pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: File Deactivation For Copyright Issue  (Read 2782 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

123XXX

« on: November 20, 2010, 01:46 »
0
I recently had a file deactivated by IS because of a copyright issue on the design of a small item appearing in the photo.

I did some research on the item in question and learned that the original design was created in Europe in the early 1950s. According to design patent laws in Europe, all designs that are older than 50 years become public domain and people may freely produce legal replicas and reproductions of the original design without causing any copyright infringement.

In my case, the item in question is in fact a legal replica I believe. However, there is no copyright issue on the design itself of this item as far as I understand since the age of the original design itself already exceeds 50 years.

Has anyone had any similar experiences I am wondering?

Cheers...
« Last Edit: November 20, 2010, 02:20 by 123XXX »


« Reply #1 on: November 20, 2010, 04:05 »
0
It's actually 70 years in Europe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Duration_Directive
Whatever the case they must have thought there was a risk.
Can you clone the item out?

ShadySue

« Reply #2 on: November 20, 2010, 04:14 »
0
It's actually 70 years in Europe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Duration_Directive
Whatever the case they must have thought there was a risk.
Can you clone the item out?

70 years after the death of the artist.
iStock always errs on the side of caution.
Once when I Scouted an image which had been rejected as copyright though well out of the 70 years pma, the image was accepted but with the cryptic note from Scout that the 70 years rule wasn't the only one they considered, but with no further information.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2010, 06:16 by ShadySue »

123XXX

« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2010, 04:25 »
0
Thank you both. That is great input and clarifies things much better for me on this issue. Unfortunately the items are too big to be cloned. But that is OK. Just need to move onto shooting the next image :)

« Reply #4 on: November 20, 2010, 06:07 »
0
It's actually 70 years in Europe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Duration_Directive
Whatever the case they must have thought there was a risk.
Can you clone the item out?

70 years after the death of the artist.
But iStock always errs on the side of caution.
Once when I Scouted an image which had been rejected as copyright though well out of the 70 years pma, the image was accepted but with the cryptic note from Scout that the 70 years rule wasn't the only one they considered, but with no further information.


I wish they'd give a bit more info on these sort of things, but the usual answer is that they deal with them as individual cases. I suppose that's fair enough really.
The OP has the right idea by my thinking. If a particular subject is known to be problematic, it's better to move on.

123XXX

« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2010, 06:28 »
0
Thanks. The sad thing is the image had been online for some time already before it was deactivated and was getting good downloads. Again, the only way to go is forward from here  ;)

ShadySue

« Reply #6 on: November 20, 2010, 06:40 »
0
Thanks. The sad thing is the image had been online for some time already before it was deactivated and was getting good downloads. Again, the only way to go is forward from here  ;)
Oh, I hate it when that happens: you can't even send it RM/editorial if it's already sold RF.
Added: in theory you can, if the RM is simply that the buyer is buying rights to use the image, without any guarantee that the image hasn't been used before. Many buyers do buy RM on this basis, but I don't know which, if any, agencies would accept an image, previously sold as RF. Maybe someone can enlighten us?
« Last Edit: November 20, 2010, 09:01 by ShadySue »

123XXX

« Reply #7 on: November 20, 2010, 06:47 »
0
If you are exclusive with iStock, then you could not do that anyway with an image previously submitted to iStock.

ShadySue

« Reply #8 on: November 20, 2010, 07:41 »
0
If you are exclusive with iStock, then you could not do that anyway with an image previously submitted to iStock.
Yes, you can. If it was accepted and hadn't sold any, we can deactivate the file ourselves and send it RM, or if deactivated by iStock, we can also send RM.
However, if a file is rejected on submission, we need to ask CR for permission, which IME has always been granted.
Bizarre, but true.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2010, 08:25 by ShadySue »

« Reply #9 on: November 20, 2010, 08:17 »
0
Hello: I was going to start a new post on exactly the same subject here.
In my case they have deactivated 20 images, one of them being my most downloaded with 584 DL and a DLs/mo rate of 40.4, withc means the image was downloaded several times a day. Thay have just kill my projections of income there. Other have more than 100 Dl also.
This images were all 3D models of design chairs like the barcelona chair. This images are in all my portafolios in others agencys and as mentioned have been selling for long time in IS also. This was another BIG disapointment on IS for me.
Even if they are right about the copyright, being a 3d model not identical to the real object, wouldnt that be allowed? Isnt this a similar case to all the mobilephones photos were people just clone out the logo or brand and then they can use it?
So sad right now :'(

« Reply #10 on: November 20, 2010, 08:46 »
0
It's actually 70 years in Europe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Duration_Directive
Whatever the case they must have thought there was a risk.
Can you clone the item out?

70 years after the death of the artist.
iStock always errs on the side of caution.
Once when I Scouted an image which had been rejected as copyright though well out of the 70 years pma, the image was accepted but with the cryptic note from Scout that the 70 years rule wasn't the only one they considered, but with no further information.


-------------------------------
I've run into these issues as well.  For images of illustrations (say from a book), Istock's policy according to Scout is that "illustrations and engravings such as these post 1884 may still be protected by copyright, as we prefer to err on the side of caution, we cannot accept it." 

My take is that while an would be well into public domain in most jurisdictions, its 1) possible there were some jurisdictions that way back when gave longer copyright durations.  If as a copyright holder, you 2) registered your copyright in one of those jurisdictions, you could still potentially be under copyright 3) even if you created your work in the U.S. or a European country you were permitted to register your work in other jurisdictions.  4) the contributor and Istock have no way of knowing if the individual image was registered that way, even though its highly unlikely, so they reject it. 

The thing that kills me is that since this is the policy, why not make it public? 

« Reply #11 on: November 20, 2010, 08:59 »
0
Hello: I was going to start a new post on exactly the same subject here.
In my case they have deactivated 20 images, one of them being my most downloaded with 584 DL and a DLs/mo rate of 40.4, withc means the image was downloaded several times a day. Thay have just kill my projections of income there. Other have more than 100 Dl also.
This images were all 3D models of design chairs like the barcelona chair. This images are in all my portafolios in others agencys and as mentioned have been selling for long time in IS also. This was another BIG disapointment on IS for me.
Even if they are right about the copyright, being a 3d model not identical to the real object, wouldnt that be allowed? Isnt this a similar case to all the mobilephones photos were people just clone out the logo or brand and then they can use it?
So sad right now :'(


--------------
Sorry to hear about this.  In your case, I imagine that the designer of the chair demanded that Istock take down the image or they would sue Istock.  Even if Istock is likely to win such a case, the costs of hiring lawyers to defend themselves will far outweigh their potential profits from future licenses of an image, so they deactivate rather then fight.  

Istock has previously indicated that since they are the highest profile micro RF company they are frequently the first target for these things.  I think they were first for cars, cruise ships, and guitars.  I would not be surprised if other sites also begin to deactivate similar chair images.  

On phones, in the technical wiki they do call out Samsung phones as being prohibited http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_copyright_list.php presumably because Samsung has complained.  Why not other mobile phones?  I guess they've not received complaints from those designers.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2010, 09:01 by Sadstock »

« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2010, 09:07 »
0
I found this on wikipedia:

"The functional design and elements of it that were patented by Mies in Germany, Spain and the United States in the 1930s have since expired.[citation needed] The Barcelona chair was manufactured in the US and Europe in limited production from the 1930s to the 1950s. In 1953 van der Rohe ceded his rights and his name on the design to Knoll, knowing that his design patents were expired. This collaboration then renewed popularity in the design.

Knoll claims to be the current licensed manufacturer and holder of all trademark rights to the design.[citation needed] In 1965, Knoll purchased the trademark rights to the Barcelona word from Drexel. In 2004, Knoll received trade dress rights to the design from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Despite these trademarks, a large replica market continues. Gordon International New York has continued to manufacture the designs since the 1970s, even after a court battle against Knoll in 2005.[citation needed] In 2008, another court battle erupted between Knoll and Alphaville Design California; the outcome is pending Summary Judgment in Federal District court.[citation needed]"

Linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcelona_chair

What do you think.

ShadySue

« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2010, 09:14 »
0
I think that even though exact citations are needed, iStock would be scared off by this. They don't take risks.
There have been loads of deactivations reported recently, and I'd imagine many more to come.

Microstock InsiderPhotoDune

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
3061 Views
Last post July 12, 2008, 08:18
by Nemo1024
4 Replies
3133 Views
Last post February 28, 2011, 17:43
by click_click
17 Replies
1924 Views
Last post January 15, 2013, 08:21
by jtyler
494 Replies
32022 Views
Last post March 22, 2013, 16:57
by Lizard
938 Replies
62483 Views
Last post April 30, 2014, 18:36
by deryl1975

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors