MicrostockGroup

Hi Stock Folks,

Based on my very limited experience I've noticed that CRESTOCK and Graphicleftovers are very difficult to get accepted pics- The most poplar rejection reply is the following:

Image possibly infringes on copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property or privacy rights and cannot be sold as Royalty Free. Do not resubmit. Remote design


The items of the so-called trademark issues are not unique and there is no trade mark whatsoever- all the other sites have accepted them. Let's see if I submit a photo of a cup cake this company would say it a 'Hostess" cup thus a trade mark issues.  Is this just me? The funny things (Actually not too funny) is that these companies are Low Earners - are they trying to prove a point? Maybe a small and up and coming company has to select only the best of the best to have a chance against the middle to upper tier companies- Quality over Quantity...


Tom 

The key fobs you sent in are proprietary intellectual property of the manufacturers. There are even car keys I won't take. Same with camera flashes, Gary Fong light domes. I also cannot take military insignia that could put any USA military branch in a position of promotion or endorsement. You might want to see our Restictions list for more info, which by the way, is in horrible need of an update

http://graphicleftovers.com/restrictions/

So when you say "no trademark whatsoever" you might want to rethink that.

And the Hostess chocolate cakes with the white icing scroll, you are right, I won't take them. These days, it's much more than removing a logo.

We're not trying to prove a point - we are doing what is right to protect buyers.

Unfortunately you're likely to get conflicting opinions here.  

As far as I know, the end user - i.e. buyer - of the photo is ultimately responsible for its proper use.   But the microstock agencies clearly want to assure their users that the images they buy are 'safe' and some may make guarantees to that effect, meaning they're liable for legal costs if there's a suit.

In recent years, big companies (with big legal departments) have gone totally over the edge in asserting copyright on various visual aspects of their products, even including shapes and colors, and nonsense like the squiggle on the cupcake, and they've apparently been winning in court, or at least scaring people.    In general, clearly recognizable products are  a bad idea, even if they're somewhere in the background.

The car keys and remote that are mention here have been sold by a few stock companies thus do I need to contact them asap and have the sales returned with the photos taken offsite? Kind of sucks since they have been my best sellers - go figure! I will have to keep up with all the trademark stuff to keep of the most wanted list...

No.  We don't need to be that paranoid.  Like I said, the buyer and the agency have the real liability.

Depneds on the terms of the companies. You seem to be submitting to many companies without being clear on the terms, conditions and modus operandi of each site. As stated above, read all the small print on all the sites you submit to. Write down the significant points and differences between them.
Some sites state clearly that the onus is on you (the supplier of images).
Other sites you just have to say whether you have a model release and/or a property release and the t&c clearly state that the end use is the responsibility of the buyer.
As others have said, don't try to run before you can crawl - you could fall over and get badly hurt.

Now this is what I call a trademark concern-

http://us.fotolia.com/id/23218355

at least I removed the brand name and model number.   

I feel I need to apologize to all- I blew a fuse (a tad) on my rejections. I am the one, not the stock companies or photo editors, to blame on my rejections. I have a lot to learn both technically and business wise before I should open my mouth! Reaching higher standards means being a better photographer and reading all the by-laws before firing away at anyone. The stock company is trying keep my backside out of trouble which I thank them and the other stock folks as well...


Tom

For the most part, everything that isn't grown or found on the ground was made by someone and has the potential for problems. In fact I know of at least one site that says you can't submit a picture of a rock that is over a million years old.  I am a rock climber, and I could tell you the manufacturer of most of the gear in the rock climbing pictures at the sites. I am sure a gun collector could id most of the firearms, same for cars, computers, cell phones, stuffed animals... even with any logos removed. Apparently those aren't really a problem because nobody has been sued - yet.

Most sites put the burden on the buyers and on the photographers. The just want to cover their ass-ets.

That said, some companies are known for going after users of images of their product - apple, various car manufacturers, etc.  

If a site doesn't want something, they don't have to accept it. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. Their sandbox, their rules.

Many things are rejected now that were accepted in the past, some are good sellers.  Some sites have gone back and removed them, others haven't.

This can be a weird business we are in. It does take a thick skin sometimes.

Tom

I am not sure the LLC is going to help; corps. will only protect you for mistakes, many lawyers will classify this mistake as willful negligence because of your clear failure to read the fine print.

Corps are a pain in the back side, filing tax documents, filing corp. papers, etc.  Better to take a step back and shoot more, submit less until you learn a bit more and read more of the fine print.

All that being said, I have heard GL is a bit more aggressive with rejections of logo/TM issues than others; I do not have a problem with their position; I have never had logo/TM issues.

Thank you all! Did I get an education today! Never a boring day in this stock world for sure...



Tom

http://www.petapixel.com/2010/02/03/public-art-lands-photog-in-hot-water/

Public Art Lands Photog in Hot Water

In February 2008, Seattle-based photographer Mike Hipple received a letter from the lawyers of sculptor Jack Mackie that one of his stock photographs infringed upon Mackie’s copyright. The photograph includes a portion of Mackie’s “Dance Steps on Broadway”, a public art piece created in 1979 with public funds.

Though the stock agency complied immediately with Mackie’s demands by removing the image and providing a settlement, Mackie is now suing Hipple for “copyright infringement and claiming the full measure of statutory damages, possibly $60,000 or more.”

Right or wrong, the stock agency didn't take liability past removing the image and paying some money.

That's interesting, looks like that case is still ongoing http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=1801