pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Intellectual Property Rejection of Image Created in Photoshop?  (Read 5778 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 12, 2017, 13:42 »
0
So I created an image of a Lotto Ticket in Photoshop so real looking that it was rejected for Intellectual Property! What is the point in creating in Photoshop if your creations are only going to get rejected for being to real looking? My Lotto Ticket was accepted at SS, Alamy, 123rf and Dreamstime no problem. I even marked it as an Illustration when I submitted it.

How can I get past a reviewer who does not take the time to realize its not real?

Maybe someone from Fotolia or Adobe Stock on here will look at my case?


SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2017, 14:03 »
+2
Well you've copied an existing design, one thatbis no doibt copyrighted, that's the issue. Maybe I could copy one of your illustrations, and when it gets rejected, I'll come back here and complain that 'what's the point in creating something in photoshop if my creations are only going to get rejected for copying somebody else's work?'

The other issue, is the potential for fraud and wrongdoing. Try creating a passport or a banknote that is 'so real looking' and see how far you get!

« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2017, 14:16 »
+4
Well you've copied an existing design, one thatbis no doibt copyrighted, that's the issue. Maybe I could copy one of your illustrations, and when it gets rejected, I'll come back here and complain that 'what's the point in creating something in photoshop if my creations are only going to get rejected for copying somebody else's work?'

The other issue, is the potential for fraud and wrongdoing. Try creating a passport or a banknote that is 'so real looking' and see how far you get!

Wow!

First of all I did not come here to complain I came here looking for answers on how to get original content past a reviewer who does not recognize the fact that my image was created by me!

What makes you think I simply copied someone else work?

As for creating a bank note I have and it has had no problem as for a passport I have submitted photos of those too with no problem.

My question to you is why are you being so Rude and jumping to conclusions?
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 14:36 by pixel8 »

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2017, 14:40 »
+1
You seem to be missing the point. It's not about whether you created it or not... it's about it looking so real that you can barely tell it apart from the real thing. So is it just some giant coincidence that your unique design looks almost exactly like a real lottery ticket, or did you actually copy a real lottery ticket?

« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2017, 14:53 »
+1
You seem to be missing the point. It's not about whether you created it or not... it's about it looking so real that you can barely tell it apart from the real thing. So is it just some giant coincidence that your unique design looks almost exactly like a real lottery ticket, or did you actually copy a real lottery ticket?

Well I certainly looked at existing lotto tickets for reference in create my design, if it does not look like a lotto ticket why would anyone buy it, just like you looked at images of earth and other space things to create your images! If you made a earth that did not look like earth why would anyone buy it if what they want is an image of earth?

All of this gets to the very heart of Stock Photography, contributors photographing things they did not make, things that are copyrighted since the original creators of those things made them not the photographers who took photos of them. And as for designers most have looked at other things to create their content so unless you are inventing something completely new then you have copied someone else!
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 15:02 by pixel8 »

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #5 on: January 12, 2017, 15:02 »
+1
The 'design' of our home planet isn't subject to copyright.

« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2017, 15:04 »
+2
The 'design' of our home planet isn't subject to copyright.

Well how do you know what shape the contents are? You had to look at someone elses image unless you have a way to get to space that the rest of us don't!

« Reply #7 on: January 12, 2017, 15:04 »
0
 Or you used someones map!

My point is you referenced other material to get the planet correct just like I referenced material to create a believable Lotto Ticket!
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 15:08 by pixel8 »

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #8 on: January 12, 2017, 15:12 »
0
I referenced, and used, material that is in the public domain, to create imagery of a 'design' or 'arrangement of matter' (i.e. Earth) that is not copyrighted, or trademarked, or patented.

You copied the work of whoever created the design for lottery tickets... a design that is most likely subject to copyright laws.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #9 on: January 12, 2017, 15:14 »
0
Or you used someones map!

My point is you referenced other material to get the planet correct just like I referenced material to create a believable Lotto Ticket!

So I could 'reference' a Beyonce album,,to create an almost perfect replica of a Beyonce album... and then just sell that album on multiple times?

« Reply #10 on: January 12, 2017, 15:29 »
0
Or you used someones map!

My point is you referenced other material to get the planet correct just like I referenced material to create a believable Lotto Ticket!

So I could 'reference' a Beyonce album,,to create an almost perfect replica of a Beyonce album... and then just sell that album on multiple times?

I am simply saying that you referenced other material that was not your own to create your image as you have no way to know what the earth looks like unless you looked at nasa photographs or looked at existing maps in order to make your earth!

If you did not look at images of earth or maps then your animations of earth would not look correct or what everyone expects to see.

Anyone who buys a Lotto Ticket expects it to look a certain way based on what actually exist, therefore if I am going to create a lotto ticket it needs to resemble what is already in existence. So naturally it only makes sense to reference existing Lotto Tickets when creating Lotto Ticket so that it will resemble a Lotto Ticket, otherwise a buyer would not make the connection that what I have created is a Lotto Ticket.

If you did not reference earth photos and maps then people would not know they were looking at the earth in your images as it would look different.

« Reply #11 on: January 12, 2017, 15:41 »
0
Anyway you are probably right! Maybe my design resembles to closely existing lottery tickets, my logo and name and graphics are all original for my lotto ticket but maybe my layout is to similar, thats the only thing I can think of, I will just have to try again! At least they accepted my Scratch Off Lotto Ticket!
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 15:44 by pixel8 »

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #12 on: January 12, 2017, 15:55 »
0
Or you used someones map!

My point is you referenced other material to get the planet correct just like I referenced material to create a believable Lotto Ticket!

So I could 'reference' a Beyonce album,,to create an almost perfect replica of a Beyonce album... and then just sell that album on multiple times?

I am simply saying that you referenced other material that was not your own to create your image as you have no way to know what the earth looks like unless you looked at nasa photographs or looked at existing maps in order to make your earth!

If you did not look at images of earth or maps then your animations of earth would not look correct or what everyone expects to see.

Anyone who buys a Lotto Ticket expects it to look a certain way based on what actually exist, therefore if I am going to create a lotto ticket it needs to resemble what is already in existence. So naturally it only makes sense to reference existing Lotto Tickets when creating Lotto Ticket so that it will resemble a Lotto Ticket, otherwise a buyer would not make the connection that what I have created is a Lotto Ticket.

If you did not reference earth photos and maps then people would not know they were looking at the earth in your images as it would look different.

Either you're trolling, you're very new to all this, or you have a serious lack of knowledge when it comes to copyright.

The design, structure and layout of the Earth is not protected by copyrights, patents or trademarks. However, if somebody takes a photo of the Earth, then that photo is afforded copyright protection, and although the photographer doesn't own the design of the Earth, nobody else does either... so there is no issue with them owning the copyright of the image itself, and are more than welcome to sell it, publish it, or give it away. Although, when the image is in the public domain, such is the case with imagery from NASA, people can do pretty much what they want with those images. Including 'referencing' them. I sometimes include NASA imagery in my compositions, as you're allowed to do that with public domain imagery.

And on a side note, there's also a lot of public domain map datasets, so it's not just images that people can use to generate accurate models of the Earth. Images are a lot easier though.     

Now in your case... A lottery ticket is a piece of paper that contains a design, a design that will have been created by a designer. Although there is a slight possibility that design will be in the public domain, it's pretty unlikely. As such, the copyright of that design will be owned by the lottery company. If you create a design that is very similar, exactly the same, or heavily influenced by that copyrighted design, then you are breaching copyright laws that protect the intellectual property of that company.

It's not about whether you created the image, or how much work you put into it, or whether you have the Photoshop file, or how real it looks etc... it's about whether you have the right to sell an image that is almost identical to somebody else's design. I say you don't, and I'm sure many copyright lawyers would agree with me.

I mean, it's not like they rejected it for fun? Have you considered that getting an image rejected for intellectual property reasons, might actually be because of intellectual property reasons? I know it's a wacky idea, but hey.. you never know! 

« Reply #13 on: January 12, 2017, 16:32 »
0
I get that the earth images are in the public domain and thus no copyright restrictions, I was not arguing that, I was making the argument that regardless of wether the earth is copyright free or not, you looked to something that was not your own to create your work.

As far as copyright is concerned stock photography is skirting a grey area, for instance if you photograph a iPhone then there is a problem, but if you photograph a lesser know phone there doesn't seem to be a problem. The lesser phone has been designed by someone, produced and sold just like the iPhone, but because its not as popular their copyright doesn't seem to matter to stock sites.

As far as lotto tickets are concerned many of them look alike, especially in their layout. I am no copyright expert, but the name and logo I created for my Lotto Ticket does not look like any in existence, my layout I admit is probably to similar, but that is where my argument is, in that if my layout is to indifferent it will not resemble a lotto ticket.

I agree they did not reject me for fun, I was under the assumption they rejected me because they thought I photographed a real lotto ticket, I made that assumption because SS, Alamy, DT and 123RF accepted my Lotto Ticket. Those sites didn't see an issue with copyright.

« Reply #14 on: January 12, 2017, 16:34 »
+3
Or you used someones map!

My point is you referenced other material to get the planet correct just like I referenced material to create a believable Lotto Ticket!

So I could 'reference' a Beyonce album,,to create an almost perfect replica of a Beyonce album... and then just sell that album on multiple times?

I am simply saying that you referenced other material that was not your own to create your image as you have no way to know what the earth looks like unless you looked at nasa photographs or looked at existing maps in order to make your earth!

If you did not look at images of earth or maps then your animations of earth would not look correct or what everyone expects to see.

Anyone who buys a Lotto Ticket expects it to look a certain way based on what actually exist, therefore if I am going to create a lotto ticket it needs to resemble what is already in existence. So naturally it only makes sense to reference existing Lotto Tickets when creating Lotto Ticket so that it will resemble a Lotto Ticket, otherwise a buyer would not make the connection that what I have created is a Lotto Ticket.

If you did not reference earth photos and maps then people would not know they were looking at the earth in your images as it would look different.

Either you're trolling, you're very new to all this, or you have a serious lack of knowledge when it comes to copyright.

The design, structure and layout of the Earth is not protected by copyrights, patents or trademarks. However, if somebody takes a photo of the Earth, then that photo is afforded copyright protection, and although the photographer doesn't own the design of the Earth, nobody else does either... so there is no issue with them owning the copyright of the image itself, and are more than welcome to sell it, publish it, or give it away. Although, when the image is in the public domain, such is the case with imagery from NASA, people can do pretty much what they want with those images. Including 'referencing' them. I sometimes include NASA imagery in my compositions, as you're allowed to do that with public domain imagery.

And on a side note, there's also a lot of public domain map datasets, so it's not just images that people can use to generate accurate models of the Earth. Images are a lot easier though.     

Now in your case... A lottery ticket is a piece of paper that contains a design, a design that will have been created by a designer. Although there is a slight possibility that design will be in the public domain, it's pretty unlikely. As such, the copyright of that design will be owned by the lottery company. If you create a design that is very similar, exactly the same, or heavily influenced by that copyrighted design, then you are breaching copyright laws that protect the intellectual property of that company.

It's not about whether you created the image, or how much work you put into it, or whether you have the Photoshop file, or how real it looks etc... it's about whether you have the right to sell an image that is almost identical to somebody else's design. I say you don't, and I'm sure many copyright lawyers would agree with me.

I mean, it's not like they rejected it for fun? Have you considered that getting an image rejected for intellectual property reasons, might actually be because of intellectual property reasons? I know it's a wacky idea, but hey.. you never know!

Your obvious antagonism brands you as a troll. No one knew until now. Give your head a shake and look at the OP again. Do you see where it says Pixel8 copied a design? No? That's because it's not there.

What you're suggesting is this: if someone designs a lottery ticket for say the state of Nevada and then Arizona decides they want to have a lottery and someone designs a ticket for Arizona, it's automatically infringing copyright because a lottery ticket has already been designed. Seriously? That's what you think?

If Pixel8 designed an original ticket concept but made it so real looking one of the super competent reviewers thought it was just a photo of an actual ticket, they might reject it, but that would be WRONG. And foolish, like some trolls who like to attack people on MSG.

« Reply #15 on: January 12, 2017, 16:34 »
0
I get that the earth images are in the public domain and thus no copyright restrictions, I was not arguing that, I was making the argument that regardless of wether the earth is copyright free or not, you looked to something that was not your own to create your work.

As far as copyright is concerned stock photography is skirting a grey area, for instance if you photograph a iPhone then there is a problem, but if you photograph a lesser know phone there doesn't seem to be a problem. The lesser phone has been designed by someone, produced and sold just like the iPhone, but because its not as popular their copyright doesn't seem to matter to stock sites.

As far as lotto tickets are concerned many of them look alike, especially in their layout. I am no copyright expert, but the name and logo I created for my Lotto Ticket does not look like any in existence, my layout I admit is probably to similar, but that is where my argument is, in that if my layout is to indifferent it will not resemble a lotto ticket.

P.S. I'm no Troll, everyone seems to think people are Trolls, why because they are trying to understand something? Make a point? Ask a question?

I agree they did not reject me for fun, I was under the assumption they rejected me because they thought I photographed a real lotto ticket, I made that assumption because SS, Alamy, DT and 123RF accepted my Lotto Ticket. Those sites didn't see an issue with copyright.

« Reply #16 on: January 12, 2017, 17:10 »
0
Once I had a Photoshop-created business check image rejected by SS (Trademark or copyright infringement) although I designed all the layout myself. After removing the part containing the words "Security features included. Details on back." along with the accompanied pad lock icon and the registered trademark symbol (), I successfully resubmitted it to SS, FT, IS with the words "fictional bank" in the description.

« Reply #17 on: January 12, 2017, 17:21 »
0
Once I had a Photoshop-created business check image rejected by SS (Trademark or copyright infringement) although I designed all the layout myself. After removing the part containing the words "Security features included. Details on back." along with the accompanied pad lock icon and the registered trademark symbol (), I successfully resubmitted it to SS, FT, IS with the words "fictional bank" in the description.

Ahh thanks for that, someone who knows what I'm talking about, trying to help solve a problem instead of just accusing me of things and ready to sue and haven't even seen the image yet.

I probably just need to make some slight adjustments as well.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #18 on: January 12, 2017, 22:08 »
+1
What I took umbridge at... was somebody getting an image rejected for intellectual property reasons, and not even considering, for one moment, that it might have actually been rejected... for intellectual property reasons.

« Reply #19 on: January 12, 2017, 22:15 »
0
What I took umbridge at... was somebody getting an image rejected for intellectual property reasons, and not even considering, for one moment, that it might have actually been rejected... for intellectual property reasons.

I get that, however I have had images rejected for intellectual property reasons before, but once I explained to them that I created the image in question they passed the images. Of course that was with SS and I have never tried until now to explain to Adobe Stock that my image was created by me so we will see if they will reconsider.

dpimborough

« Reply #20 on: January 13, 2017, 03:29 »
+2
What I took umbridge at... was somebody getting an image rejected for intellectual property reasons, and not even considering, for one moment, that it might have actually been rejected... for intellectual property reasons.

No you decided to turn the OP's question into a cat fight based on nothing more than your own suppositions

Give it a rest!

dpimborough

« Reply #21 on: January 13, 2017, 03:30 »
+1
What I took umbridge at... was somebody getting an image rejected for intellectual property reasons, and not even considering, for one moment, that it might have actually been rejected... for intellectual property reasons.

I get that, however I have had images rejected for intellectual property reasons before, but once I explained to them that I created the image in question they passed the images. Of course that was with SS and I have never tried until now to explain to Adobe Stock that my image was created by me so we will see if they will reconsider.

You could submit the image via Fotolia as there is a field for leaving notes to the reviewer and explain it's your own design

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #22 on: January 13, 2017, 04:05 »
+1
What I took umbridge at... was somebody getting an image rejected for intellectual property reasons, and not even considering, for one moment, that it might have actually been rejected... for intellectual property reasons.

No you decided to turn the OP's question into a cat fight based on nothing more than your own suppositions

Give it a rest!

You're right Sammy, what I should have said was...

"You item was rejected for intellectual property reasons? My word, that's terrible. As nobody ever submits items that would be rejected for intellectual property reasons, then it's obvious that they've made a big mistake."

But it wasn't what I said. Fair enough, the response I gave may have been inappropriate due to not knowing if an item had been copied, but the OP's responses seemed to lack any acceptance that this may have actually been due to an intellectual property reason... and as the thread went on, it became very clear that the OP had little knowledge on what does and doesn't constitute a breach of copyright law (whether his specific item was or not). I could have 'given it a rest' at that point, but thought it was more important to make it clear what is and isn't copying.

Maybe I wasn't as cordial as I could have been, but what does the guy want? A sticker, a lollypop and a "There, there... don't worry brave little soldier. Everything's going to be ok?"

dpimborough

« Reply #23 on: January 13, 2017, 08:01 »
+1
Old proverb "when you're in a hole it's time to stop digging"

The OP was clear enough that it was their design; it was just a very realistic design which does not imply in anyway that they copied anything.

as for "lollypops" et al well that's just plain catty

« Reply #24 on: January 13, 2017, 14:23 »
0
What I took umbridge at... was somebody getting an image rejected for intellectual property reasons, and not even considering, for one moment, that it might have actually been rejected... for intellectual property reasons.

No you decided to turn the OP's question into a cat fight based on nothing more than your own suppositions

Give it a rest!

You're right Sammy, what I should have said was...

"You item was rejected for intellectual property reasons? My word, that's terrible. As nobody ever submits items that would be rejected for intellectual property reasons, then it's obvious that they've made a big mistake."

But it wasn't what I said. Fair enough, the response I gave may have been inappropriate due to not knowing if an item had been copied, but the OP's responses seemed to lack any acceptance that this may have actually been due to an intellectual property reason... and as the thread went on, it became very clear that the OP had little knowledge on what does and doesn't constitute a breach of copyright law (whether his specific item was or not). I could have 'given it a rest' at that point, but thought it was more important to make it clear what is and isn't copying.

Maybe I wasn't as cordial as I could have been, but what does the guy want? A sticker, a lollypop and a "There, there... don't worry brave little soldier. Everything's going to be ok?"

What I want is insight from other professionals on how to solve the problem, not a condescending person who always has to be right and has to prove something.

I was hoping that someone from Fotolia would read this thread and reach out to me to discuss the issue! It is frustrating to spend a great deal of time creating in Photoshop and feel like your image has been rejected for looking like it was the real thing.

As explained before SS has rejected images for intellectual copyright before, but once I explained I created the images in question they passed them and as for this lotto ticket SS and all the other sites have excepted the images of the lotto ticket I made so that is why I drew my conclusions that the Adobe Stock reviewer simply did not realize that I made it and therefore rejected it under Intellectual Copyright, I think that is a logical conclusion to draw and thus my reason for posting on this site for further help and hoping a FT member would pick up on it as they have with others on this site before for other issues.

Why should stock contributors bother coming to this site if its members only want to bully other members, is this simply a hang out for the cool kids?

« Reply #25 on: January 13, 2017, 17:08 »
+2
To wrap this thread up I just got news from Adobe Stock that they are accepting the image!

dpimborough

« Reply #26 on: January 14, 2017, 02:33 »
0
Congratulations!  :)

It's a pain having to deal with silly rejections  :'(

niktol

« Reply #27 on: January 14, 2017, 11:06 »
0
To wrap this thread up I just got news from Adobe Stock that they are accepting the image!

Don't bother with forums on these matters, just take it up with the stock. It is usually either something small that can be easily fixed or a random rejection that can be appealed. However, if they consider it something major and you disagree, then there is no point getting all lawyery on them, because it's their business, and it's a liability that you've got to respect. Just make another illo. Arguments lead to frustration which leads to loss of productivity.

A few examples of those small things: a friend of mine had an illo that among other things was displaying a laptop with a circle on it. The "copyright infringement" was that, as they said, "it looks like an apple" [Mac logo]. The conversation went, "but it's not an apple, it's a circle" - "to some people that could look like an apple". So she changed it to a square or something and the illo was accepted. 

Another example - who would have thought that small details such as a fur-tree shaped air freshener in a drawn car or a smiley face as an icon on a smartphone could have a copyright protection? Apparently they do, so they were removed or replaced and the illos were accepted.

Happens to people all the time. Bottom line: ask the very people who rejected your illo why they rejected it, they will provide the best answer.

« Reply #28 on: January 14, 2017, 11:46 »
0
Some very grouchy people on this thread.  SSFs responses seemed reasonable enough to me.  Without looking at existing lottery tickets, how is it possible to create a realistic one.  I did this all the time in creating illustrative banking instruments, statements and fictitious screen displays for e-learning courses which obviously have to abide by IP law in a global marketplace.

The difference with stock is that IP law is completely irrelevant.  Most images rejected for IP violations do not violate IP law but contravene the risk-averse policy of the agency which is fine, its the agencys business decision.

The advice to ask the agency whats wrong with an image is a good idea (sort of).  I was much obliged to Fotolia/Adobe for explaining their policy on photographs of graffiti which was pretty clear.  Sadly, in subsequent submissions it never seemed to be applied by reviewers.  I just accept now with the five agencies I submit to that some will see an IP violation and others wont and dont waste time arguing about it.

Jafo2016

« Reply #29 on: January 14, 2017, 18:09 »
+1
So I created an image of a Lotto Ticket in Photoshop so real looking that it was rejected for Intellectual Property! What is the point in creating in Photoshop if your creations are only going to get rejected for being to real looking? My Lotto Ticket was accepted at SS, Alamy, 123rf and Dreamstime no problem. I even marked it as an Illustration when I submitted it.

How can I get past a reviewer who does not take the time to realize its not real?

Maybe someone from Fotolia or Adobe Stock on here will look at my case?

Create a property release for your original artwork and attach it. Sounds stupid but they will read that if they miss whatever note you added saying original art. How do you attach a note to the reviewer on FT? I'd use a release that just a note saying what you wrote, original artwork.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
2553 Views
Last post September 24, 2015, 15:25
by MarcvsTvllivs
2 Replies
1644 Views
Last post January 03, 2016, 05:48
by suz7
2 Replies
1585 Views
Last post April 18, 2016, 08:21
by HappyBunny
3 Replies
1576 Views
Last post August 20, 2016, 07:24
by HappyBunny
6 Replies
1450 Views
Last post January 29, 2017, 10:34
by disorderly

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results