cutting the endangered Rosewood in rain forest, corruption up. Tourism down 70% based on warnings. Sounds scary enough that if I won a free trip I might pass it up.

Looks like a pretty place.

I have a G9, but having asked for more info, it seems the rule was made a while ago and applies to anything over - wait for it - 3Mp!!!
USians tend to be more nervous travellers (on average) than Brits, but I think it's because the US advisory is hyper-cautious. On my very first visit to an Internet cafe for my very first foray online I happened to land in the US advisory for Kenya - it was totally horrendous. Based on what I read there, I'd never have gone - but I was only about a fortnight back from a 3-week trip.
So I looked up what they were saying about the UK - I'd never come here having read that either!
Anyway, the UK foreign office says only stay out of the capital; don't vaunt expensive items like cameras in populated areas and travel with an experienced ground agent.
I've wanted to go for years, but most trips are in Oct-early Dec when I have to work.


« Reply #58 on: March 15, 2010, 19:00 »
0
I love getting the "areas that are too feathered or too rough" rejection when my isolation is done 100% in camera.
I'm always checking at 300% around the edges. It can happen that edges are bleached out (especially hair) when your background is more than 1.5 stop overexposed. It's not because it's done in cam that it is good per se (I plead guilty).

But

  - why should we care about anything that's only "noticeable" at 300%?

  - you're describing a photographic/lighting issue, but their rejection implies a Photoshopped isolation.  You can't feather, or creae a "rough" edge, photographically.


As they raise their standards to the highest imaginable levels, I assume they're also increasing commissions?  Oh wait, exactly the opposite is true.  But surely, they're dropping old images that don't meet these new stratospheric standards?  Nope.  They, and their accumulated popularity ranking, will be lined up in front of yours forever.

 

« Reply #59 on: March 15, 2010, 21:22 »
0
I'm always checking at 300% around the edges. It can happen that edges are bleached out (especially hair) when your background is more than 1.5 stop overexposed. It's not because it's done in cam that it is good per se (I plead guilty).

But
  - why should we care about anything that's only "noticeable" at 300%?
  - you're describing a photographic/lighting issue, but their rejection implies a Photoshopped isolation.  You can't feather, or creae a "rough" edge, photographically.

At 300% it's easier to see and to remedy, but you will notice it at 100% too. To follow-up the fate of that series, it was first rejected for keywords, then for a logo (rightly so), then for "feathering", then a second time for "feathering". With the third reject, I finally got a decent explanation: areas out of focus should be feathered very softly as a hard feathering there looks "unnatural". The image can be seen here. The arm was slightly out of focus so I feathered it with 3px, but apparently it was not enough.

I have a disagreement about this with the reviewer, I'm afraid. Overwhites can be used as such on a white screen or paper background, but many people use them to cut those out easily. With a wide feathering, this is much more difficult as you can't get rid easily from the transition shades between the white background and the object. The same reason I avoid shadows under an isolated object. If the buyer wants to use the image as is, he can easily blur the out of focus edges himself, over any added background, and that would look "natural".

As a final step to recover the series, I combined the 6 21Mpx images into one, reducing the 120Mpx to 6Mpx, so that any out-of-focus would be gone (see here). Now this one was rejected with the reason: "please upload all 6 images individually".  ;D

It will teach me a lesson never to resubmit on IS again, even if the reject reason is simple like forgot to attach a MRF. As soon as you've corrected those, they will find another reason to reject. It's simply not worth the hassle and the time to be sold now and then for 0.19$ as Xs, when it was sold on SS already a few times for double that amount.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2010, 22:38 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #60 on: March 15, 2010, 22:11 »
0
Thanks for the detailed account, I learned some things.

At IS, I hardly ever resubmit - like you say, they tend to find something else the second time, so it's a waste of effort.  I just wait a few weeks and submit the same image again, and often it's accepted.

Recently I had one rejected for "noise" and/or "artifacts" (SS, DT and FT all accepted it).  I searched in the dark corners, and did find some small areas with color noise. I carefully reworked the image with additional noise rejection, selectively applied, and did some other touching up - in the end, I felt I had a much nicer image.  I proudly resubmitted and it was rejected as "too filtered".

I get the feeling that if people from IS ever ready posts like this, they just laugh. They have so incredibly many photos now, and so many pouring in every week, they could care less about contributors being frustrated or giving up.

I've been doing microstock for a year and it seems to be making progressively less sense.   It's just an occasional thing with me now. I've given up on ever making any serious money through these channels.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2010, 23:00 by stockastic »

« Reply #61 on: March 23, 2010, 22:22 »
0
Back to my original topic - Sock Monkey was accepted by SS, DT and FT, no problem.  It's even sold a couple of timess, so I decided to try another one, came up with what I thought was a funny and topical idea using the sock monkey.  

SS, although they approved the first one, rejected the second one as "trademark... not editorial".  

I resubmitted as "editorial".  

SS then rejected it as "not an editorial image."
« Last Edit: March 23, 2010, 22:34 by stockastic »

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #62 on: March 24, 2010, 05:47 »
0
Re. colours, as some intelligent lady mentioned earlier, Cadbury don't want chocolate companies to use purple, but they know, that other companies ARE ENTITLED to use purple if they wish on their packaging since Cadbury DID NOT INVENT THE COLOUR! :D So let's get a little bit real here..

What you can do legally, if someone sells a yellow tractor, or purple bar of chocolate, is sue them on the basis that they are IMPERSONATING your company, in order to make a sale. And by the way these law suits almost never win because it's extremely hard to prove. The person using the colour of your branding would have to take money knowing that the customer may be mistaken in the identity of your brand, as distinct from a trademarked one, in fact the trademark doesn't even have to exist to sue on this basis..

You can use any colour you want, as long as it's not red with a yellow M, for a chip shop that isn't MacDonalds, not because they own the colours red and yellow, but because it could be proven that the customers think you are MacD's, therefore you are impersonating another business.. but their legal team would even still have to prove that you took money from people who believed you were MacD's.

With stock images and copyright/branding, I mean, I do think they are taking it too far at times, but then I have absolutely no idea what trouble they get into if they leave something slip by.. if the legal consequences are very bad, then I understand 'over' vigilance.

« Reply #63 on: March 24, 2010, 06:51 »
0
What you can do legally, if someone sells a yellow tractor, or purple bar of chocolate, is sue them on the basis that they are IMPERSONATING your company, in order to make a sale. And by the way these law suits almost never win because it's extremely hard to prove.


Really, they almost never win?
http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/bt/int/20071018/20071018_wham-o.html
Following a seven-day trial, Slip 'N Slide manufacturer Wham-O Inc. has won a $6 million jury verdict that found that rival ToyQuest willfully infringed its federally registered trademark for the color yellow for water slides.
http://www.colormatters.com/color_trademark.html
A federal district court ruled in favor of Dap and granted protection to their red packaging.
http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/news-announcements/60683-mlb-properties-settles-trademark-lawsuit-upper-deck.html
Upper Deck agreed it will not make any new sets of cards using MLB logos, uniforms, trade dress, or Club color combinations.

« Reply #64 on: March 24, 2010, 13:13 »
0
What you can do legally, if someone sells a yellow tractor, or purple bar of chocolate, is sue them on the basis that they are IMPERSONATING your company, in order to make a sale. And by the way these law suits almost never win because it's extremely hard to prove.


Really, they almost never win?
http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/bt/int/20071018/20071018_wham-o.html
Following a seven-day trial, Slip 'N Slide manufacturer Wham-O Inc. has won a $6 million jury verdict that found that rival ToyQuest willfully infringed its federally registered trademark for the color yellow for water slides.
http://www.colormatters.com/color_trademark.html
A federal district court ruled in favor of Dap and granted protection to their red packaging.
http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/news-announcements/60683-mlb-properties-settles-trademark-lawsuit-upper-deck.html
Upper Deck agreed it will not make any new sets of cards using MLB logos, uniforms, trade dress, or Club color combinations.


i still don't understand why any photographer would risk all the consequeces just for a few pennies for a dl.
it isn't that you don't have anything else to shoot.
oh, or is it because they think they found a "niche" because there is no one who has uploaded those images?
well, the reason why they didn't is just that, the established stock photographers like Sean,etc.. know better than to risk
receiving a Cease and Desist order.

once, someone did erroneously stated here that it is not the contributor's responsibility , but the buyer. so you can risk anything .
but i am not sure about that too. as if i am not mistaken, in the agreement it is us the contributor who gets the boots everytime.

IS rejected several of my work based on "risk of IP infringement". 
i am actually not as informed as i should be. for that, i have since increased my priority to IS since i feel the reviewer is more informed
and it sort of makes me feel more comfortable . i'd sooner accept the rejection than get an approval then rush back to delete the image after finding out i could be in deep sh*t .

still, i do see other sites with these images , some even on their front page.
this makes me squirm for being a contributor there.
would you not?   exit stage left... really quick. including deleting all my images with them, little by little. esp. if their sales is almost
non existent. no wonder !

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #65 on: March 24, 2010, 15:48 »
0
What you can do legally, if someone sells a yellow tractor, or purple bar of chocolate, is sue them on the basis that they are IMPERSONATING your company, in order to make a sale. And by the way these law suits almost never win because it's extremely hard to prove.


Really, they almost never win?
http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/bt/int/20071018/20071018_wham-o.html
Following a seven-day trial, Slip 'N Slide manufacturer Wham-O Inc. has won a $6 million jury verdict that found that rival ToyQuest willfully infringed its federally registered trademark for the color yellow for water slides.
http://www.colormatters.com/color_trademark.html
A federal district court ruled in favor of Dap and granted protection to their red packaging.
http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/news-announcements/60683-mlb-properties-settles-trademark-lawsuit-upper-deck.html
Upper Deck agreed it will not make any new sets of cards using MLB logos, uniforms, trade dress, or Club color combinations.


I'm sure if you go speak to the lawyer involved in that case, you will find the argument included 'impersonation' of the business as part of the suit, otherwise they would not have won..

"The jury rendered a verdict against ToyQuest for willful infringement, intentional false advertising, and willful dilution of WHAM-O's famous YELLOW trademark."

"The verdict is a major victory for WHAM-O in its ongoing efforts to prevent others from using its federally registered trademarks to deceive consumers into thinking they are purchasing original WHAM-O products."

Anyway, back on topic.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2010, 15:54 by hqimages »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
6048 Views
Last post December 13, 2007, 18:52
by cathyslife
13 Replies
6281 Views
Last post March 22, 2008, 14:37
by fintastique
9 Replies
8326 Views
Last post March 27, 2009, 20:29
by madelaide
46 Replies
25626 Views
Last post April 29, 2010, 07:09
by click_click
25 Replies
9867 Views
Last post November 02, 2017, 03:04
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors