MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Morphart on October 27, 2016, 14:44
-
Hi!
[I EDITED THIS THREAD TO KEEP THE MATTER CONFIDENTIAL AS PER THE FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT I RECEIVED]
I stumbled on something major in regards to one of my Illustration. I have an illustration on sale on Shutterstock and a few other sites. Each licenses clearly states that the illustration cannot be used in a logo or to promote a trademark or service.
My illustration is now being used by a government and use in all medias (Video, prints, gifts).
I am in the process of talking with a lawyer but the asking price for this for me is confusing. They are very rich countries, but I want a fair price while considering that they did not ask or paid me anything and considering the HUGE media coverage of the image and considering they are a government and should know better.
What would you do and how much would you ask?
I'm sorry for now I cannot disclose all the images and proof before an action is taken or before I give them the chance to answer to the claim.
-
I am not sure how this works as it isn't a commercial logo. Have they tried to trademark it? I wonder if a designer has tried to claim it was their work.
-
I cannot know for sure, I only see so many youtube videos, one showing a dilligent speaking on TV with a tribune showing my Illustration, then five countries armies with trumpets looking at a flag being raised... with my Illustration on it...
It's kind of big but not sure what leverage I have.
-
Maybe you should ask at SS first, just for their opinion, is that kind of usage allowed, etc...
-
Right. I don't know if an image.illustration being used to promote an event is really a "logo". I mean an illustration gets used like that.
-
I cannot know for sure, I only see so many youtube videos, one showing a dilligent speaking on TV with a tribune showing my Illustration, then five countries armies with trumpets looking at a flag being raised... with my Illustration on it...
It's kind of big but not sure what leverage I have.
Without any more details than you've given, I don't think you have any reason to complain about their uses of your illustration.
If there are limits on numbers of impressions (print) that they've violated, they'd need an extended license. If they are distributing your vector as part of a press kit, then that's effectively a template (forbidden at some agencies; extended license at others). If they're selling tee shirts with your eagle on it then they need an extended license, but if they're just giving away swag at these meetings, then they're fine with a standard license (print run limits still apply).
The rule about no logos is that the buyer cannot copyright or trademark something with your copyrighted artwork in it. If someone uses your artwork in all their materials knowing that they can't trademark it as their logo, there's nothing to stop them licensing royalty free artwork for that purpose.
-
No logos, thems are da rules. I'd wait until after the event.... when it comes to compensation, you'll have less leverage if they pull the logo and go for another one the instant they're made aware of the issue... more if every man and his dog has a t-shirt with your image on it in their wardrobe.
-
I thought everyone knew what their license implied here. From shutterstock licensing page:
What is not allowed with Shutterstock Licenses?
Logos, trademark, or similar applications of images
You may not:
Use any Visual Content (in whole or in part) as a trademark, service mark, logo, or other indication of origin, or as part thereof.
My lawyer says he is struck as it's exactly my illustration they used and we have a very solid case. I was just wondering insight here of other illustrator and how much compensation and price they would ask for such an extensive use of your illustration. (Same as a model would price a shooting depending on the use you will do with their image).
Maybe you should ask at SS first, just for their opinion, is that kind of usage allowed, etc...
Yes I have asked them but my guess is that they will check on their own interest not sure they will defend the copyrights of their contributor. Gettyimages does but contributors must be exclusive. But no using any images as a logo is prohibited by any agencies. I sold full copyrights before to companies around the world to have my image removed from Microstock and have them use it as a logo, but for this they pay the high price. For this one, it's used overmassively and I received no compensation from it.
Right. I don't know if an image.illustration being used to promote an event is really a "logo". I mean an illustration gets used like that.
It's not to promote an event. They created a coalition for defense with 5 contries. They used my illustration, put 5 flags around it and made a logo out of it. They use it to promote their coalition. Like I said on flags, TV shows, road ads, stationnary etc.
I am not sure how this works as it isn't a commercial logo. Have they tried to trademark it? I wonder if a designer has tried to claim it was their work.
Be it a commercial or personal or governmental logo, they are still using my image in a logo. I guess the one who sold it to they claimed it was original work, but it's not a small thing.
I cannot know for sure, I only see so many youtube videos, one showing a dilligent speaking on TV with a tribune showing my Illustration, then five countries armies with trumpets looking at a flag being raised... with my Illustration on it...
It's kind of big but not sure what leverage I have.
Without any more details than you've given, I don't think you have any reason to complain about their uses of your illustration.
If there are limits on numbers of impressions (print) that they've violated, they'd need an extended license. If they are distributing your vector as part of a press kit, then that's effectively a template (forbidden at some agencies; extended license at others). If they're selling tee shirts with your eagle on it then they need an extended license, but if they're just giving away swag at these meetings, then they're fine with a standard license (print run limits still apply).
The rule about no logos is that the buyer cannot copyright or trademark something with your copyrighted artwork in it. If someone uses your artwork in all their materials knowing that they can't trademark it as their logo, there's nothing to stop them licensing royalty free artwork for that purpose.
The license clearly states that it cannot be used as a logo. They use it on the tribune the guy on TV speaks from, they use it on a Flag with thousands of people there, they use it on all their army trucks.
Anyhow will make my own pricing and go forward with this, I thought to have better insight here as I have had in the past.
-
It isn't a logo unless they try and trademark it. Otherwise it's just art they use in their materials.
Why are you assuming it's a logo?
-
It is interesting to read what people think about this. But you will not really know where you stand until you get the opinion of an intellectual property attorney. IMHO.
-
It isn't a logo unless they try and trademark it. Otherwise it's just art they use in their materials.
Why are you assuming it's a logo?
Right. Are you envisioning people framing your illustrations for their walls? This is what people use stock imagery for. To accompany, illustrate and draw attention to something. All those sports mascot illustrations? They're used all the time for high school teams or sports bars or whatever. Doesn't make it a logo. A logo is protectable. Obviously, this isn't, since you're still selling the illustration royalty free.
-
It isn't a logo unless they try and trademark it. Otherwise it's just art they use in their materials.
Why are you assuming it's a logo?
I'm not buying that. You can have a logo without trademarking it, which although probably not the wisest of ideas, it probably can and does happen. Envato have a logo template category for items whch you can use as logos. Anything else on the site you can't use as a logo. You still can't copyright or trademark the logo though... although it's still a logo.
The text is pretty clear...
Use any Visual Content (in whole or in part) as a trademark, service mark, logo, or other indication of origin, or as part thereof.
So whether you can use the content for logos isn't really up for debate. The only point that could be argued is whether it's a logo or not, and copyrighting that logo doesn't automatically make it a logo or not. The fact it's being used as a visual representation of an event through the medium of illustration... makes me think that it's pretty clear cut. It's a logo and they shouldn't be using it as a logo.
-
I guess my point wasn't stated very well.
If you say my artwork used in all my print and web materials is a logo and I say it's not, how do you resolve that legally? If I'm the buyer and make materials with purchased vectors, the only clear way there's no arguing about whether it's a logo or not is if I try to protect it legally as such. I'm assuming that hasn't happened here.
Otherwise you'll head to court (or settlement negotiations) with me (buyer) saying I'm within the license terms as there's no logo here and the contributor arguing that my materials do constitute a logo and asking for more money for a different license.
Artwork doesn't become a logo just because the creator of the artwork says that's what the buyer has done with it.
-
And a person doesn't become a murderer just because somebody else says they are... but that's what the lawyers, the judges and the courts are for. But in this example... we've got a severed head, a dude standing over it with a sword in his hand, and he's covered in blood... that's got to be worth a quick phone call to the cops, even if there's no guarantee he's the murderer.
You're absolutely right, but you're also splitting hairs slightly. I mean, it's a graphical symbol meant to represent an event, and a brand, across all of their marketing channels. If that doesn't constitute a logo then it's pretty * close... it's not like such a case would get laughed out of court.
Are you seriously suggesting that the guy should forget about the rules of Shutterstock being broken, and his intellectual property rights being breached, just because there's a slight chance that the logo might not be a logo, when in every conceivable way... it does seem to be a logo?
I'm sure by now there will be a legal definition of what a logo is, and although I don't know what that is, I'm pretty sure it's not going to say that a registered logo is a logo, and one that isn't, is not a logo.
Should we do the same for all instances when people should have bought an extended license and they haven't.... because there might be some loophole or some extenuating circumstance that means they might not need one?
-
It is interesting to read what people think about this. But you will not really know where you stand until you get the opinion of an intellectual property attorney. IMHO.
Yes I have an attorney know and he is struck at this case and that we have solid rights to make a claim. We'll see how it goes.
It isn't a logo unless they try and trademark it. Otherwise it's just art they use in their materials.
Why are you assuming it's a logo?
I have a graphic design company which I run for 10 years now. A logo doesn't have to be trademarked. By definition, a logo is a graphic mark, emblem, or symbol commonly used by commercial enterprises, organizations and even individuals to aid and promote instant public recognition. Logos are either purely graphic (symbols/icons) or are composed of the name of the organization (a logotype or wordmark).
It's clear everywhere in Microstock, illustrations simply cannot be used as a logo by anyone for anything (not even your school). If you want to use it as a logo, contact the copyright owner and buy the copyrights, that is how it is normally done.
-
Right. Are you envisioning people framing your illustrations for their walls? This is what people use stock imagery for. To accompany, illustrate and draw attention to something. All those sports mascot illustrations? They're used all the time for high school teams or sports bars or whatever. Doesn't make it a logo. A logo is protectable. Obviously, this isn't, since you're still selling the illustration royalty free.
Sean, I have sold 262 352 illustrations license so far on Shutterstock, don't worry, I'm not shocked that people use my material. But they have to use it for the license they paid for. If they pay me 0.38$, I will make sure they don't do international campaign and unlimited print. If they buy extended license, fine (which haven't been bought for this image). But extended license or not, they can't claim the image and make it part of their governemental logo without buying the copyrights of it. Period.
-
I guess my point wasn't stated very well.
If you say my artwork used in all my print and web materials is a logo and I say it's not, how do you resolve that legally? If I'm the buyer and make materials with purchased vectors, the only clear way there's no arguing about whether it's a logo or not is if I try to protect it legally as such. I'm assuming that hasn't happened here.
Otherwise you'll head to court (or settlement negotiations) with me (buyer) saying I'm within the license terms as there's no logo here and the contributor arguing that my materials do constitute a logo and asking for more money for a different license.
Artwork doesn't become a logo just because the creator of the artwork says that's what the buyer has done with it.
I won't be making this claim if I wouldn't think it's a logo. And my attorney also sees this clearly. And person in my entourage I have shown it to also.
You type the organization name and LOGO in Google and you get the image.
Anyhow I will do the procedures with my attorney, and if I fail to have any payment made for the copyright breach and for them to buy the copyrights I will make this public (here) and in the international medias. It's not like it's a village high school that had a parent do a logo for them, it's a 5 government coalition that commissioned this and have it over all their countries, youtube, twitter and everywhere.
I sold copyrights of image for 4 figures for the image to be used as a logo before, but it's use was commercial in a specific country territory. Nowhere to what I am dealing with right now...
-
I have a graphic design company which I run for 10 years now. A logo doesn't have to be trademarked. By definition, a logo is a graphic mark, emblem, or symbol commonly used by commercial enterprises, organizations and even individuals to aid and promote instant public recognition. Logos are either purely graphic (symbols/icons) or are composed of the name of the organization (a logotype or wordmark).
So, how is a commercial enterprise, organization or individual supposed to use an image like this, if not to promote public recognition of their company, event or product?
http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-vector-eagle-head-tattoo-design-vintage-engraved-illustration-154879832.jpg (http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-vector-eagle-head-tattoo-design-vintage-engraved-illustration-154879832.jpg)
It's essentially an icon, something that iconifies something.
-
Car stickers https://www.aliexpress.com/item/14-1-14-5CM-Bald-Eagle-Head-Car-Styling-Cool-Animal-Vinyl-Reflective-Car-Stickers-And/32710205134.html?spm=2114.40010308.4.12.bkrjj9 (https://www.aliexpress.com/item/14-1-14-5CM-Bald-Eagle-Head-Car-Styling-Cool-Animal-Vinyl-Reflective-Car-Stickers-And/32710205134.html?spm=2114.40010308.4.12.bkrjj9)
-
I won't be making this claim if I wouldn't think it's a logo. And my attorney also sees this clearly. And person in my entourage I have shown it to also.
You type the organization name and LOGO in Google and you get the image.
Anyhow I will do the procedures with my attorney, and if I fail to have any payment made for the copyright breach and for them to buy the copyrights I will make this public (here) and in the international medias. It's not like it's a village high school that had a parent do a logo for them, it's a 5 government coalition that commissioned this and have it over all their countries, youtube, twitter and everywhere.
I sold copyrights of image for 4 figures for the image to be used as a logo before, but it's use was commercial in a specific country territory. Nowhere to what I am dealing with right now...
From your description, I agree with you that it sounds like it is definitely being used as a logo. And if your attorney says you have a case, then I guess that is what matters. I wish you luck and I hope you will keep in touch with us about the outcome.
-
I have a graphic design company which I run for 10 years now. A logo doesn't have to be trademarked. By definition, a logo is a graphic mark, emblem, or symbol commonly used by commercial enterprises, organizations and even individuals to aid and promote instant public recognition. Logos are either purely graphic (symbols/icons) or are composed of the name of the organization (a logotype or wordmark).
So, how is a commercial enterprise, organization or individual supposed to use an image like this, if not to promote public recognition of their company, event or product?
It's essentially an icon, something that iconifies something.
SS prohibits icon use as logos. For the obvious reason that it can't be trademarked or copyrighted (is that a word?) because the artist owns the copyright and the buyer hasn't paid for copyright ownership...and hundreds or thousands of other entities are using the same icon. So that defeats the entire purpose of a logo as an exclusive identifying mark.
However, SS fairly recently relaxed their standards to allow the use of the word "logo" in descriptions and keywords, and they also had a lightbox with featured "logos" in it, so they are being a bit misleading to buyers, to put it mildly. On the one hand they allow the word and the search, and promote "logos;" on the other they have you sign a legal agreement that you won't use the icons as logos.
And vector artists (me included) of course use the word "logo," because it's a very popular search term. It's a slippery slope.
In this case the artist has NOT used the word "logo," though. And very large enterprises are well aware that such usage is prohibited. So I think he has a strong case.
The solution, I guess, would be to do what iS tried a couple of years ago (which went nowhere), which is to have a separate agreement and much higher pricing for icons that can only be sold once for use as a logo.
-
While I side with morphart with this abuse, I did a simple search by design on google images and found the identical eagle on pages and pages of sites, some for sale, some I don't know what the license allows.
http://tinyurl.com/hd2plqj (http://tinyurl.com/hd2plqj)
How do you know where they got it? Do they credit you as the artist and the source?
-
I have a graphic design company which I run for 10 years now. A logo doesn't have to be trademarked. By definition, a logo is a graphic mark, emblem, or symbol commonly used by commercial enterprises, organizations and even individuals to aid and promote instant public recognition. Logos are either purely graphic (symbols/icons) or are composed of the name of the organization (a logotype or wordmark).
So, how is a commercial enterprise, organization or individual supposed to use an image like this, if not to promote public recognition of their company, event or product?
It's essentially an icon, something that iconifies something.
Don't forget that people need lots of logos that aren't actually logos!
If I shoot an ad or tv program with people walking down the street every shop sign is going to need a logo, but not an actual logo. Whenever there's a fake company in a series they need a stock logo to fill in where a real logo would be. I have seen my work pop up in just this sort of thing.
-
Also, if you look at that search above, you'll see these icons described as "tattoos..." yet another use. Also as icons to highlight things in ads, to print on t-shirts....lots of uses for stylized icons.
-
Just though of something else. My kids bought some clothes from the supermarket today again featuring logo-esque motifs. You see them all the time in kids clothing isles, fake sports teams, fake scout troops, fake fire departments, armies and whatever else you can think of. Once you get onto the toy isle toy cars have fake sanitation company logos on them, fake construction company logos, can't stop thinking of examples now!
-
Point being, if you're going to license icons, it's likely they'll be used as icons.
-
...You're absolutely right, but you're also splitting hairs slightly. I mean, it's a graphical symbol meant to represent an event, and a brand, across all of their marketing channels. If that doesn't constitute a logo then it's pretty * close... it's not like such a case would get laughed out of court.
Are you seriously suggesting that the guy should forget about the rules of Shutterstock being broken, and his intellectual property rights being breached, just because there's a slight chance that the logo might not be a logo, when in every conceivable way... it does seem to be a logo?...
Splitting hairs is what lawyers do. At the hourly rates they charge, that can be very costly for their clients. In the US with contingency fees being legal (not the case everywhere) sometimes if you have the possibility of a huge payout, a lawyer will take a case on a contingency basis.
If you have large companies, governments or rich clients on one side, you have to consider the practicalities of the chance of winning and the costs of doing so, weighing that against the largest possible payout you think you could get. If you win and it costs you more in legal fees than your judgment, what's the point?
It's in the contributor's best financial interests to try and resolve this without a lawsuit, IMO. In addition to the issues of making the details of your case , you've got five countries involved, apparently, and possibly another country where the agency is. Which court do you take this to?
The OP mentioned that the countries are rich - not sure what that has to do with anything regarding the infringement issue, but it probably means they can outspend a stock illustrator in a legal fight. Legal battles are typically long, costly and ugly.
-
I have a graphic design company which I run for 10 years now. A logo doesn't have to be trademarked. By definition, a logo is a graphic mark, emblem, or symbol commonly used by commercial enterprises, organizations and even individuals to aid and promote instant public recognition. Logos are either purely graphic (symbols/icons) or are composed of the name of the organization (a logotype or wordmark).
So, how is a commercial enterprise, organization or individual supposed to use an image like this, if not to promote public recognition of their company, event or product?
It's essentially an icon, something that iconifies something.
Normally these images were made for Tattoo design and decals. This can be used for tatoo or part of a background design for print or web. Anything but a logo.
-
While I side with morphart with this abuse, I did a simple search by design on google images and found the identical eagle on pages and pages of sites, some for sale, some I don't know what the license allows.
[url]http://tinyurl.com/hd2plqj[/url] ([url]http://tinyurl.com/hd2plqj[/url])
How do you know where they got it? Do they credit you as the artist and the source?
You are not talking about the right illustration, I did not disclose the illustration as my point of leverage right now is I haven't gone public and to the media to avoid them being embarrassed... and so that they can offer to buy the copyrights in good faith. Probably they hired a graphic designer who mislead them with this also, we can leave the governments a doubt.
-
...You're absolutely right, but you're also splitting hairs slightly. I mean, it's a graphical symbol meant to represent an event, and a brand, across all of their marketing channels. If that doesn't constitute a logo then it's pretty * close... it's not like such a case would get laughed out of court.
Are you seriously suggesting that the guy should forget about the rules of Shutterstock being broken, and his intellectual property rights being breached, just because there's a slight chance that the logo might not be a logo, when in every conceivable way... it does seem to be a logo?...
Splitting hairs is what lawyers do. At the hourly rates they charge, that can be very costly for their clients. In the US with contingency fees being legal (not the case everywhere) sometimes if you have the possibility of a huge payout, a lawyer will take a case on a contingency basis.
If you have large companies, governments or rich clients on one side, you have to consider the practicalities of the chance of winning and the costs of doing so, weighing that against the largest possible payout you think you could get. If you win and it costs you more in legal fees than your judgment, what's the point?
It's in the contributor's best financial interests to try and resolve this without a lawsuit, IMO. In addition to the issues of making the details of your case , you've got five countries involved, apparently, and possibly another country where the agency is. Which court do you take this to?
The OP mentioned that the countries are rich - not sure what that has to do with anything regarding the infringement issue, but it probably means they can outspend a stock illustrator in a legal fight. Legal battles are typically long, costly and ugly.
I can only lawsuit them in their country... or go public to the medias which I think they wouldn't like for such a vast coverage. In any case it's in progress right now, will post back in a month or so when all this is over.
-
Point being, if you're going to license icons, it's likely they'll be used as icons.
Of course. Use them as an icon, not as a logo with your company name below it, with a few color changes to make as you did the illustration.
-
...You're absolutely right, but you're also splitting hairs slightly. I mean, it's a graphical symbol meant to represent an event, and a brand, across all of their marketing channels. If that doesn't constitute a logo then it's pretty * close... it's not like such a case would get laughed out of court.
Are you seriously suggesting that the guy should forget about the rules of Shutterstock being broken, and his intellectual property rights being breached, just because there's a slight chance that the logo might not be a logo, when in every conceivable way... it does seem to be a logo?...
Splitting hairs is what lawyers do. At the hourly rates they charge, that can be very costly for their clients. In the US with contingency fees being legal (not the case everywhere) sometimes if you have the possibility of a huge payout, a lawyer will take a case on a contingency basis.
If you have large companies, governments or rich clients on one side, you have to consider the practicalities of the chance of winning and the costs of doing so, weighing that against the largest possible payout you think you could get. If you win and it costs you more in legal fees than your judgment, what's the point?
It's in the contributor's best financial interests to try and resolve this without a lawsuit, IMO. In addition to the issues of making the details of your case , you've got five countries involved, apparently, and possibly another country where the agency is. Which court do you take this to?
The OP mentioned that the countries are rich - not sure what that has to do with anything regarding the infringement issue, but it probably means they can outspend a stock illustrator in a legal fight. Legal battles are typically long, costly and ugly.
So your advice to everyone, would be that no matter what has happened... whether it be dead family members, copyright infringement, a house that has burnt to the ground because of faulty electricals, lost baggage, broken limbs due to poor safety, defamation, unfair dismissal, somebody blatantly copying our work, squatters in your property, items that are mis-sold, unpaid debts, people breaching NDAs, burgers with rats heads in them etc etc..... we should just forget about it?
-
This sounds like an interesting case, i am curious how it will be resolved
Hopefully it turns out well for you
-
Is small claims court an option? In Canada, claims of up to 25000 can be made in small claims court. This would vary by country but could save you some lawyer fees.
John
-
As for how much... I'd do your best to figure out how much it would cost for them to go with a different logo, taking into account re-editing and reprinting posters, t-shirts, adverts, billboards etc... and ask for half of that. Or maybe three quarters, if you think your calculations are pretty spot on.
Obviously you could ask for more, but if they have a choice between X and X+100%, then it makes your option more appealing. Yes, they've still breached your rights and should have to pay up even if they go with another logo design... but any compensation awarded might not be as high if the perps immediately remove all usage of your logo, as soon as they're made aware of the issue.
-
I have a graphic design company which I run for 10 years now. A logo doesn't have to be trademarked. By definition, a logo is a graphic mark, emblem, or symbol commonly used by commercial enterprises, organizations and even individuals to aid and promote instant public recognition. Logos are either purely graphic (symbols/icons) or are composed of the name of the organization (a logotype or wordmark).
So, how is a commercial enterprise, organization or individual supposed to use an image like this, if not to promote public recognition of their company, event or product?
([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-vector-eagle-head-tattoo-design-vintage-engraved-illustration-154879832.jpg[/url])
It's essentially an icon, something that iconifies something.
SS should be selling this only as editorial. This is a well known logo esp in Europe.
-
I have a graphic design company which I run for 10 years now. A logo doesn't have to be trademarked. By definition, a logo is a graphic mark, emblem, or symbol commonly used by commercial enterprises, organizations and even individuals to aid and promote instant public recognition. Logos are either purely graphic (symbols/icons) or are composed of the name of the organization (a logotype or wordmark).
So, how is a commercial enterprise, organization or individual supposed to use an image like this, if not to promote public recognition of their company, event or product?
It's essentially an icon, something that iconifies something.
SS should be selling this only as editorial. This is a well known logo esp in Europe.
Who's logo is it?
-
I have a graphic design company which I run for 10 years now. A logo doesn't have to be trademarked. By definition, a logo is a graphic mark, emblem, or symbol commonly used by commercial enterprises, organizations and even individuals to aid and promote instant public recognition. Logos are either purely graphic (symbols/icons) or are composed of the name of the organization (a logotype or wordmark).
So, how is a commercial enterprise, organization or individual supposed to use an image like this, if not to promote public recognition of their company, event or product?
It's essentially an icon, something that iconifies something.
SS should be selling this only as editorial. This is a well known logo esp in Europe.
Who's logo is it?
This logo is Scania Griffin. It refers both to the 100 year old vehicle manufacturer and the province of Scania in Sweden. There are different versions of it through time. This one is missing the crown but the rest of it is same and EXTREMELY identifiable as in the later versions of the logo. The Scania coat of Arms with the griffin dates back to the 1400s!
If someone here claims they designed the Scania Griffin, well, good luck!
-
I just googled it and they really aren't the same IMHO
-
Yeah, I just gave it a go and they're pretty far off. Yes, they're both black and white illustrations of the same beast, and it could be said that the style of illustration is pretty similar, but there are a lot of considerable differences.
-
OP you may want to check this:
yours http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-218972797.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-218972797.html)
theirs http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-277309679.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-277309679.html)
ETA yeah maybe this too: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-478143574.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-478143574.html)
-
But this image:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html)
predates your one above no? I am just notice some similarities like the number of swooshes at the bottom, position of the sideways "v" by the mouth. Number of lines above the eye. Way the eye is cut off at the bottom. Way eye intersects line. Way the dark shape swooshes under the eye and so on.
ETA: I mean this one
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-218972797.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-218972797.html)
Weird huh?
-
Is small claims court an option? In Canada, claims of up to 25000 can be made in small claims court. This would vary by country but could save you some lawyer fees.
John
No, I'm from Canada but the copyright infringement is in another country, we need to use to claims in that country we cannot use Canada's legislation for this :(
-
I have a graphic design company which I run for 10 years now. A logo doesn't have to be trademarked. By definition, a logo is a graphic mark, emblem, or symbol commonly used by commercial enterprises, organizations and even individuals to aid and promote instant public recognition. Logos are either purely graphic (symbols/icons) or are composed of the name of the organization (a logotype or wordmark).
So, how is a commercial enterprise, organization or individual supposed to use an image like this, if not to promote public recognition of their company, event or product?
It's essentially an icon, something that iconifies something.
SS should be selling this only as editorial. This is a well known logo esp in Europe.
Who's logo is it?
This logo is Scania Griffin. It refers both to the 100 year old vehicle manufacturer and the province of Scania in Sweden. There are different versions of it through time. This one is missing the crown but the rest of it is same and EXTREMELY identifiable as in the later versions of the logo. The Scania coat of Arms with the griffin dates back to the 1400s!
If someone here claims they designed the Scania Griffin, well, good luck!
Stop quoting this image and searching about it, it's not even the image I am claiming on lol. It's just Sean who posted this one try to make a point lol.
-
But this image:
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html[/url])
predates your one above no? I am just notice some similarities like the number of swooshes at the bottom, position of the sideways "v" by the mouth. Number of lines above the eye. Way the eye is cut off at the bottom. Way eye intersects line. Way the dark shape swooshes under the eye and so on.
Weird huh?
I'm not sure I understand your point? First the image people quotes in this thread is not related at all to the issue I am talking about. Second I don't see any similarities except that they are both eagle heads?
Please read the start of the thread if you didn't. :p
-
But this image:
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html[/url])
predates your one above no? I am just notice some similarities like the number of swooshes at the bottom, position of the sideways "v" by the mouth. Number of lines above the eye. Way the eye is cut off at the bottom. Way eye intersects line. Way the dark shape swooshes under the eye and so on.
Weird huh?
I'm not sure I understand your point? First the image people quotes in this thread is not related at all to the issue I am talking about. Second I don't see any similarities except that they are both eagle heads?
Please read the start of the thread if you didn't. :p
You should compare the two side by side, IMHO every element of the eagles head has a corresponding almost identical element in your version, but whatever.
I am talking about these two, not the one Sean linked to:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html)
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-218972797.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-218972797.html)
-
What confuses me is why your attorney is not able to advise you as to the value of the case. Does he specialize in IP cases? He should be familiar with typical settlement and judgment values in his field.
-
But this image:
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html[/url])
predates your one above no? I am just notice some similarities like the number of swooshes at the bottom, position of the sideways "v" by the mouth. Number of lines above the eye. Way the eye is cut off at the bottom. Way eye intersects line. Way the dark shape swooshes under the eye and so on.
Weird huh?
I'm not sure I understand your point? First the image people quotes in this thread is not related at all to the issue I am talking about. Second I don't see any similarities except that they are both eagle heads?
Please read the start of the thread if you didn't. :p
You should compare the two side by side, IMHO every element of the eagles head has a corresponding almost identical element in your version, but whatever.
I am talking about these two, not the one Sean linked to:
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-218972797.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-218972797.html[/url])
Yeah, but you're still comparing them to the one he posted... for all we know, the logo in question could be a bat having intimate relations with a horse. As a result, I see no similarities in the eagles you've posted, and the bat horse action logo that this thread relates to.
-
But this image:
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html[/url])
predates your one above no? I am just notice some similarities like the number of swooshes at the bottom, position of the sideways "v" by the mouth. Number of lines above the eye. Way the eye is cut off at the bottom. Way eye intersects line. Way the dark shape swooshes under the eye and so on.
Weird huh?
I'm not sure I understand your point? First the image people quotes in this thread is not related at all to the issue I am talking about. Second I don't see any similarities except that they are both eagle heads?
Please read the start of the thread if you didn't. :p
You should compare the two side by side, IMHO every element of the eagles head has a corresponding almost identical element in your version, but whatever.
I am talking about these two, not the one Sean linked to:
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-218972797.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-218972797.html[/url])
Yeah, but you're still comparing them to the one he posted... for all we know, the logo in question could be a bat having intimate relations with a horse. As a result, I see no similarities in the eagles you've posted, and the bat horse action logo that this thread relates to.
No I'm not, I'm comparing the two links to each other not to the one Sean posted. One is by the OP, the other is by another contributor. If your point is that this isn't what the OP intended to discuss, then yes you are correct. I just noticed the similarity when I was taking a look at his portfolio for this thread.
-
What confuses me is why your attorney is not able to advise you as to the value of the case. Does he specialize in IP cases? He should be familiar with typical settlement and judgment values in his field.
Yes he has 15 years experience in IP cases, but first off he didn't know the exact amount, for now we'll ask the other party to stop using the image or make an offer to buy the license.
I was trying to get some sort of insight here as it has been useful in the past, but I guess without disclosing all the information and the importance and coverage of their campaign would be hard to do. Official attorney letter is leaving today, I'll keep posted about the result :p
-
I was trying to get some sort of insight here as it has been useful in the past, but I guess without disclosing all the information and the importance and coverage of their campaign would be hard to do. Official attorney letter is leaving today, I'll keep posted about the result :p
I hope it goes well for you. This sounds really outrageous!
-
And when you say 'buy the license' keep in mind that they can't buy that license from any of the stock sites they may have got it from, as none of them provide a license where they can use your item in a logo. So you'll need to sell them one of your own custom licenses directly, one that happens to cost considerably more than what they may have paid elsewhere for a non logo license.
-
But this image:
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html[/url])
predates your one above no? I am just notice some similarities like the number of swooshes at the bottom, position of the sideways "v" by the mouth. Number of lines above the eye. Way the eye is cut off at the bottom. Way eye intersects line. Way the dark shape swooshes under the eye and so on.
Weird huh?
I'm not sure I understand your point? First the image people quotes in this thread is not related at all to the issue I am talking about. Second I don't see any similarities except that they are both eagle heads?
Please read the start of the thread if you didn't. :p
You should compare the two side by side, IMHO every element of the eagles head has a corresponding almost identical element in your version, but whatever.
I am talking about these two, not the one Sean linked to:
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-218972797.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-218972797.html[/url])
Yeah, but you're still comparing them to the one he posted... for all we know, the logo in question could be a bat having intimate relations with a horse. As a result, I see no similarities in the eagles you've posted, and the bat horse action logo that this thread relates to.
No I'm not, I'm comparing the two links to each other not to the one Sean posted. One is by the OP, the other is by another contributor. If your point is that this isn't what the OP intended to discuss, then yes you are correct. I just noticed the similarity when I was taking a look at his portfolio for this thread.
Ah right, I see what you're saying now. Sorry!
-
Well, looks like the OP has deleted that image? Guess it's mystery solved.
-
Well, looks like the OP has deleted that image? Guess it's mystery solved.
I noticed many difference from the 2 images when put one next to each other, one was more 3D, mine more flat, however with a portfolio of 20k images I don't want anything to do with a copyright verification from Shutterstock. Having an account suspended even for a few days while an investigation goes on = a lot of revenue loss. I have all the source hand drawing done by my Illustrator but I still contacted him to make sure it was original which he confirmed it was and pointed out the differences. Thanks also for pointing out similar copies from other contributors will also have a look on those.
-
I was trying to get some sort of insight here as it has been useful in the past, but I guess without disclosing all the information and the importance and coverage of their campaign would be hard to do. Official attorney letter is leaving today, I'll keep posted about the result :p
I hope it goes well for you. This sounds really outrageous!
I hope also, letters are sent and am waiting an answer from them in the next 2 weeks. Thanks for your support!
-
While I side with morphart with this abuse, I did a simple search by design on google images and found the identical eagle on pages and pages of sites, some for sale, some I don't know what the license allows.
[url]http://tinyurl.com/hd2plqj[/url] ([url]http://tinyurl.com/hd2plqj[/url])
How do you know where they got it? Do they credit you as the artist and the source?
You are not talking about the right illustration, I did not disclose the illustration as my point of leverage right now is I haven't gone public and to the media to avoid them being embarrassed... and so that they can offer to buy the copyrights in good faith. Probably they hired a graphic designer who mislead them with this also, we can leave the governments a doubt.
Got it, waiting for the lawyer to do his work.
-
Just noting that depositphotos explicitly allows logo use as long as the logo is not a registered trade or service mark.
Logo or emblem that will NOT be officially registered as a trademark or service mark
Allowed
http://depositphotos.com/license-comparison.html (http://depositphotos.com/license-comparison.html)
-
What confuses me is why your attorney is not able to advise you as to the value of the case. Does he specialize in IP cases? He should be familiar with typical settlement and judgment values in his field.
Yes he has 15 years experience in IP cases, but first off he didn't know the exact amount, for now we'll ask the other party to stop using the image or make an offer to buy the license.
I was trying to get some sort of insight here as it has been useful in the past, but I guess without disclosing all the information and the importance and coverage of their campaign would be hard to do. Official attorney letter is leaving today, I'll keep posted about the result :p
Hi everyone, just writing to tell we received a call this morning and are settling for a 5 figures. The guess was right, the one who sold them the logo did not read the license terms and they are kind of embarrassed, so I want to keep this story low. Just wanted to share it as it's worth it to defend your copyrights even if it seems hard work or to have upfront fees for a lawyer.
BTW, I contacted Shutterstock about this after hiring the lawyer, and they answered 3 weeks after saying that since I already took the matter in hand they will not do anything unless I get no result, and I had to prove the license (image) was bought from their website. Not sure what the results would have been had I left it in their hands.
I am happy to see there are sometime good endings in Microstock stories :p
-
Great outcome, way to go!
-
Nice! Definitely worth the fight~
-
Congratulations, Morphart. You made the right decisions and actions like yours help everyone who makes money from copyrights.
-
Well, guess I was wrong. Enjoy the windfall!
-
Congratulations, Morphart. You made the right decisions and actions like yours help everyone who makes money from copyrights.
Thanks I appreciate. I still didn't receive the cheque but discussion is on. At least they acknowledge their mistake, I just hope they follow through :p
-
Congratulations, Morphart. You made the right decisions and actions like yours help everyone who makes money from copyrights.
Thanks I appreciate. I still didn't receive the cheque but discussion is on. At least they acknowledge their mistake, I just hope they follow through :p
To close this thread, they did not negociate even a single cent and agreed to pay 25k$ USD for exclusive copyright and worldwide distribution. Either I made a fair price or they found it low enough not to negociate, but comparing to microstock earning, this is a good victory for copyrights, very happy about this ending just before Christmas. Attorney will cost me around 2k$ CDN but was well worth it.
If you ever find yourself in a similar situation, it can be worth it to defend your rights yourself with an attorney, even if it's just an official letter sent.
Happy Holidays! :)
-
well done!
-
So we have our single best day ever winner.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/your-single-best-day-ever/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/your-single-best-day-ever/)
-
Congratulations, Morphart. You made the right decisions and actions like yours help everyone who makes money from copyrights.
Thanks I appreciate. I still didn't receive the cheque but discussion is on. At least they acknowledge their mistake, I just hope they follow through :p
To close this thread, they did not negociate even a single cent and agreed to pay 25k$ USD for exclusive copyright and worldwide distribution. Either I made a fair price or they found it low enough not to negociate, but comparing to microstock earning, this is a good victory for copyrights, very happy about this ending just before Christmas. Attorney will cost me around 2k$ CDN but was well worth it.
If you ever find yourself in a similar situation, it can be worth it to defend your rights yourself with an attorney, even if it's just an official letter sent.
Happy Holidays! :)
Excellent! Merry Christmas to you...I foresee new camera equipment under your tree. :)
-
To close this thread, they did not negociate even a single cent and agreed to pay 25k$ USD for exclusive copyright and worldwide distribution. Either I made a fair price or they found it low enough not to negociate, but comparing to microstock earning, this is a good victory for copyrights, very happy about this ending just before Christmas. Attorney will cost me around 2k$ CDN but was well worth it.
If you ever find yourself in a similar situation, it can be worth it to defend your rights yourself with an attorney, even if it's just an official letter sent.
Happy Holidays! :)
congrats, definitely a happy hols for you. i wonder what would have been the outcome
had ss took it into their own hands ;)
you strike it rich by being in the right place and the right time ..and of course, the right attorney.
-
So we have our single best day ever winner.
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/your-single-best-day-ever/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/your-single-best-day-ever/[/url])
Hahaha yes definetly my best sale ever, not likely to happen twice though but I'll take it gladly! :)
Excellent! Merry Christmas to you...I foresee new camera equipment under your tree. :)
Thank you very much hehe! :) I think this time I'll be reasonable and pay debts I have after investing in new equipment every year haha, my wife will like me for it... but maybe a small gift wouldn't hurt haha! :)
congrats, definitely a happy hols for you. i wonder what would have been the outcome
had ss took it into their own hands ;)
you strike it rich by being in the right place and the right time ..and of course, the right attorney.
I wonder also... My guess is that they might have fetched more or do nothing at all, but even had they gone through and fetched more, given the 20-30% we get as contributor, I doubt I would have had a better outcome.
The attorney costed a low 390$/h lol, but happily it was resolved in a timely manner :)... I am just happy that I don't have to pay the atorney's invoice without having had any results :)
-
So we have our single best day ever winner.
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/your-single-best-day-ever/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/your-single-best-day-ever/[/url])
Hahaha yes definetly my best sale ever, not likely to happen twice though but I'll take it gladly! :)
Excellent! Merry Christmas to you...I foresee new camera equipment under your tree. :)
Thank you very much hehe! :) I think this time I'll be reasonable and pay debts I have after investing in new equipment every year haha, my wife will like me for it... but maybe a small gift wouldn't hurt haha! :)
congrats, definitely a happy hols for you. i wonder what would have been the outcome
had ss took it into their own hands ;)
you strike it rich by being in the right place and the right time ..and of course, the right attorney.
I wonder also... My guess is that they might have fetched more or do nothing at all, but even had they gone through and fetched more, given the 20-30% we get as contributor, I doubt I would have had a better outcome.
The attorney costed a low 390$/h lol, but happily it was resolved in a timely manner :)... I am just happy that I don't have to pay the atorney's invoice without having had any results :)
I'll bet the lawyer who advised them to settle cost a lot more than that.
-
copyrights are at the country level. there is no international copyright.
there are 2 major international laws concerning international copyrights, one is the Bern Convention and the other is WIPO.
if the country you are referring to is not a signatory to either of those treaties, then you have no rights, and you have to abide by THEIR laws (which may be non-existent), and the laws of the country you live in, including copyright protection, will mean nothing.
if they are a signatory to one of the 2 above treaties, you may have a case if you paid the filing fees to the international body, which you probably didn't.
so check those 2 treaties and that will tell you if you have a case or not. you always have to abide by the laws of the foreign country.
the US has a big media industry (magazines, Hollywood, TV). most countries don't, so they don't have or need copyright laws because they don't produce anything, and they consider everything to be free to use.
-
copyrights are at the country level. there is no international copyright.
there are 2 major international laws concerning international copyrights, one is the Bern Convention and the other is WIPO.
if the country you are referring to is not a signatory to either of those treaties, then you have no rights, and you have to abide by THEIR laws (which may be non-existent), and the laws of the country you live in, including copyright protection, will mean nothing.
if they are a signatory to one of the 2 above treaties, you may have a case if you paid the filing fees to the international body, which you probably didn't.
so check those 2 treaties and that will tell you if you have a case or not. you always have to abide by the laws of the foreign country.
the US has a big media industry (magazines, Hollywood, TV). most countries don't, so they don't have or need copyright laws because they don't produce anything, and they consider everything to be free to use.
Doesn't really matter whether he has a case or not, they paid up... so happy days!