MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Has Anyone Had An Image Removed WAY After It Was Accepted?  (Read 4562 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 12, 2006, 10:14 »
0
I have an image that was accepted over 4 months ago. I recently received an email that they might remove it because of a copyright problem.

The image has had over 30 sales, and I was wondering if they remove the image, would they also remove the sales that I received???

Has anyone had something like this happen? If so, I would appreciate if you would share your experience...


dbvirago

« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2006, 10:18 »
0
Yes. I had one removed at DT like that. It has had a few sales, but not there.

« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2006, 10:23 »
0
Yes - Had images removed due to copyright at DT after a period of time.  I dont think they would remove the earning though.  Can you see what the potential copyright issue is.

Mine was a memorial/art work but the way I photographed, it was more of an abstract.  Can remember if it had sales at DT

« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2006, 10:43 »
0
Yes, DT removed one of my photos but not the earnings, the same thing happened in shutterstock.

suwanneeredhead

  • O.I.D. Sufferer (Obsessive Illustration Disorder)
« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2006, 20:37 »
0
I had one removed at IS -- it was my daughter playing in the water and I suppose the reviewers, on second thought (a few weeks after they had accepted it) decided that her "look" was too appealing to pedophiles!  They didn't want to be responsible for some perv using the image on a child porn site so they took it down.  I appreciate their looking out for me... but the other sites that had accepted it have left it up... I'm actually thinking of removing it for that reason.

Here it is: 



What do y'all think, too appealing to perverts?

« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2006, 00:36 »
0
It reminds me of the kind of photos that I saw on a Nancy Grace special on "teen model" website. I know it wasn't your intension but I would have to agree on that one. The swimming suit top is hanging a little low.

« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2006, 00:44 »
0
I have an image that was accepted over 4 months ago.  I recently received an email that they might remove it because of a copyright problem.

The image has had over 30 sales, and I was wondering if they remove the image, would they also remove the sales that I received???


I've never had a photo removed because I don't take any risks. I have reported a few copyright/trademark/design patent violations. For instance any blackberry, any photo I knew was taken at the San Diego Zoo, etc. The inspectors can't catch everything and it is better for the photographer if they don't have a photo up that violates someone else's IP. My favorite are all the people that upload photos of cell phones with the brand names taken off thinking it is ok.

EVERY MODERN CELLPHONE'S DESIGN IS BOTH TRADEMARKED AND DESIGN PATENTED.

« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2006, 02:38 »
0
EVERY MODERN CELLPHONE'S DESIGN IS BOTH TRADEMARKED AND DESIGN PATENTED.
and laptop,ipod or mp3, car. Where do you draw the line.

« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2006, 11:47 »
0
and laptop,ipod or mp3, car. Where do you draw the line.

You draw the line where the the law does. Very few laptops could have trademarks or design patents because they aren't orignial designs. Same with cars, only very distinctive cars qualify (anything by ford wouldn't, the new VW mini would). You have to remember that you cannot tread stock photography as a hobby, because it is not. Stock photography is a business and you have to respect other businesses' property.

You also have to remember that just because a photo contains a trademarked, etc. item doesn't mean that you are doing anything wrong by selling it. It all depends on how the item is used in the final design. However, if the stock photography agency gets sued for selling an image as RF that wasn't, the photographer will have to pay the legal expenses for both the agency and himself (it's in the contracts you agreed to).

I wouldn't be complaining about it, I'd be thankful that they are spending the time to protect the photographers from having to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2006, 11:55 by yingyang0 »

« Reply #9 on: October 14, 2006, 12:37 »
0
I've deleted a few images like this one which I just saw as innocent kids photos but reading about misuse of photos in one of the forums made me think twice about some of the images.  It's really not worth the risk involved just to make a few dollars.

I had one removed at IS -- it was my daughter playing in the water and I suppose the reviewers, on second thought (a few weeks after they had accepted it) decided that her "look" was too appealing to pedophiles! They didn't want to be responsible for some perv using the image on a child porn site so they took it down. I appreciate their looking out for me... but the other sites that had accepted it have left it up... I'm actually thinking of removing it for that reason.

Here it is:



What do y'all think, too appealing to perverts?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
15 Replies
4801 Views
Last post March 08, 2007, 14:15
by pattie
24 Replies
6544 Views
Last post March 22, 2008, 19:02
by Alatriste
3 Replies
3878 Views
Last post February 04, 2010, 01:59
by leaf
21 Replies
5748 Views
Last post July 08, 2014, 02:10
by Charbel Najem
2 Replies
2153 Views
Last post September 06, 2017, 16:31
by carolo7

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results