pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStockphoto upset contributors again......  (Read 5573 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Cogent Marketing

« on: August 02, 2011, 15:47 »
0
It now appears 'someone' has decided to deactivate existing (and high selling) files of playing cards, poker cards etc due to copyright issues on the design on the King, Queen, Jack etc and also the fonts used for Ace, 2,3,4, etc. Once again a new policy that hits contributors hard with no 'real' explanation of why files are being deactivated. I am truly amazed that anyone is staying with these bunch of clowns. I'm not affected fortunately, although believe it or not, I did as shoot only this afternoon for a client with a stack of cards based on the Queen Of Hearts theme but as it was a commissioned project I would not be uploading them to iSP anyhow. Is there any limit that iSP won't go to to totally pi** o** their contributors?


« Reply #1 on: August 02, 2011, 16:37 »
0
Yeah it hit me as well.

They deactivated a bunch of files that were uploaded incidentally without asking for a PR.

On one file they did ask for a PR before accepting it, which I provided. But previously approved images didn't seem to be affected - back then.

Now they removed them.

Luckily I registered copyright on the designs of the cards (my own illustrations) and provided IS with my file ID with the US Copyright Office.

I wonder how far IS wants to take this one but I did my homework.

lisafx

« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2011, 16:39 »
0
Wow.  I am not affected, but this is going to hurt some people.

Smart move, Click Click, to have designed your own set of cards!

helix7

« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2011, 16:43 »
0
...I wonder how far IS wants to take this one but I did my homework.

Lots of people did their own homework as well, and found that face card designs are fair game for stock. Guys like Sean, who I'm sure do plenty of research into things like this before investing in a shoot.

It would be very odd if it turns out that istock is the only company removing these images. Seems like an important niche in stock that buyers will be forced to go elsewhere for.

« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2011, 17:52 »
0
...I wonder how far IS wants to take this one but I did my homework.

Lots of people did their own homework as well, and found that face card designs are fair game for stock. Guys like Sean, who I'm sure do plenty of research into things like this before investing in a shoot.

It would be very odd if it turns out that istock is the only company removing these images. Seems like an important niche in stock that buyers will be forced to go elsewhere for.

And I have always thought the opposite. I know I have seen a thread in the past (over the past 6 years at some point) where cards were copyrighted. Just like the Scrabble game tiles, crayons, etc. Even when the logo isn't shown.

Part of the problem is the inconsistencies of the reviewers. One reviewer might have rejected a card shot, whereas 5 others let them through. Exact same thing with maps. I had an image rejected because I showed a map in the photo (part of the overall concept, but not the main subject) and yet look at the number of close-ups of maps there are, where the map is the main subject.

RT


« Reply #5 on: August 02, 2011, 17:58 »
0
I know I have seen a thread in the past (over the past 6 years at some point) where cards were copyrighted.


If I remember correctly it was to do with this brand of card : http://www.usplayingcard.com/pages/copyright/16.php

I'm guessing that they've instigated this policy because to the untrained eye it would be impossible for a reviewer to know whether the card is from them or someone else, therefore blanket policy.

« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2011, 19:04 »
0
I know I have seen a thread in the past (over the past 6 years at some point) where cards were copyrighted.


If I remember correctly it was to do with this brand of card : http://www.usplayingcard.com/pages/copyright/16.php

I'm guessing that they've instigated this policy because to the untrained eye it would be impossible for a reviewer to know whether the card is from them or someone else, therefore blanket policy.


That sounds correct, RT.

« Reply #7 on: August 02, 2011, 19:10 »
0
I feel sorry for those who are losing images, but I'm surprised that people are surprised.  It has been in the technical wiki since May 2005
http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_copyright_list.php?Keyword=&CategoryID=0&Sort=&page=19


"There are countless theories about the origin of playing cards, but one thing for sure is that BICYCLE, BEE, AVIATOR, HOYLE, CLUB SPECIAL, the Rider Back Design, the Diamond Back Design and the Goddess of Liberty are registered trademarks of The United States Playing Card Company in the United States and other countries.

Copyright and/or trademark applies to a majority of playing cards. It is the card back designs and the designs of Aces, Faces and Jokers that usually separate the brands, and these designs are protected under trademark by their respective manufacturers."


I suspect that images accepted showing either of these was accepted by mistake and lawyers from the United States Playing Card Company came calling because they found too many of their designs on Istock.


SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #9 on: August 02, 2011, 20:44 »
0
same thing I posted in iStock forum:

I don't have playing card images (actually I have just two). this kind of deactivation is scary for all of us. it's not fair to accept files, allow them to sell and then deactivate them regardless of the work and time spent creating them. I wonder if the rule makers ever take into account how much work goes into our shoots.......this kind of thing affects all of us, even if we're not directly affected in this instance.


traveler1116

« Reply #11 on: August 03, 2011, 00:56 »
0
It now appears 'someone' has decided to deactivate existing (and high selling) files of playing cards, poker cards etc due to copyright issues on the design on the King, Queen, Jack etc and also the fonts used for Ace, 2,3,4, etc. Once again a new policy that hits contributors hard with no 'real' explanation of why files are being deactivated. I am truly amazed that anyone is staying with these bunch of clowns. I'm not affected fortunately, although believe it or not, I did as shoot only this afternoon for a client with a stack of cards based on the Queen Of Hearts theme but as it was a commissioned project I would not be uploading them to iSP anyhow. Is there any limit that iSP won't go to to totally pi** o** their contributors?

I don't think IS is doing this to totally piss off their contributors, I would guess they feel the risk of litigation is not worth it.

« Reply #12 on: August 03, 2011, 03:43 »
0
I had one deactivated.  My cards are from a very old Bezique set by Cavendish, printed by Thos De La Roux Co. LTD London.  I have emailed to ask if it really needs to be deactivated, as these cards aren't on the list of companies that have copyrighted their designs and I can't find any information about them being copyrighted.

And istock still have photos of British coins and notes that aren't allowed to be sold as RF.  Shutterstock got rid of theirs and I removed mine from istock.  Strange how some rules are applied and others are ignored.

Cogent Marketing

« Reply #13 on: August 03, 2011, 09:30 »
0
It now appears 'someone' has decided to deactivate existing (and high selling) files of playing cards, poker cards etc due to copyright issues on the design on the King, Queen, Jack etc and also the fonts used for Ace, 2,3,4, etc. Once again a new policy that hits contributors hard with no 'real' explanation of why files are being deactivated. I am truly amazed that anyone is staying with these bunch of clowns. I'm not affected fortunately, although believe it or not, I did as shoot only this afternoon for a client with a stack of cards based on the Queen Of Hearts theme but as it was a commissioned project I would not be uploading them to iSP anyhow. Is there any limit that iSP won't go to to totally pi** o** their contributors?

I don't think IS is doing this to totally piss off their contributors, I would guess they feel the risk of litigation is not worth it.
You might be right but the lack of information given prior to any action taken had that exact effect on members. It's similar (but not so serious) as the January claw-back of royalties due to unlawful downloads - information only comes out as an explanation after the horse has bolted and when members are completely incensed and demand answers. I just don't think iSP have the capacity or willingness to learn from previous mistakes or really think beyond their profit margins to the actual people that generate their wealth and their jobs. Without the contributors both excl and non - iSP simply would not exist.

ShadySue

« Reply #14 on: August 03, 2011, 09:39 »
0
It now appears 'someone' has decided to deactivate existing (and high selling) files of playing cards, poker cards etc due to copyright issues on the design on the King, Queen, Jack etc and also the fonts used for Ace, 2,3,4, etc. Once again a new policy that hits contributors hard with no 'real' explanation of why files are being deactivated. I am truly amazed that anyone is staying with these bunch of clowns. I'm not affected fortunately, although believe it or not, I did as shoot only this afternoon for a client with a stack of cards based on the Queen Of Hearts theme but as it was a commissioned project I would not be uploading them to iSP anyhow. Is there any limit that iSP won't go to to totally pi** o** their contributors?

I don't think IS is doing this to totally piss off their contributors, I would guess they feel the risk of litigation is not worth it.
And to play devil's advocate, the info is in the technical wiki and there have been threads about it.
That said, what is and isn't allowed is a mystery to me. I had some pics, which had sold a few in early days, which is unusual for me, deactivated. This year, I uploaded them as editorial, and half were refused for my usual - lighting. But as I was uploading them, I noticed at least two of the same thing in the main collection, uploaded after mine. It's all to do with inspector judgement, and I certainly wouldn't like the job.

« Reply #15 on: August 03, 2011, 10:05 »
0
half were refused for my usual - lighting

Usual ? If you are regularly getting lighting rejections then you need to look at your work flow - also any calibration issues and / or potentially monitor quality and settings. The best starting point for that might be peer critique either here or at the iStockphoto forum.

ShadySue

« Reply #16 on: August 03, 2011, 10:07 »
0
half were refused for my usual - lighting

Usual ? If you are regularly getting lighting rejections then you need to look at your work flow - also any calibration issues and / or potentially monitor quality and settings. The best starting point for that might be peer critique either here or at the iStockphoto forum.
It's just natural 'flat' light in this part of the world. I just meant it was my most common rejection reason, nothing more than that.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2011, 10:10 by ShadySue »

michealo

« Reply #17 on: August 03, 2011, 11:36 »
0
half were refused for my usual - lighting

Usual ? If you are regularly getting lighting rejections then you need to look at your work flow - also any calibration issues and / or potentially monitor quality and settings. The best starting point for that might be peer critique either here or at the iStockphoto forum.
It's just natural 'flat' light in this part of the world. I just meant it was my most common rejection reason, nothing more than that.
That is just a cop out, if you wanted to improve you could but you would rather complain ...

ShadySue

« Reply #18 on: August 03, 2011, 13:16 »
0
half were refused for my usual - lighting


Usual ? If you are regularly getting lighting rejections then you need to look at your work flow - also any calibration issues and / or potentially monitor quality and settings. The best starting point for that might be peer critique either here or at the iStockphoto forum.

It's just natural 'flat' light in this part of the world. I just meant it was my most common rejection reason, nothing more than that.

That is just a cop out, if you wanted to improve you could but you would rather complain ...

You really haven't a clue. "I get lighting rejections" is an 'observation', no more no less, just a conversational remark.
This is a 'complaint': http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/am-i-going-nuts-editorial-rejections.

« Reply #19 on: August 03, 2011, 13:19 »
0
The bigger issue is, once again, communication and training. The same thing happened when they started deactivating images that contained vehicles because BMW or Audi or Toyota wrote in and complained that the style of the vehicle was trademarked.

If they had sent out an email warning contributors that they were going to clean up then those whose images don't contain trademarked or copyrighted card decks would have been able to provide the property releases. But no it's easier for them to type in the word "Cards" and just nuke everything. The fact that well known copyrighted material was able to get past several reviewers is another issue altogether.

« Reply #20 on: August 03, 2011, 14:38 »
0
It's just natural 'flat' light in this part of the world. I just meant it was my most common rejection reason, nothing more than that.

fair enough and I'm sorry my comment got trolled :) That said I think flat lighting can sometimes be an advantage. Next time you get a lighting rejection maybe go for peer review.

« Reply #21 on: August 03, 2011, 14:56 »
0
I had a reply but they haven't addressed the issue that my photo is of playing cards that aren't on their list of companies that have copyrighted them.  I suppose it's too much to ask for them to go through each individual case.

ShadySue

« Reply #22 on: August 03, 2011, 16:28 »
0
Similarly, there's a thread now in the editorial forum about a clock face being deactivated with a note that it couldn't be submitted as editorial.
The subject moved on to the Louvre Pyramid, and the bottom line was that 'photos where the Louvre Pyramid is the main subject' wouldn't be accepted as editorial.
Hmm. Search on 'Louvre Pyramid'. "Not the main subject"?

« Reply #23 on: August 03, 2011, 17:11 »
0
Why can't you have the louvre as editorial, isn't that the point of editorial. Or is it some Istock wierdness again.

The ones that have got through are enjoying it though, I wish most of my subjects only had 28 to compete with.

« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2011, 17:23 »
0
Why can't you have the louvre as editorial, isn't that the point of editorial

My guess / hunch would be that it is RF (and self service) which is the issue. Getty has lots of unreleased RM images of the Louvre pyramid as a main subject. Including in the Flickr collection. But because they are RM that means presumably that there is going to be a conversation with the client about the usage ahead of any sale.

I might be wrong.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
3031 Views
Last post January 23, 2008, 11:15
by mekarim
36 Replies
7461 Views
Last post November 10, 2010, 17:26
by luissantos84
16 Replies
5285 Views
Last post July 27, 2013, 17:03
by shudderstok
18 Replies
23334 Views
Last post November 06, 2014, 23:18
by Hobostocker
37 Replies
4884 Views
Last post August 14, 2018, 12:30
by mj007

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors