Author Topic: Ayer's Rock in Australia Copyright/Trademark? (Read 1194 times)

steheap · « **on:** June 07, 2010, 13:25 »

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

cclapper · « **Reply #1 on:** June 07, 2010, 13:29 »

Natural landscape images in general are not, but some of these more famous ones are off-limits, Ayers Rock being one of them. I don't know if SS has a wiki for those places that are copyrighted, but IS does here:

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

stormchaser · « **Reply #2 on:** June 07, 2010, 15:03 »

Quote from: steheap on June 07, 2010, 13:25

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.

Oldhand · « **Reply #3 on:** June 07, 2010, 15:46 »

What an utter load of old rubbish, OK SS and IS are protecting themselves from litigation, but whichever legal entity allows places of natural beauty to be tradmarked is a joke. I had the same problem with the words "world cup". Why don't they just copyright our thoughts as well.

Rant over

Oldhand

PS - Looking forward to teaching the yanks a lesson on Saturday!!!

Phil · « **Reply #4 on:** June 07, 2010, 15:52 »

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.

steheap · « **Reply #5 on:** June 07, 2010, 16:59 »

Thanks for all the helpful responses. I suppose I could argue that some of the images were taken from a helicopter and not in the park, but I guess the answer would be that all the air above the park is also their property! I'll just put it down to experience!

Steve

Colette · « **Reply #6 on:** June 07, 2010, 18:05 »

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

Phil · « **Reply #7 on:** June 07, 2010, 18:32 »

Quote from: steheap on June 07, 2010, 16:59

Thanks for all the helpful responses. I suppose I could argue that some of the images were taken from a helicopter and not in the park, but I guess the answer would be that all the air above the park is also their property! I'll just put it down to experience!

Steve

its images of the rock not just in the park (who knows what laws they are using

. when i looked at it a couple of years ago, it was images from aircraft they were most concerned about