pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Video footage rejected due to Military and national symbols  (Read 1574 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 19, 2017, 08:45 »
0
Just got some videos of F-35 aircraft rejected due to intellectual property issues.
After I requested explination SS reps told me they treat all national symbols as proteced elements, hence the national air force (IAF) signs on the plane wings are what caused the rejection.
I recently consulted an IP lawyer who specifically told me that all national symbols are Creative Commons.
I know for a fact that the american Eagle, or the Israeli star of david are not, and will never be, protected.

how should I deal with this?
They are abviously wrong...


Bad Company

« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2017, 08:51 »
+2
Just got some videos of F-35 aircraft rejected due to intellectual property issues.
After I requested explination SS reps told me they treat all national symbols as proteced elements, hence the national air force (IAF) signs on the plane wings are what caused the rejection.
I recently consulted an IP lawyer who specifically told me that all national symbols are Creative Commons.
I know for a fact that the american Eagle, or the Israeli star of david are not, and will never be, protected.

how should I deal with this?
They are abviously wrong...

Give up. Why fight them? Even if you win you make like a few $.25 subs?  Just move on -Do more work that will make you more money than these images anyway...

« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2017, 08:55 »
+2
Just got some videos of F-35 aircraft rejected due to intellectual property issues.
After I requested explination SS reps told me they treat all national symbols as proteced elements, hence the national air force (IAF) signs on the plane wings are what caused the rejection.
I recently consulted an IP lawyer who specifically told me that all national symbols are Creative Commons.
I know for a fact that the american Eagle, or the Israeli star of david are not, and will never be, protected.

how should I deal with this?
They are abviously wrong...

Give up. Why fight them? Even if you win you make like a few $.25 subs?  Just move on -Do more work that will make you more money than these images anyway...

I disagree.
Each of these videos is quite hard to come by, especially as commercial ones. They sell for $25-$60 each (my share) for every sale. I had rare access to an air force base with a big telephoto lens. These videos could make me hundreds of $$ in the coming months/years.

substancep

  • Medical, science, nature, and macro photography

« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2017, 09:10 »
+4
Just got some videos of F-35 aircraft rejected due to intellectual property issues.
After I requested explination SS reps told me they treat all national symbols as proteced elements, hence the national air force (IAF) signs on the plane wings are what caused the rejection.
I recently consulted an IP lawyer who specifically told me that all national symbols are Creative Commons.
I know for a fact that the american Eagle, or the Israeli star of david are not, and will never be, protected.

how should I deal with this?
They are abviously wrong...

The F35 Jet's design is the intellectual property of Lockheed Martin, therefore, there may be copyrighting issues. If you really can't upload it as a commercial video, then you can still upload it as an editorial video.

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2017, 09:10 »
+1
Quote
how should I deal with this?

Any value as editorials?

« Reply #5 on: July 19, 2017, 09:14 »
0
Quote
how should I deal with this?

Any value as editorials?

Well, yes. Since they are videos of military fighters - they could sell as editorial. But there are some (not many) editorial clips of these jets. I wanted to have the only good quality commercial clips out there. And then came the infamous SS reviewers... :(

« Reply #6 on: July 19, 2017, 09:18 »
0
Here is a link to the same clip - accepted at P5.

https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/77281637/f35-stealth-fighter-flying-high-speed-low-altitude.html

Tell me what you think...

« Reply #7 on: July 19, 2017, 09:20 »
0
Just got some videos of F-35 aircraft rejected due to intellectual property issues.
After I requested explination SS reps told me they treat all national symbols as proteced elements, hence the national air force (IAF) signs on the plane wings are what caused the rejection.
I recently consulted an IP lawyer who specifically told me that all national symbols are Creative Commons.
I know for a fact that the american Eagle, or the Israeli star of david are not, and will never be, protected.

how should I deal with this?
They are abviously wrong...

The F35 Jet's design is the intellectual property of Lockheed Martin, therefore, there may be copyrighting issues. If you really can't upload it as a commercial video, then you can still upload it as an editorial video.

This is not the case - since other clips of these jets were accepted - where you can't see the IAF logo.(which BTW is a plain star of david in a circle)

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #8 on: July 19, 2017, 09:23 »
+1
Quote
Well, yes. Since they are videos of military fighters - they could sell as editorial. But there are some (not many) editorial clips of these jets. I wanted to have the only good quality commercial clips out there. And then came the infamous SS reviewers...

Between you and I (and the rest of the world), try re-submitting it with another batch and don't put "previously submitted content". It may go to another reviewer who may accept this borderline case.

« Reply #9 on: July 19, 2017, 09:34 »
0
I agree with this article. https://www.microstockguru.com/editorial-or-commercial-license/

"Editorial licenses are a legal loophole for the Agencies to sell a wider variety of content."

"Stock footage and stock images sold with this license are rarely used by the news."

just submit it as editorial if they won't accept it for commercial and let the customers decide.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #10 on: July 19, 2017, 11:35 »
0
Remove the symbols and submit again?

« Reply #11 on: July 19, 2017, 11:53 »
+2
Just got some videos of F-35 aircraft rejected due to intellectual property issues.
After I requested explination SS reps told me they treat all national symbols as proteced elements, hence the national air force (IAF) signs on the plane wings are what caused the rejection.
I recently consulted an IP lawyer who specifically told me that all national symbols are Creative Commons.
I know for a fact that the american Eagle, or the Israeli star of david are not, and will never be, protected.

how should I deal with this?
They are abviously wrong...

Give up. Why fight them? Even if you win you make like a few $.25 subs?  Just move on -Do more work that will make you more money than these images anyway...

I disagree.
Each of these videos is quite hard to come by, especially as commercial ones. They sell for $25-$60 each (my share) for every sale. I had rare access to an air force base with a big telephoto lens. These videos could make me hundreds of $$ in the coming months/years.

Right or wrong, it is the agency's rules. Its like alamy requires model releases if a finger is in a photo even though the person is not recognizable.....which is the purpose of a model release. So i would not spend a lot of time on this unless you think a few emails will get them to change their minds. 

« Reply #12 on: July 19, 2017, 13:14 »
+2
Just got some videos of F-35 aircraft rejected due to intellectual property issues.
After I requested explination SS reps told me they treat all national symbols as proteced elements, hence the national air force (IAF) signs on the plane wings are what caused the rejection.
I recently consulted an IP lawyer who specifically told me that all national symbols are Creative Commons.
I know for a fact that the american Eagle, or the Israeli star of david are not, and will never be, protected.

how should I deal with this?
They are abviously wrong...

Give up. Why fight them? Even if you win you make like a few $.25 subs?  Just move on -Do more work that will make you more money than these images anyway...

I disagree.
Each of these videos is quite hard to come by, especially as commercial ones. They sell for $25-$60 each (my share) for every sale. I had rare access to an air force base with a big telephoto lens. These videos could make me hundreds of $$ in the coming months/years.

Right or wrong, it is the agency's rules. Its like alamy requires model releases if a finger is in a photo even though the person is not recognizable.....which is the purpose of a model release. So i would not spend a lot of time on this unless you think a few emails will get them to change their minds.

in the case of ShutterStock I would say the best bet is to keep resubmitting until a dumb reviewer lets them in...:)
(I had 42 clips rejected from that batch - now i'm down to these 4 after resubmitting.

« Reply #13 on: July 19, 2017, 14:19 »
+3
Forget about it... we got rejected footage of a car shoot to close and it is now (because of new rules on SS) under copyright law because of "recognizable brand". No matter if we deleted all logos from the car. It is just a matter of time when even hot-dog will be rejected because it could be recognizable by its maker.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3242 Views
Last post November 23, 2008, 18:22
by stokfoto
8 Replies
2942 Views
Last post December 22, 2008, 14:13
by Read_My_Rights
12 Replies
21836 Views
Last post January 04, 2015, 13:38
by MichaelRon
1 Replies
577 Views
Last post February 26, 2017, 05:06
by Pauws99
8 Replies
1650 Views
Last post March 12, 2017, 20:58
by dragonblade

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors