pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Copyright question - UPDATED  (Read 10507 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 28, 2010, 18:00 »
0
I uploaded one of the stars from the Walk of Stars from Palm Springs (it's the same thing as Walk of Fame in Hollywood). I erased the name of the artist and the palm tree sign bellow it, so the star  was empty.
Some sites accepted it without problems, but some of them rejected it because of a possible copyright problem. I expected this to happen, and I tried to find some info on Internet about it, but I didn't find anything about an empty star and copyright, so I decided to upload anyway.
The star was first rejected at SS, but then I found the same stars on SS. Some of them were editorial, and others were not. It also easy to find those stars on IS and other agencies.

Could anyone please tell me if the star is copyrighted?

Here is one example of the star on SS which is accepted and it's NOT selling as editorial:



My star is accepted at 4 agencies for now, and rejected at 2 (SS and BS)

This is my star at CanStockPhoto:



Ironically, there is a Canstockphoto logo on it ;D
« Last Edit: August 02, 2010, 14:25 by Dreamframer »


« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2010, 18:04 »
0
you can't copyright a star, but the owners of that particular star may be able to claim copyright on images of  it, and trademark is another possibility

« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2010, 18:06 »
0
you can't copyright a star, but the owners of that particular star may be able to claim copyright on images of  it, and trademark is another possibility
But all stars look the same. Is it possible to claim copyright if you don't know which name was on the star, especially after cloning out everything...the star itself it's not the same anymore.

« Reply #3 on: July 28, 2010, 18:10 »
0
I found those stars on all big agencies. Some of them have more than 1500 dl's. I doubt this would pass unnoticed by Istock for example..

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #4 on: July 28, 2010, 18:21 »
0
I found those stars on all big agencies. Some of them have more than 1500 dl's. I doubt this would pass unnoticed by Istock for example..

Have you looked at the upload dates on those stars. They may have been uploaded when iStock wasn't to strict with their policies on copyright. Anymore it's hard to get anything through there without a ton of releases.

« Reply #5 on: July 28, 2010, 18:24 »
0
I also submitted the star to IS, and it was rejected because of sharpening (I added some I admit). There was nothing about the copyright in the rejection reason. Also, I guess they would do something with images that are already uploaded and selling. If they are copyrighted, they would have to delete them anyway...I guess.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #6 on: July 28, 2010, 18:39 »
0
I also submitted the star to IS, and it was rejected because of sharpening (I added some I admit). There was nothing about the copyright in the rejection reason. Also, I guess they would do something with images that are already uploaded and selling. If they are copyrighted, they would have to delete them anyway...I guess.

I'd think they would have deleted them but I've had pictures rejected for "possible" copyright infringement and have found some of the same subject still on there....so I don't think they do delete unless it is a sure copyright problem. We wouldn't probably have a problem if we got them on there early on.

« Reply #7 on: July 28, 2010, 18:48 »
0
OK, so, I'll give it a try. :)

« Reply #8 on: July 28, 2010, 18:52 »
0
Do the people behind the Walk in Palm Springs claim trademark, or make reference to permission from the Hollywood Walk of Fame for theirs?  If not, it may well be a reviewer being overly cautious.  You might even point out that the star is *not* from the Hollywood Walk as a way of preemption the concern.

Back in my early days in microstock I submitted a photo of some crayons.  It was rejected at Shutterstock over a violation of Crayola's trademark.  I mentioned this on their forum, including the fact that they weren't even Crayola crayons!  The reviewer read my post, and apologized for seeing something that wasn't there, and I was able to have the image accepted on resubmission.  

As my favorite saying goes, never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity.  Not quite the situation here, but not far off either.

« Reply #9 on: July 28, 2010, 22:08 »
0
I would classify the Palm Springs venue as a "protected property", that is one who would rather not have their property exploited in any way for commercial gain. It's possible that some reviewers are familiar with the venue. They don't all live in Romania

http://www.palmspringswalkofstars.com/

« Reply #10 on: July 29, 2010, 06:24 »
0
As my favorite saying goes, never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity.  Not quite the situation here, but not far off either.

That's a great saying!

At one of the sites, I had an image with a map in it get rejected. The map was a secondary part of the image, not the main focus. There are hundreds or thousands of map only images on there. I pointed that out to the "complaint guy" and he said it didn't matter what else was there, mine was rejected. And they have not removed the hundreds of maps, despite most of them likely being from Rand McNally map books, which are definitely copyrighted. This was a number of years ago. Even if some of those maps were uploaded earlier on, they are still there on the site.

I can only think of one subject that this site has gone back and removed images of and that is cars. But then again I think they got a lot of pressure from one of the big car makers.

There are a lot of factors involved in your rejection, not just that it might be protected. Even though my guess would be that anything public that brings money to the city would be protected.

« Reply #11 on: July 30, 2010, 11:39 »
0
just a thought... it could be the description or keywords that are getting it bounced, but wait a while before throwing it back up at them as it may be recognized right away and sent away just as fast.....

« Reply #12 on: July 30, 2010, 11:55 »
0
I would classify the Palm Springs venue as a "protected property", that is one who would rather not have their property exploited in any way for commercial gain. It's possible that some reviewers are familiar with the venue. They don't all live in Romania

http://www.palmspringswalkofstars.com/


I think I agree with stormchaser.
But you can submit it as editorial for dreamstime etc, no?

« Reply #13 on: July 30, 2010, 12:33 »
0
Dreamframer, you're too late for this party  ;)

If you look closely you can find images on iStock with actual company logos on them that were submitted many years ago with downloads in the 4000s per image.

Times have changed and so did the approval requirements. It's not fair to the newer contributors while the "old" images still remain on the site, being sold under the same licensing terms (even guaranteeing that they're free of third party claims).
But that's the game we play here.

Be happy about the ones you got accepted and try to get them out there as editorial wherever you can but it's pretty much obvious where this star is coming from.

If the owner can recognize it and didn't give consent, you might be in trouble.

« Reply #14 on: July 30, 2010, 17:41 »
0
The star is accepted at DT, IS, 123RF, Cutcaster, Canstockphoto, Featurepix, and Yaymicro for now.
But I will delete the image from those sites anyway.
Thanks guys!

lisafx

« Reply #15 on: July 30, 2010, 18:09 »
0
Then you are a better person than I am Ivan.  I would leave it at the sites it was accepted at.  Bet it will be a top seller for you.

« Reply #16 on: July 30, 2010, 18:15 »
0
I thought about that Lisa, but I already deleted it because all stars are from Hollywood. There wasn't any star from Palm Springs. I was searching internet to find some info, and then I remembered that the square with a star had small "c" in the lower left corner. I cloned it out.
Strange how I did it automatically. I had those Hollywood stars in mind and I was sure I am not making a mistake.

I am also pretty sure the only problem I could have in future is the request for deletion sent by copyright owner or stock site. But I deleted it anyway.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2010, 18:34 by Dreamframer »


« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2010, 05:23 »
0
I would classify the Palm Springs venue as a "protected property", that is one who would rather not have their property exploited in any way for commercial gain. It's possible that some reviewers are familiar with the venue. They don't all live in Romania

http://www.palmspringswalkofstars.com/


I think I agree with stormchaser.
But you can submit it as editorial for dreamstime etc, no?


I don't submit editorial to micro, I do it elsewhere. But as I understand the micro terms for editorial submission, the image "should" be newsworthy. And also unaltered. So if it is a recent star that has been given, with the star's name on it, well that could be newsworthy to some people I guess.

In general, I don't see the Palm Springs Walk of Stars as particularly newsworthy, most don't know it exists.

It is good to keep stuff like this on file though. If it gets destroyed in an earthquake, submit the pics and say "This is the way it was in May 05, 2010"

The PS WOS is one venue I wouldn't really go out of my way for to shoot.

red

« Reply #18 on: July 31, 2010, 18:03 »
0
Editorial and newsworthy can be different things. For example, DT states, "Images downloaded under the Editorial section of our site may be used in magazines, newspapers or any other editorial context, in either printed or electronic media."

So, for example, if someone was writing an article on the history of the tennis shoe (do they still call them that?) they might want a photo of a Nike, logo and all. We all know that the sites will reject these photos for RF because of the logo. They will accept it for editorial though. The buyer could use this kind of image in their article without being sued by Nike because it was an editorial article. A photo of a Nike shoe is not newsworthy, but it is editorial.

Same thing for an iphone, Corvette, McDonalds red fry box, etc. You'll find lots of these kind of "editorial" photos available for purchase. They're easy to shoot and if you are the first one to think of selling it as editorial you will probably get some sales.

« Reply #19 on: August 01, 2010, 14:50 »
0
Editorial and newsworthy can be different things. For example, DT states, "Images downloaded under the Editorial section of our site may be used in magazines, newspapers or any other editorial context, in either printed or electronic media."

So, for example, if someone was writing an article on the history of the tennis shoe (do they still call them that?) they might want a photo of a Nike, logo and all. We all know that the sites will reject these photos for RF because of the logo. They will accept it for editorial though. The buyer could use this kind of image in their article without being sued by Nike because it was an editorial article. A photo of a Nike shoe is not newsworthy, but it is editorial.

Same thing for an iphone, Corvette, McDonalds red fry box, etc. You'll find lots of these kind of "editorial" photos available for purchase. They're easy to shoot and if you are the first one to think of selling it as editorial you will probably get some sales.

exactly! now if only we could get the SS & DT reviewers to understand this!

s

« Reply #20 on: August 02, 2010, 14:26 »
0
I contacted Palm Springs Walk of Stars, and they answered:

Hello Ivan,
 
Thank you for your inquiry. The logo of the Palm tree is trademarked with the name Palm Springs Walk of Stars.
 
Best regards,
Kevin

So, the star in the square is not copyrighted. So, I gotta contact all stock agencies to enable my file.

suwanneeredhead

  • O.I.D. Sufferer (Obsessive Illustration Disorder)
« Reply #21 on: August 02, 2010, 14:42 »
0
I contacted Palm Springs Walk of Stars, and they answered:

Hello Ivan,
 
Thank you for your inquiry. The logo of the Palm tree is trademarked with the name Palm Springs Walk of Stars.
 
Best regards,
Kevin

So, the star in the square is not copyrighted. So, I gotta contact all stock agencies to enable my file.

Not sure I understand how you got "not copyrighted" from that statement. His response is ambiguous at best, but I believe he was telling you that they ARE trademarked.  Perhaps you didn't copy/paste the statement where he said the "star in the square" are not copyrighted?  You may wish to clarify this with him before you contact the agencies.

« Reply #22 on: August 02, 2010, 14:52 »
0
I asked him precisely what is copyrighted. Is it the star in the square, or the logo with a palm tree, or everything. And he answered that copyrighted are the name "walk of stars" and the palm tree logo. Which means the star in the square is not copyrighted.
I explained to him that I want to sell it on stock sites.

« Reply #23 on: August 02, 2010, 21:15 »
0
I asked him precisely what is copyrighted. Is it the star in the square, or the logo with a palm tree, or everything. And he answered that copyrighted are the name "walk of stars" and the palm tree logo. Which means the star in the square is not copyrighted.
I explained to him that I want to sell it on stock sites.

You can't copyright a name or a title.

Also when I looked for a registered trademark filing, it does not exist. They may however, append PS WOS with a (TM) indicating that it is their intention to protect that name or interest. They don't do this on their website. Maybe they haven't contacted the high school kid who did it for them.

The only answer is that the property owner is higher profile and may want to protect their interests.

I'm going to say that Kevin has little to no knowledge of the law because he's talking apples and oranges in his reply to you. 

« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2010, 02:52 »
0
He said that "Palm Springs Walk of Stars" is a copyrighted name. I think you can copyright the name, why not? NIKE is also copyrighted, right?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
2202 Views
Last post March 09, 2009, 16:55
by elvinstar
26 Replies
7315 Views
Last post April 14, 2009, 19:53
by JC-SL
13 Replies
3977 Views
Last post October 19, 2010, 14:45
by pixel86
8 Replies
1732 Views
Last post February 21, 2012, 08:30
by rubyroo
1 Replies
2036 Views
Last post September 27, 2018, 23:40
by Gramandol

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results