Nav: Home
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 26, 2012, 08:08

Login with username, password and session length

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors


« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print

Topic: IS copyright policies  

(Read 878 times)
madelaide
« on: February 12, 2009, 16:35 »

I've just seen an image of a doll, a type of copy of Barbie, accepted in IS.  The description says isolated *generic* doll.  Just because this doll is maybe made in China and not patented by Mattel, is it ok to have it?

Moreover it is not isolated (it has uneven lighting and vignetting resulting in an uneven background), but it has isolated and isolated on white as keywords.  Of course, it's from an exclusive. Grin  But mind you, this is not my concern, the copyright matter above is.

Regards,
Adelaide


Ignore | Logged


DepositPhotos.com
RT

Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2009, 17:12 »

http://www.istockphoto.com/contact_ticket.php


Ignore | Logged


bittersweet


« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2009, 17:13 »

This doll looks nothing like Barbie, and the red headed one even less so, but that one especially should not have the "isolated on white" keyword.

The copyright policy for mass-produced "generic" items is a little gray, but based on this ancient wiki entry for "toys", I am also surprised this was accepted.
http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_copyright_list.php


Logged


madelaide
« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2009, 17:40 »

Whatalife,

I didn't mean the doll was a copy of a Barbie, but a doll of the same type of a Barbie or a Suzy or a Polly, but possibly not a US-brand one, therefore the description as "generic". I just don't find it correct to have this accepted, especially as this is just the doll, not a girl playing with a doll or something like that.

RT, I have wikied the "isolated" terms, and in a note I commented about the copyright.  It is not my problem if this is copyrighted, I just don't understand how can this be accepted these days.

Regards,
Adelaide


Ignore | Logged


e-person


« Reply #4 on: February 13, 2009, 10:14 »

Poor people war. Microstockers against microstockers. Why don't you just mind your own business? Is your life too easy that you have got the time to complain and wiki other people? Live and let live.

Logged


RT

Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #5 on: February 13, 2009, 13:16 »

RT, I have wikied the "isolated" terms, and in a note I commented about the copyright.  It is not my problem if this is copyrighted, I just don't understand how can this be accepted these days.

Regards,
Adelaide

Sorry when you wrote:

 "But mind you, this is not my concern, the copyright matter above is."

I presumed you worked for Barbie or Mattell or whoever makes the doll and wanted to do something about the copyright infringement, if it was just curiosity I suggest you never look through Dreamstime they have the worst selection of copyrighted images I've ever seen.

In this instance maybe you should PM the contributor and give them a heads up, maybe they didn't know.


Ignore | Logged


Envateo Photo ToolsMicrostock Insider
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
Copyright query
Off Topic
snapper 20 2719 Last post November 03, 2007, 11:05
by madelaide
copyright law broken
General Stock Discussion
leaf 6 1731 Last post October 17, 2007, 17:10
by litifeta
Copyright
Dreamstime.com
CofkoCof 7 1585 Last post November 22, 2008, 18:57
by madelaide
Policies and bad contributor relations
Shutterstock.com
ichiro17 17 1675 Last post August 24, 2009, 17:34
by lisafx
Property policies at SS, I need you expert microstockers to understand this
Shutterstock.com
Autumnleaves 11 1190 Last post December 09, 2010, 06:48
by luissantos84

TinyPortal v1.0.5 beta 1© Bloc