MicrostockGroup

I had a batch of images taken in Australia of Ayers Rock rejected by Shutterstock using the rejection:

"Trademark--Contains potential trademark or copyright infringement--not editorial"

This is a first for me - are natural landscape images subject to trademark or copyright? I guess this could be on private land and so controlled in that way?

Steve

Yes Ayers is on the ban list for RF and has been for awhile.

from my limited knowledge

There are areas that have spiritual / sacred significance that the traditional owners ask not to be photographed. Up to a couple of years ago you needed a commercial photography licence and in theory they would check your images to make sure they are appropriate.
They then changed the terms so that anyone using images of the rock needs a commercial licence and approval and put the onus on the end user. Whether this is revenue raiser or increased protection, whether there was an incident of inappropriate use I couldnt say, but basically anyone who buys your image needs a licence to use it commercially and as the stock sites cant enforce this so it has to be editorial only.

NSW National Parks require a commercial photogrpahy licence for any images taken in their parks. $275 a year or $110 if they can use your images. I think at least one of the other states has it too.

Now we have to wait for the first stockagency demanding a signed property release for photos with the moon in it...