MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Got sued for images with logo (editorial) ... seriously ?  (Read 5544 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #25 on: July 29, 2019, 00:56 »
0
I think your freedom of speech would be protected if you did that at Disney... but their freedom to kick you off private proparty would also be protected. As would their freedom to call the police to report a trespassing if you declined.


« Reply #26 on: July 29, 2019, 07:22 »
+1
Quote
Editorial usage is pretty much everything you can see. If you work at a newspaper or something for instance, you don't need permission from people or about a property to take and use the photos... It's still polite but, fair game.
That's not fully true here in the UK, and I'm sure it's very different in different countries.

I don't believe it is true in the USA either. Try taking a picture of Minnie Mouse at Disney's theme park and post it for editorial use. The images in question in this thread were not newsworthy and were taken on private premises (the plane). Hence the photographer is open to being sued, in my view. But, of course, you can all take whatever risks you want!

Steve

There is a difference between threatening to sue someone and actually suing someone. And of course frivolous lawsuits are thrown out all the time. A big company, like Air Canada or Disney can use their muscle and vast resources to intimidate people to do whatever they want because the threat of being sued by a big company is frankly terrifying. It doesn't mean they would be successful if you actually stood your ground.

At this point in the U.S. and Canada the rights of a corporation to protect it's property does not trump the first amendment, which includes the freedom of the press. If OP had the resources to fight, with or without SS to help, he would likely come out on top but who has the resources to fight such battles even if they're certain they would win the risk is too great which is how these entities get away with pushing people around.

Just to be clear, Canada is a sovereign nation and is not part of the US. We do not defacto enjoy the benfit of broadly interpreted first amendment protections as we do not have a constitution.

In my experience the concept of editorial usage is more rigidly interpreted here than in the US. In the OP's case for example were it to be challenged in court I would not be at all surprised if the court took a more conservative view and sided with Air Canada. After all, the story was not about Air Canada specifically but a generalized fluff piece on airline passenger behavior. Furthermore it was published on a commercially incentivized site full of click bait with questionable journalistic merit to say the least. No offense to the OP, but shooting these sorts of subjects without written permission or model releases; and submitting them as editorial simply because they can't be licensed commercially is inherently risky. Without a clearly defined editorial agenda AND some control over the image's final use you as the photographer will always be exposed.

« Reply #27 on: July 29, 2019, 23:51 »
0
Quote
I don't khow how illegal it could be to take pictures through the porthole of the wings+logo when there was at the same time a photo competition on Instagram organized by the same company... asking people to take in photo of what they see through that dirty plastic & scratched window.

any contest or competition have own rules that apply.

also, it is up to the brand to allow or not materials from contest to be reproduced.
I have many times entered contests where I couldn't re-upload final work as personal samples.

:)

OM

« Reply #28 on: July 31, 2019, 19:52 »
0
Canukistan is a funny place......they have govt allowed cannabis but all their coinage and notes may not be photographed in any way. Years ago I had a shot of a Maple Leaf gold coin as a small part of an 'artistic' photo but SS were forced to delete it anyway by some Canuck ruling about currency which it wasn't (wel, not really)!

« Reply #29 on: August 01, 2019, 07:47 »
0
Canukistan is a funny place......they have govt allowed cannabis but all their coinage and notes may not be photographed in any way. Years ago I had a shot of a Maple Leaf gold coin as a small part of an 'artistic' photo but SS were forced to delete it anyway by some Canuck ruling about currency which it wasn't (wel, not really)!

What are you talking about OM, do a SIMPLE research (https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/search/canada+money?pl=PPC_GOO_CA_BD-351482062029&cr=ec&kw=shutterstock&gclid=CjwKCAjwm4rqBRBUEiwAwaWjjExJNOImgyETMtZIIUhUhnGaF5c3NBJanskdryZHc8Eumd9HlOaWGRoC1sUQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds before writing stupidities. Your comment, besides being condescending is racist and brings nothing to the discussion. 

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #30 on: August 01, 2019, 13:45 »
0
...but all their coinage and notes may not be photographed in any way.

They can be shot in an editorial way. From SS: "Canadian banknotes and Canadian coins are only acceptable for editorial use".

« Reply #31 on: August 05, 2019, 01:15 »
0
see U of Alabama vs Daniel Moore.

judge ruled that photographers can sell photos that contain trademarks.

ShadySue

« Reply #32 on: August 05, 2019, 05:08 »
+1
see U of Alabama vs Daniel Moore.

judge ruled that photographers can sell photos that contain trademarks.

No, these were paintings/prints/calendars not photos sold as stock and I'd expect these to be differently treated in Law.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/06/12/appeals-court-backs-artist-lawsuit-watched-many-universities
How far does a ruling from an Alabama state judge spread? Not as far as Canada, I suspect.

« Reply #33 on: August 23, 2019, 00:39 »
0
I doubt SS gave the airline the photographers contact info. The company probably looked up his name and found his email through his website.

Confused here, wouldn't the airplane company contact ReaderDigest, the buyer of this picture ?
They will say we bought it from SS, then SS will say we got it from the Photographer ? right? or..
what is SS to do, when they get contacted about a possible infringement ? They state that they do not indemnify the photographer. 

« Reply #34 on: August 23, 2019, 07:52 »
0
Why you are contacted? Its clear that they should ask something to ss not yiu.. you are providing tge photo but ita ss who sell and ahould have understood thatmaybe it could create problem. Anyway if this was true practicamky every esitorial inagw with people can be found illegal. Dont care just point them out to ss and stop answering. Thats why i use a not real nick name flr stock first i dont want be seen as a stock cheap photographer by my clienta.. who pay me 000... 2 avoid to deal things like this. If they found something illegal in the use thye sue ss not me. An agency is an agency it should stand in front lof contriboutor

ShadySue

« Reply #35 on: August 23, 2019, 08:13 »
+2
An agency is an agency it should stand in front lof contriboutor
Don't know what SS does, but I read recently of a case when G paid off a claimant then claimed the money back from the contributor.
Looks like SS would likely do the same:
"j. upon making or learning of any claim that is inconsistent with any of the warranties or representations made by you, Shutterstock shall send you written notice of such claim, using the email address provided by you to Shutterstock, specifying the details of the claim as then known to Shutterstock. Pending the determination of such claim, Shutterstock may withhold from royalties and/or other compensation due to you hereunder, such sums as are reasonably related to the probable value of the claim as determined by Shutterstock. You will cooperate fully with Shutterstock in the defense of any such claims. You may participate in the defense of any claim through counsel of your selection at your own expense."
Though in the G case referred to, the contributor was not given the chance to defend the case, G went ahead and paid up then claimed the money back.

« Reply #36 on: August 23, 2019, 08:16 »
0
Quote
Pending the determination of such claim, Shutterstock may withhold from royalties and/or other compensation due to you hereunder, such sums as are reasonably related to the probable value of the claim as determined by Shutterstock. You will cooperate fully with Shutterstock in the defense of any such claims. You may participate in the defense of any claim through counsel of your selection at your own expense."

what a nice way to deal with image thieves and their growing number at Shutterstock.

oh wait... wrong case!

:P

OM

« Reply #37 on: August 24, 2019, 17:55 »
0
Canukistan is a funny place......they have govt allowed cannabis but all their coinage and notes may not be photographed in any way. Years ago I had a shot of a Maple Leaf gold coin as a small part of an 'artistic' photo but SS were forced to delete it anyway by some Canuck ruling about currency which it wasn't (wel, not really)!

What are you talking about OM, do a SIMPLE research (https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/search/canada+money?pl=PPC_GOO_CA_BD-351482062029&cr=ec&kw=shutterstock&gclid=CjwKCAjwm4rqBRBUEiwAwaWjjExJNOImgyETMtZIIUhUhnGaF5c3NBJanskdryZHc8Eumd9HlOaWGRoC1sUQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds before writing stupidities. Your comment, besides being condescending is racist and brings nothing to the discussion.
Thank you for your attack. When SS accepted my photo of a Maple Leaf  coin it was before the Canadian Govt ruled that all coins and notes could not be reproduced.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
4632 Views
Last post August 30, 2006, 16:56
by hospitalera
4 Replies
3363 Views
Last post October 14, 2008, 17:10
by madelaide
6 Replies
1786 Views
Last post May 23, 2015, 09:46
by Fudio
3 Replies
2231 Views
Last post August 06, 2016, 03:54
by Tror
11 Replies
1645 Views
Last post April 06, 2019, 09:21
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results