Author Topic: Thoughts on this image? (Read 3976 times)

Jasonalanstudios · « **on:** August 04, 2014, 22:54 »

I think removing the 'window' on the barn would probably be good, and obviously the John Deere logo if I wanted to use it for stock.

Any and all thoughts/opinions/feedback appreciated.

http://i.imgur.com/lYseeIc.jpg [nofollow]

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1 on:** August 05, 2014, 00:30 »

For stock, the lighting will probably get you a rejection - too much is in hard, dark shadow

As far as removing the logo, that may not be enough. John Deere is pretty aggressive in going after infringements
http://www.handmadeology.com/you-have-all-heard-it-my-shop-on-etsy-was-shut-down-for-copyright-infringement/

This is older, but it may still have identifiable or protected elements

Last thing- for stock it's a bit tight - hard to use in a design. More grass in front would be better

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #2 on:** August 05, 2014, 08:55 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on August 05, 2014, 00:30

As far as removing the logo, that may not be enough. John Deere is pretty aggressive in going after infringements
http://www.handmadeology.com/you-have-all-heard-it-my-shop-on-etsy-was-shut-down-for-copyright-infringement/

when i was introduced to micro, ironically, the first batch of shots were of John Deere . the rejection was that the colour and many other elements of John Deere is protected. similar to Porsche, Mercedez, Maserati,etc.. I think there was an article a long time back on this here on MSG which covered much including Eiffel by day,etc.

Jasonalanstudios · « **Reply #3 on:** August 05, 2014, 09:50 »

Yeah, I know the green and yellow would be a no-no. I'm thinking since this is older, yellow, and has sort of a generic bulldozer look (after I remove the logo of course) it could be ok.

I also adjusted the dark levels a bit so I can probably adjust it to reduce the dark areas.

Difydave · « **Reply #4 on:** August 05, 2014, 14:17 »

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the older (?) yellow only equipment can still be a protected. I'd steer clear personally.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #5 on:** August 05, 2014, 15:04 »

jason, i googled n found this old thread, maybe it might help
http://www.microstockgroup.com/photo-critique/rejected-for-copyright-of-a-beach-house!/

lbarn · « **Reply #6 on:** August 05, 2014, 16:00 »

It seems to me to be a forestry cable skidder. They stopped using them in the US about 25 years ago, when they started mounting a large grapple which allows trees to be picked up by the operator without leaving the safety of the cab. The blade on the front is for minor road work and to push tree limbs around at the truck loading point.

Probably more than you wanted to know.........

Jasonalanstudios · « **Reply #7 on:** August 05, 2014, 17:52 »

Makes sense. It was taken here in Washington state, so the forestry/logging use would make sense. I just thought it looked super cool due to hold old and broken down it was. And just the colors in the frame. The yellow of the tractor, red of the barn, blue of the sky, and green of the grass. So much color and visual interest!

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #8 on:** August 08, 2014, 10:14 »

Eiffel by NIGHT, the lighting is what someone claims is their creation. Never been challenged in court. Tower is not protected.

John Deere's registered green and yellow color scheme, the leaping deer symbol is... but that standard industrial yellow (in the link) is not protected. Name is of course, and possibly the design.

I just had a shirt design (intended for no one else but safety workers who worked an event) taken down on Zazzle. It had the word "Ferrari" in it. No one turned me in. A) The places that are responsible and sell this stuff, regularly check their own shops for infringing words. B) Ferrari is aggressive and searches for their name. But either way, blaming competition for turning people in, is an unsupported claim.

Correct, you can not use a registered trademark, trade name, logo, or copyrighted materials and resell them as your own.

Strange aside that we have to become legal students to make photos or drawings, but that's the world we live in.

On the positive side, the same laws are supposed to protect our work! So it's not a one way street.

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 05, 2014, 08:55

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on August 05, 2014, 00:30

As far as removing the logo, that may not be enough. John Deere is pretty aggressive in going after infringements
http://www.handmadeology.com/you-have-all-heard-it-my-shop-on-etsy-was-shut-down-for-copyright-infringement/

when i was introduced to micro, ironically, the first batch of shots were of John Deere . the rejection was that the colour and many other elements of John Deere is protected. similar to Porsche, Mercedez, Maserati,etc.. I think there was an article a long time back on this here on MSG which covered much including Eiffel by day,etc.

ijansempoi · « **Reply #9 on:** August 11, 2014, 09:46 »

there's obviously a big word or logo there. I remembered a few years back, Shutterstock deleted all form of cars photo regardless of visible logos not sure if that is applicable to tractors.

Mantis · « **Reply #10 on:** August 11, 2014, 20:11 »

I have a shot of a tractor tire that shows a smidgen of the chassis and it got rejected by SS and Istock. Can't recall if I resubmitted but Jo Ann is right, John Deer does not like their trademarks exploited.