MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: unnonimus on February 17, 2016, 17:22
-
According to the US Copyright Office, all boats are not protected by copyright, and this includes Carnival Cruise Lines.
SHUTTERSTOCK SAYS:
http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/contributor-resources/legal/stock-photo-restrictions/ (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/contributor-resources/legal/stock-photo-restrictions/)
Carnival Cruise Line Ships
•The term “Carnival Cruise Line” and Carnival Cruise Line’s unique branching funnel design are protected under trademark.
•Unacceptable for commercial use.
•Images that contain Carnival Cruise Line’s unique branching funnel design are acceptable for editorial use with a proper caption.
US Copyright Office says:
http://copyright.gov/circs/circ41.pdf (http://copyright.gov/circs/circ41.pdf)
section 102 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the United States Code), as amended on December 1, 1990
Ineligible Building Designs
Structures other than buildings, such as bridges, cloverleafs, dams, walkways,
tents, recreational vehicles, mobile homes, and boats
According to the United States Copyright Office, Carnival Cruise Ships (and other boats) are *NOT* protected by copyright under any circumstances, regardless of their "unique branching funnel design".
In addition, Shutterstock says:
"Carnival Cruise Line’s unique branching funnel design are protected under trademark"
trademarks cannot be copyright under any circumstances. if the design in question is the shape of the boat, it also cannot be trademarked.
-
Sorry pal, you can come up with whatever argument you want, but if the agency says it ain't taking it, it ain't taking it.
-
sean is right but again, send it to shutter, they might listen
-
I believe Pond5 also removed all video clips containing Carnival Cruise ships.
-
I am posting this information to educate photographers and stock agencies as to what the laws are and as to what their rights are.
the stock industry as a whole hurts when agencies do not know or understand the law or their rights.
-
OP is confusing copyright & trademark - BOTH require releases, but some agencies will accept them as editorial
-
in the United States of America, there is no law that requires a release form for copyright use or trademark use, including in regards to stock footage.
-
You also have to realise that files are sold worldwide, where US law has no currency, therefore agencies will always be cautious. In addition, who really wants the hassle of a lawsuit? In the UK, a 2D reprentation of a 3D object doesn't breach copyright, but that isn't thereby universally the case.
-
I am posting this information to educate photographers and stock agencies as to what the laws are and as to what their rights are.
the stock industry as a whole hurts when agencies do not know or understand the law or their rights.
Doesn't matter what the laws are or what anyone's rights are. Shutterstock doesn't want the images. Their site, their rules.
If you want to bankroll a potential court challenge by one of the large cruise companies you may get Shutterstock to change their policy but I'd imagine they would want to see the money up front.
-
unnonimus, you keep posting the same stuff and asking the same questions. These are all private companies. It doesn't matter what the law is or what you think is right. As Sean said in one of the several identical threads, they will accept what they want and decline what they don't. If SS doesn't accept something, find someone who does. I sell a lot of houses on one site that SS no longer takes. I sell interiors on two sites that SS doesn't.
I used to spend a lot of time arguing, venting and re-uploading. At this payscale, it's not worth the trouble. Move on
I'll give you one hint. If SS doesn't take it don't upload it to BigStock. They don't take anything that might have been owned by someone at some point in history.
-
Give it a rest, unnonimus.
-
actually its funny that i saw this thread couse i got a rejection note from istock today becouse my pic had some ships in it in the background in the thames river in london.i didnt see any logos on the ships but still they saw it as a copyright thing.
so i guess the agencies are now picky when they review a picture with buildings in it or any other thing.
just dont upload it and sell it somewhere else.
-
OP is confusing copyright & trademark - BOTH require releases, but some agencies will accept them as editorial
This is the answer to the perceived disagreement between Shutterstock's policy and the fact that boats aren't copyrighted (although of course all the people saying "it doesn't matter because Shutterstock can just refuse them on their own policy" are right too).
The funnel is trademarked, not copyrighted. If you're interested, you can check out the trademark right here:
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4806:nmeamp.6.1 (http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4806:nmeamp.6.1)
Now, would that trademark make it a legal problem to sell images containing it? Probably not, but it may in some cases. That's enough for Shutterstock not to want anything to do with it, and I for one understand.
-
But who would buy these photos for commercial use anyway? A tour operator or tourist board etc would no doubt just contact them for free publicity photos. So any use would likely be editorial anyway.
-
Their sites their rules.....i find it quite a relief when I stop banging my head against a brick wall...maybe you should give it a try ....or become a lawyer and do it for $$$$$$
-
Not entirely on topic but I have found Alamy prepared to take on companies - a few times I've had stuff removed only to be reinstated after discussions between Alamy and the Organisation concerned. (Barclays Bank, Network Rail) I think other sites are much more cautious.
-
Not entirely on topic but I have found Alamy prepared to take on companies - a few times I've had stuff removed only to be reinstated after discussions between Alamy and the Organisation concerned. (Barclays Bank, Network Rail) I think other sites are much more cautious.
In the Alamy cases, they have been acceptable after all possible commercial restrictions have been set, not just ticking that you have no PR. That's just like setting editorial only on the other sites.
Presumably the prolific OP is campaigning for certain classes of image to be allowed for any possible commercial use.