MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: WWII boats & planes copyright  (Read 2423 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 26, 2012, 07:55 »
0
I just had this image rejected on 123 for potential copyright - can't see anything on these vehicles in SS's shutterbuzz and wondering if anyone is aware of restrictions generally?  It's pending on some other sites and wondering if I should pull it.



This one is currently available on IS, SS, DT and FT - maybe british warplanes are copyrighted and german ones not ??



Microbius

« Reply #1 on: July 26, 2012, 07:58 »
0
It is probably the 3d models that they mean not the original design of the ships/ planes.

« Reply #2 on: July 26, 2012, 08:14 »
0
Maybe the wing logos?  The equivalent U.S. would not be allowed I don't think.  Don't know how the UK feels

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #3 on: July 26, 2012, 08:23 »
0
Nope all military vehicles are off limits due to copyright/trademark.

And there is a contributor at SS who was sent a letter from them after he complained about his boot rejection and he was told "all Boots are off limits".

LINKS:

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=110200&highlight=army+vehicles


http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=123791&start=15

« Reply #4 on: July 26, 2012, 09:11 »
0
Maybe the wing logos?  The equivalent U.S. would not be allowed I don't think.  Don't know how the UK feels

The sub is already on a few sites in a different setting and there's a kind of tank with the nazi cross also - could actually be a case of nazi ok, winners not ok as the former unlikely to take an action  :-\

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #5 on: July 26, 2012, 13:23 »
0
I had two images of the interior of a B-17 (.50 cal machine gun and loaded bomb bay) recently rejected at Bigstock for potential copyright.  The reason they stated was that there were so few refurbished and flying B-17's around today that the owner would likely recognize his plane.  If I couldn't get a property release for the images, I could resubmit them as editorial.  Fortunately the same images are up and selling elsewhere so I won't worry about these two at BS.

CD123

« Reply #6 on: July 26, 2012, 14:00 »
0
Get the impression that, like most other things in the legal spectrum, there are more exceptions than there are rules. I would not like to be in the shoes of a reviewer, who can put my employer at risk by accepting an image which can put them on the wrong side of a compensation claim (and damage their reputation). So I guess they follow the golden rule, when in doubt, reject (and some site's reviewers are probably, correctly or incorrectly, more cautious than others).


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
5659 Views
Last post December 15, 2006, 17:13
by yingyang0
10 Replies
4617 Views
Last post January 21, 2008, 05:41
by Lizard
Copyright

Started by CofkoCof Dreamstime.com

7 Replies
4947 Views
Last post November 22, 2008, 18:57
by madelaide
9 Replies
4968 Views
Last post October 15, 2010, 22:50
by Phil
2 Replies
2344 Views
Last post February 18, 2024, 13:57
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors