MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Agencies are too afraid of copyright issues!  (Read 6258 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lagereek

« on: October 29, 2010, 02:45 »
0
Some agencies accept, others are almost paranoid about it. The copy question, that is. Trademarks and Logos removed, not a hint of brand or anything, yet if its anything on wheels, the paranoia sets in.
The ones that accepts, earns money, the ones that turn it down loose money. No sense at all.


« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2010, 06:48 »
0
Seems to me it has more to do with the trust of the buyers.  The buyers need to be able to trust that they can license images without being subject to copyright suits. 

fred

« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2010, 20:53 »
0
Buyers can never be perfectly safe. Anyone can sue anyone else for anything. I can send Leaf a cease-and-desist letter claiming that I have copyrighted the phrase "microstock group". Such a letter means nothing. But nothing prevents me from sending it.

If I am iStock, I can write an agreement which says that the buyer gets X rights on Sunday and Y rights on Monday and all of the aforementioned rights once a blue moon. Does it mean anything? Not if a judge finds that it violates copyright law.

IP interactions consist mostly of gray areas. Legislatures, judges, and other interested parties are making them up as we go along. Almost nothing is written in stone. Nothing is perfectly safe.

lisafx

« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2010, 22:34 »
0
I recently had a content supervisor from one of the smaller agencies say that they have to be extremely careful about copyright/trademark issues - more so even than Istock - because as a small site, they just can't afford to defend against a lawsuit.

RacePhoto

« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2010, 22:49 »
0
Seems to me it has more to do with the trust of the buyers.  The buyers need to be able to trust that they can license images without being subject to copyright suits. 

fred

The buyer is responsible for final use and abiding by the law. Not the artist, not the agency, not the web host or anyone else.

Now on your side of the opinion, if some site says, this is RF and OK to use and we promise you won't have any problems, then it changes. So the agency is saying "you're an idiot and don't understand what you can and can't do with a photo, so we'll make an empty promise to guarantee the images we sell."  ::)

I need to add that if the artist says, it's rights free and has a legitimate model release, then the obligation returns to the source of the image. That's why the agencies are so demanding, when they often don't need to be, because they are offering some promise that the image has been delivered, free of liability.

Another interesting point to consider. Lets say the buyer purchases a license and the image is editorial, but they use it for some commercial project. Who's responsible? Not the agency, not the artist, but the person who misused it. So in theory (mine which is kind of simplistic and naive) You can put anything up for download, as long as you accurately explain the conditions and terms, that "The Buyer Is Responsible for Final Use."

See where this circle is leading? Agency says, we'll provide RF images which you can use, without worrying about legal issues. They cover their asses with all kinds of absurd protections like model releases, property releases (which don't exist in many cases), rejections for things that aren't protected, (for fear of a lawsuit) and so on, with the general impression to the buyer, that they are covered against legal problems.

Which leads me back to the first line:

The buyer is responsible for final use and abiding by the law. Not the artist, not the agency, not the web host or anyone else.

If you want some examples, photographic and otherwise, I'll be happy to explain further. But it's the use, not the sale (loan. license, whatever) that's protected, unless the seller makes claims which are false.

If the agency made no claims, they would be fine, but since they claim to be protecting the buyer and providing a guarantee or RF, now they have to be careful and over protective.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2010, 02:33 »
0

The buyer is responsible for final use and abiding by the law. Not the artist, not the agency, not the web host or anyone else.


Do we know that that's the case in every legislation? I'm not sure in cases like this what happens when the law in the buyer's country is different from that in the country in which the agency and/or the contributer lives.

alias

« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2010, 07:33 »
0
Astronaut Sues Dido, Getty Over Album Cover Image

Quote
Also named as defendants were Didos agent, her record companies, and Getty Images, which allegedly licensed the image.

McCandless says in his claim that the use of the image for commercial purposes without his consent is a violation of his right of privacy and publicity. He is seeking a court order to bar the defendants from continuing to use the image, and unspecified monetary damages.

« Reply #7 on: October 30, 2010, 11:29 »
0
Seems to me it has more to do with the trust of the buyers.  The buyers need to be able to trust that they can license images without being subject to copyright suits. 

fred


...The buyer is responsible for final use and abiding by the law. Not the artist, not the agency, not the web host or anyone else....


And that is exactly why they want to deal with agencies that are careful about what they put in their collections.

fred

« Reply #8 on: October 31, 2010, 10:31 »
0
Hi All,

 Micro has the highest rejection in my business. I have never had an image removed from Getty or other Macro sites for technical issues but Micro is much tighter. I have been explained that the reason is because the people at Micro are not necessarily professional editors, they work from home and make money per pic and have to stick to a guide lines very closely as to what they can accept and what they can't, I do not know any Micro editors but I expect this is part of the issue.
 This does not happen the same in Macro. I have images not accepted in Macro for aesthetic reasons but never a res issue or an artifacts reason. I much prefer my edits from Macro sites. They also reply with a thank you and point out some of the better images and the ones that I have struggled delivering the message and so on. Very helpful in making me a better stock shooter. My 2 cents.

Best,
Jonathan

RacePhoto

« Reply #9 on: October 31, 2010, 21:34 »
0
Astronaut Sues Dido, Getty Over Album Cover Image

Quote
Also named as defendants were Didos agent, her record companies, and Getty Images, which allegedly licensed the image.

McCandless says in his claim that the use of the image for commercial purposes without his consent is a violation of his right of privacy and publicity. He is seeking a court order to bar the defendants from continuing to use the image, and unspecified monetary damages.



You an try to sue for anything. Winning is another issue. :)

Here's the point, which I seem to have missed or people are ignoring. The artist and agency cannot be held responsible for what a buyer does with a photo after the fact If It Was Licensed Properly In The First Place.

If someone takes an Editorial only image and uses if for commercial purposes, how did the photographer or agency do something wrong? They didn't.

The buyer is responsible for the final use. I know people are buying my Editorial images and using them for other uses. They are taking the risk, not me and not the agency.

Does that make sense?

« Reply #10 on: November 01, 2010, 01:17 »
0
Makes total sense to me Race.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #11 on: November 01, 2010, 16:54 »
0
1. This is not a copyright issue.
2. The link tried to install malware on my PC.

Astronaut Sues Dido, Getty Over Album Cover Image

Quote
Also named as defendants were Didos agent, her record companies, and Getty Images, which allegedly licensed the image.

McCandless says in his claim that the use of the image for commercial purposes without his consent is a violation of his right of privacy and publicity. He is seeking a court order to bar the defendants from continuing to use the image, and unspecified monetary damages.


RacePhoto

« Reply #12 on: November 01, 2010, 22:25 »
0
Makes total sense to me Race.

Best,
Jonathan

Glad someone understands, I'll add the sporting good store example and hopefully it will sink in.

A guy goes into a sporting good store, and buys a baseball bat (Louisville Slugger because he likes quality bats) Then he goes out and bashes in someones head. Do the store and the bat company get sued and indicted for accessories to murder as contributing factors, by providing the weapon? NO!

A guy goes into a microstock site and buys an editorial photo. He uses the picture on a calendar and sells many copies on the web. Do the agency that sold it and the photographer get sued for improper usage and get included because they are responsible for the misuse of an image. NO!

The final use, if licensed properly or model released properly, at time of sale, is the responsibility of the buyer! The agent and photographer are not responsible for the way someone else uses the image.

« Reply #13 on: November 01, 2010, 23:30 »
0
Makes total sense to me Race.

Best,
Jonathan

Glad someone understands, I'll add the sporting good store example and hopefully it will sink in.

A guy goes into a sporting good store, and buys a baseball bat (Louisville Slugger because he likes quality bats) Then he goes out and bashes in someones head. Do the store and the bat company get sued and indicted for accessories to murder as contributing factors, by providing the weapon? NO!

A guy goes into a microstock site and buys an editorial photo. He uses the picture on a calendar and sells many copies on the web. Do the agency that sold it and the photographer get sued for improper usage and get included because they are responsible for the misuse of an image. NO!

The final use, if licensed properly or model released properly, at time of sale, is the responsibility of the buyer! The agent and photographer are not responsible for the way someone else uses the image.

You are talking calendars. That would come under Art.

Art cases have already been won by artists in the courts (search Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Copyright and also University of Alabama Copyright Lawsuit.) The real issue is with using improper images to advertise a product. Your shooting a picture of a cook preparing your food product and you have a prominent view Cuisinart on the counter? You'd better move it out of the frame. Same thing with Mixmaster.

RacePhoto

« Reply #14 on: November 01, 2010, 23:51 »
0
Maybe you can find some other way to avoid addressing the real issue? The calendar is improper use of an editorial image. No release for using a persons image, it's wrong. So apparently you are missing the whole point or just in the mood to debate?

OK they put an editorial only image, of Paris Hilton, on a package of cereal and also advertise that on TV with the same image.

The artist/photographer and the agency are NOT responsible for the final use, when it's sold under a different license. Now please?  :-X
 

Makes total sense to me Race.

Best,
Jonathan

Glad someone understands, I'll add the sporting good store example and hopefully it will sink in.

A guy goes into a sporting good store, and buys a baseball bat (Louisville Slugger because he likes quality bats) Then he goes out and bashes in someones head. Do the store and the bat company get sued and indicted for accessories to murder as contributing factors, by providing the weapon? NO!

A guy goes into a microstock site and buys an editorial photo. He uses the picture on a calendar and sells many copies on the web. Do the agency that sold it and the photographer get sued for improper usage and get included because they are responsible for the misuse of an image. NO!

The final use, if licensed properly or model released properly, at time of sale, is the responsibility of the buyer! The agent and photographer are not responsible for the way someone else uses the image.

You are talking calendars. That would come under Art.

Art cases have already been won by artists in the courts (search Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Copyright and also University of Alabama Copyright Lawsuit.) The real issue is with using improper images to advertise a product. Your shooting a picture of a cook preparing your food product and you have a prominent view Cuisinart on the counter? You'd better move it out of the frame. Same thing with Mixmaster.

« Reply #15 on: November 05, 2010, 09:37 »
0
it seems some images will be accepted by some agencies.

So if i take a picture of a close up shot of Nike shoe on a runner, and i had removed the tick. It is accepted by an agency and sold to a buyer. The buyer put it on a banner of a new gym and even the shoe looks without the tick, but Nike still can recognize it.

The buyer will be in troubles or the one who took the pictures?

alias

« Reply #16 on: November 05, 2010, 12:19 »
0
1. This is not a copyright issue.
2. The link tried to install malware on my PC.

1. Post related to where point of responsibility may lie with respect to rights in general. This may depend upon the law in different jurisdiction.
2. Probably a false positive but your computer should not be running in a state which allows sites to try to install software.


RacePhoto

« Reply #17 on: November 06, 2010, 22:44 »
0
it seems some images will be accepted by some agencies.

So if i take a picture of a close up shot of Nike shoe on a runner, and i had removed the tick. It is accepted by an agency and sold to a buyer. The buyer put it on a banner of a new gym and even the shoe looks without the tick, but Nike still can recognize it.

The buyer will be in troubles or the one who took the pictures?

Always the use. It's not illegal in many instances to take photos of something or in some places, but it's illegal to use them.

Just think that the use controls what is permissible and what is not.

Some days it's entertaining to read the silly arguments and "what if's" that are totally illogical. Other days it just gets frustrating.

So, "what if the laws are different in the country where it's used."
Well, the BUYER is responsible, so it doesn't matter. What if it's illegal to use where it was shot, but legal to use in some other country. Want to dance in circles?  :)

What if the agency says it's RF and the buyer gets stuck with a lawsuit for improper use. Guess what? The buyer is also going to be sued! The buyer should know their legal responsibilities. This is where the guarantees come in from an agency. If used properly, you are going to get their support, up to a point.

I hand you a gun and say "It's OK to hunt squirrels in the public park."
You go out and shoot a squirrel and the cops come and arrest you.
You say, but that guy told me it was OK to shoot squirrels in the park... and what do they say?
"You're under arrest!"  ;D
Ignorance of the law is not protection, and neither is trying to say someone said it was alright. You are responsible for your own actions.

A buyer of an image is responsible for how it is USED! Not the agency, not the photographer, not anyone else.

Why is it so difficult to make a simple point?


ps Selling calendars is not "art" it's a commercial product! Otherwise any use of any photo is "art" and the doors are wide open for any use.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
4849 Views
Last post December 15, 2006, 17:13
by yingyang0
12 Replies
5990 Views
Last post January 30, 2009, 03:11
by SoftDux
12 Replies
11934 Views
Last post January 14, 2010, 14:10
by Jonathan Ross
10 Replies
4347 Views
Last post October 13, 2010, 14:24
by traveler1116
1 Replies
2587 Views
Last post May 09, 2013, 09:21
by joshsprague

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle