Author Topic: Makes you wonder... (Read 6866 times)

epixx · « **Reply #50 on:** May 14, 2009, 21:25 »

Although trade mark laws haven't changed much, practices certainly have. I've just had a number of train photos removed because of this, and it makes me wonder what on earth the owners of the trains will gain by that. They design and paint their trains in a certain way to get exposure, but they only want exposure that they can control, which reduces the same exposure tremendously. There are obviously two sides of this, but I'm afraid the corporate world is shooting themselves in the foot, if we look at the long term consequences.

There was btw. a case a few years ago about a Ford Mustang club who had printed a calendar with their classic Mustangs. Ford made them destroy the entire print run. And then people wonder why they go bankrupt?

RacePhoto · « **Reply #51 on:** May 14, 2009, 21:35 »

Quote from: Perseus on May 14, 2009, 18:29

Quote from: Pixart on May 14, 2009, 18:11
Bugger. I just got busted for a John Deere as well. My best selling photo at StockXpert is now offline.... Still for sale on Photos.com of course. Oh well, soon it will no longer sell for less than 31 cents anywhere...

I am aware of john deere green being off limits. but caterpillar. If you search IS,SS.etc you find caterpillar yellow machines . some even with the keyword caterpillar, and with 100-1000 downloads.
Confused here !

Oops I shouldn't have mentioned it, now the trademark and copyright police will come and take away all your bull dozer photos.

I think this is just as dumb as others, I'm just trying to deal with the law and face it because we don't have a choice. I think the agencies are going crazy with the rejections. Pretty soon we'll only be able to take photos of mud and dirt. Bricks will be protected by the manufacturer.

Let me end my portion of this debate with the one point that I think is missed too often. It's not the photo, it's how people use it. If we were allowed to upload the photos and the final user was responsible, then the whole problem is solved. Who knows better what they want to do with what they buy and how to use it, than the buyers? Oh wait, people who have small newsletters and websites, don't have legal teams, and may know less about the law than we do. So we get the over regulation by the agencies.

epixx · « **Reply #52 on:** May 14, 2009, 23:35 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on May 14, 2009, 21:35

Pretty soon we'll only be able to take photos of mud and dirt. Bricks will be protected by the manufacturer.

They are getting there. I just had this removed from StockXpert:

I don't know how to make a ship image more generic unless I only show a dark silhouette against the sunset

So ships are out, together with cars and trains. Airplanes are next, I suppose...

fotografer · « **Reply #53 on:** May 15, 2009, 00:10 »

He must have changed his mind then because it's actually for sale at the Simpsons ride at Universal Studios in Florida and I have seen it for sale in Europe.A quick check on internet showed that it's been for sale since the summer of 2008.

Quote from: RacePhoto on May 14, 2009, 17:58

You can even trademark something that doesn't exist. "We are unlikely to see Homer Simpson’s favorite beer anytime soon, at least in the US. Matt Groening (creator of The Simpsons TV show) has stated that he will not license the Duff trademark for a real beer, over concern that it would encourage kids to drink. Fox TV and Groening sued an Australian producer of Duff in 1995."

astrocady · « **Reply #54 on:** May 15, 2009, 08:11 »

What gets me, is that manufactures PAY to have their products used on television shows and in movies --- even to have billboards advertising their product appear in the background of a scene, but yet we can't have that same product out of focus and in the background of one of our photos.

stockastic · « **Reply #55 on:** May 15, 2009, 09:40 »

One thing I learned during my years in corporate jobs is that internally, it's all fad-driven and runs in cycles. This year, "protect your trademark" is being pushed by the legal people because it gives them a nice bullet-point for their year-end PowerPoint Send out a few threatening letters and get quick bend-overs from some little companies. It costs nothing and looks like you've done something.

But actually enforcing these wild claims in the courts would take time and money, so that's not likely to happen unless a big company thinks a trademark violation is actually hurting the bottom line.

My point is that this will eventually pass. It will become a dead issue due to lack of enforcement. Outside of a couple of junior lawyers, no one at John Deere really cares if their tractors show up in stock photos here and there.

RT · « **Reply #56 on:** May 15, 2009, 12:37 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 15, 2009, 09:40

My point is that this will eventually pass. It will become a dead issue due to lack of enforcement. Outside of a couple of junior lawyers, no one at John Deere really cares if their tractors show up in stock photos here and there.

What will eventually pass?

I don't think you realise that Leaf having his tractor image removed was nothing to do with John Deere asking for that to happen, Stockxpert are having a clear out and deactivating any images that 'might' have trademarks in them. I've had a couple of shots deactivated because Harley Davidson have trademarks, this is despite the fact that neither of my shots were Harly Davidson motorcycles, and if you read through the thread quite a few people are having shots deactivated.

I hope you haven't started a campaign against JD thinking they'd singled out Leaf and his tractor shot

Karimala · « **Reply #57 on:** May 15, 2009, 13:19 »

No shots of recognizable cell phones isolated on a white background. Just had a Motorola Razr phone deactivated.

willie · « **Reply #58 on:** May 15, 2009, 13:37 »

well, the big thing last christmas we sold out on were bluetooth headsets, GPS, for both cars and motorbikes, I wonder how many tried submitting some isolated works already.

stockastic · « **Reply #59 on:** May 15, 2009, 14:35 »

RT, John Deere may be totally innocent, I have no way of knowing, but does it really matter? Obviously the microstocks have received enough threats from big companies, claiming enough weird stuff as "trademarks", that they've decided they have to get rid of all recognizeable products. It's now a witch hunt.

RT · « **Reply #60 on:** May 15, 2009, 16:25 »

Well I'll make this my last post on this matter because I don't think you get the whole point of property rights, and you're clearly against the whole thing. But I just want to point out that not having images that feature "weird stuff as trademarks" is nothing new and it certainly isn't a microstock thing, it's been like that since the dawn of stock, you've never been allowed to sell images Royalty free for commercial use featuring anything that is covered by property rights whether it be on a micro, mid or macro stock agency.

Pixart · « **Reply #61 on:** May 15, 2009, 16:57 »

John Deere's green and yellow color scheme, the leaping deer symbol, and John Deere are trademarks of Deere & Company.

So... really, if I change the wheel wells and the yellow stripe to just green, it is no longer a color scheme? Not that I'm inclined to do so.