pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Stuffed toy copyright, etc.  (Read 8550 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RacePhoto

« Reply #25 on: February 02, 2011, 01:00 »
0

If you really want to take it that far, the fact that you bought a car do not give you any right to use the trademark, so you should not be able to mention the make of the car if you sell it. Same with trademarked clothes which your models you photograph are wearing, where are the property releases for those?

That's twice you have claimed something is true when it's not. You can use a picture of your personal property to sell it. End of story. You can't use it and sell the images to someone else or allow them to use images of your property to advertise something else.

It's fairly easy to understand if you read the messages, especially what RT posted.

The agencies can't control use. The owner of the trademarked item can't control the use. You can't sell it, because you own the object, not the right to the design and manufacturing, the logo or any trademarked portions. What's your point in continuing a debate based on a false premise and on a subject where you already know the answer is, No You Can't Do That. Even if it is legal and the agency says they won't take it, the argument is fruitless. We could all agree with you, and the agency would still say NO, so I'm asking...

What's your point?


« Reply #26 on: February 02, 2011, 02:35 »
0
Technically, every item (even those cheap generic one) has its designer, manufacturer and owner. It doesnt matter who and how made it, simply its their design and you cant use it as you like, even if it is your property.

Doesnt matter if it is main subject or not, if it is just detail of the car headlight or whole car - every single part of the item is also designed by someone. You bought the item to use, not the rights to the design! Its exactly the same as photographing Mona Lisa and then calling it art or derivate work etc. - you simply based your own work on someone elses property and design.

In fact we do not apply IP law up to these insane levels but based on pure law and not logic, it could be done. Microstock agencies first didnt care and they still have tons of copyrightet cars, coins, post stamps, paintings, notebooks, cell phones, PC parts, banknotes etc. - all this stuff was created by someone and in most countries is strictly illegal to shoot eg. post stamps or banknotes and cameras, laptops and cellphones are of course copyrighted exactly the same way as car designs. Doesnt matter if you removed the logo - every photographer will instantly recognize eg. Canon camera, everyone recognize Apple laptop or Lamborghini car - with logo or not...
They do not accept some of this stuff anymore and I think its perfectly ok - it protect also us if we are too stupid to post some problematic stuff. They sometimes are too picky and reject pictures which are perfectly ok - then just resubmit or give up.

Roadrunner

  • Roadrunner
« Reply #27 on: February 02, 2011, 14:01 »
0
Old Roadrunner is a bit confused.  I like very simple illustrations so that my old brain cam comprehend things.  Based on all your input, I thought about an image that was submitted and accepted by all but one site.

Here is the general description:
Lady bowling wearing a sportshirt, slacks, throwing a bowling ball on a bowling alley with the ball return and bowling pins visable.

I submitted the image with a model release only.

I failed to secure property releases for the sportshirt, slacks, bowling ball, bowling pins, hardwood alley and the ball return - all of which were manufacture and have a copyright/patent.

So I figuring we can only thake nudes if we want to deal with Model Releases only.  Am I getting close to the understanding?  No wonder old Roadrunner can't figure out what to shoot anymore.

RacePhoto

« Reply #28 on: February 03, 2011, 00:16 »
0
Old Roadrunner is a bit confused.  I like very simple illustrations so that my old brain cam comprehend things.  Based on all your input, I thought about an image that was submitted and accepted by all but one site.

Here is the general description:
Lady bowling wearing a sportshirt, slacks, throwing a bowling ball on a bowling alley with the ball return and bowling pins visable.

I submitted the image with a model release only.

I failed to secure property releases for the sportshirt, slacks, bowling ball, bowling pins, hardwood alley and the ball return - all of which were manufacture and have a copyright/patent.

So I figuring we can only thake nudes if we want to deal with Model Releases only.  Am I getting close to the understanding?  No wonder old Roadrunner can't figure out what to shoot anymore.

Close, and I have resisted mentioning this for quite some time but golf courses are like buildings. They have owners, it's private property and they have architects and designers. Just because the agencies don't notice this, doesn't make it legal. Same as just because they reject some things, it doesn't make them illegal.  :(

Shirt and slacks, (and she's wearing shoes I assume?) if they don't have a logo, you can probably get away with it, unless it's some designer specific product. Ball, only if it doesn't show the logo. Pins will have markings on them, that Brunswick crown or AMF triangle, Etc. You would have to blur or remove it. Lanes are standard design in fact regulated by the ABC, generic. Ball return you are back to Mfg. specific product, but I doubt if the bowling equipment Mfgs. are like Ford, or worried about their product being shown in a photo.

Back to the same place this discussion always comes around to. What is the main subject of the photo? If it's the lady bowling, and you have a model release and aren't shoing logos, the rest of the items are not the main subject and ancillary, so probably no problem.

The other route which gets worse and worse as Micro gets entangled in a legal morass is write to the maker of each of the items shown in your series of photos and get property release. How much work does someone want to do for a crummy dollar download? This is getting ridiculous.

No argument with anyone, I can go to any agency of the top six micros and find offending images (legal infractions) all day long. Same agencies will reject perfectly legal images as policy as well. It's that old Microstock is a children's playground, where the rules are drawn in the sandbox and keep shifting. So are payments and commissions. It's not businesslike, and sometimes downright rude the way the agencies operate.

Roadrunner

  • Roadrunner
« Reply #29 on: February 03, 2011, 12:46 »
0
Race Photo - You got it right.  That is what I am beginning to ponder.  Is it worth it?  To the few that pull in 80% of the nugets of gold, the answer is yes.  To old Roadrunner it isn't a way to waste my time.

I understand the quality idea, the need to be creative and such, but when I consider the increase for the seed planted, it isn't looking like a place to concetrate my efforts.  Im glad I married a woman that has a rich husband.  ;D  So I no longer try to upload to six sites.  Three are enough.  The other three are for tose truly blessed with special gifts/talent to meet the needs of the extremely fussy ones.  I understand my place; I'm not able to stay woith you better photogs.

That is why I can't see writing to 100 people to get all kinds of releases.  Especially since I really do not need the money - Thank God for that!  To those that need it; I wish them the best.  THough I am blessed to see that on occasion someone can use what I have to offer.  Even thouth you top guns grab the lions share - which you deserve because of your talent and dedication.  To me - you folks shoulld get more than $.50 and even less on some sites.

Surprisingly I received a $28 commission for a single download last week on Shutterstock.  I never thought there was such a thing.  Until then, the most I ever received on that site was $1.88. Most ofen I get $.25.  But I do get more than on the sites I stoped uploading to. May God bless you all!

RacePhoto

« Reply #30 on: February 03, 2011, 22:16 »
0
Race Photo - You got it right.  That is what I am beginning to ponder.  Is it worth it?  To the few that pull in 80% of the nugets of gold, the answer is yes.  To old Roadrunner it isn't a way to waste my time.

I understand the quality idea, the need to be creative and such, but when I consider the increase for the seed planted, it isn't looking like a place to concetrate my efforts.  Im glad I married a woman that has a rich husband.  ;D  So I no longer try to upload to six sites.  Three are enough.  The other three are for tose truly blessed with special gifts/talent to meet the needs of the extremely fussy ones.  I understand my place; I'm not able to stay woith you better photogs.

That is why I can't see writing to 100 people to get all kinds of releases.  Especially since I really do not need the money - Thank God for that!  To those that need it; I wish them the best.  THough I am blessed to see that on occasion someone can use what I have to offer.  Even thouth you top guns grab the lions share - which you deserve because of your talent and dedication.  To me - you folks shoulld get more than $.50 and even less on some sites.

Surprisingly I received a $28 commission for a single download last week on Shutterstock.  I never thought there was such a thing.  Until then, the most I ever received on that site was $1.88. Most ofen I get $.25.  But I do get more than on the sites I stoped uploading to. May God bless you all!

And to you too.

I don't shoot models because I'm adverse to paper shuffling and multiple documents, keeping copies, scanning, tracking, uploading, attaching and then finding out someone misused something and the model is coming back at us anyway!   >:( No I won't be getting releases from everything shown in the picture, but the main point is, you don't really need a release for every pencil or eraser (which are probably someones design Etc.) in ever image.

Back to the basics. Agencies require more than the law requires, in most instances. They refuse things that are perfectly legal, and they take things that aren't legal to resell, without knowing it. If someone works based on what the agencies refuse or accept, they need to recognize that it doesn't represent what the law covers. Kind of funny when I think about it.

Yes I used to get ELs on SS and those $28 downloads are like gold compared to the 25c chicken feed. Considering I shoot "stuff and things" or what I used to call, things commonly found around the house, it surprising that I sell anything anymore. Positively the acceptance rate has become lower and lower each year as the agencies have too many Hamburgers, Slices Vegetables, handshakes, headsets, and things you find around the house. :D

I had an idea, I worked it for a year, I'm done. I sell some images, I get some money, it's done and I've moved on to another idea. That one I need to find an agency that takes them on a consistent basis. SS will take some, IS will take some, I don't ever know what they call editorial or not. I don't care if it's CrapStock Agency, I just want one place that will market the idea, because the buyers will find it. Not only that, the big agencies won't have it, so that's like a funnel, once the people who desire those images find a site that has them.

Best Wishes - Stay Warm and Dry!

Roadrunner

  • Roadrunner
« Reply #31 on: February 04, 2011, 11:39 »
0
Thanks for the feedback Race Photo!  I was beginning to think it was just me.  I too feel that the micro stock market is reaching the oversaturated point.  Alamy will take our work.  At least they take a greater percentage than the fussy ones.

Now I am not saying sites should lower their standards; I am saying that even we who suffer rejections for "Overfiltered", "Focus is not where it should be"   (Even if it is an object taking up 70% of the area) etc. still do our best.  Some of us just can't please Fot or IS no matter how hard we try.  There are some that have images rejected by those sites, but they get accepted on SS, BS and DT.  Not only that they sell well.  So to me it is just a matter of finding a place where we see fruit.  Not all seed brings forth fruit; perhaps the ground isn't fit for that particular seed. 

It was good reading your thoughts.  You helped me see that I am on the right track.  I need only find my place where I can see some fruit.

Bless you all!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
4769 Views
Last post October 17, 2007, 17:10
by litifeta
12 Replies
6018 Views
Last post November 12, 2007, 05:48
by nataq
1 Replies
2303 Views
Last post July 28, 2008, 15:11
by stokfoto
Copyright

Started by CofkoCof Dreamstime.com

7 Replies
4436 Views
Last post November 22, 2008, 18:57
by madelaide
4 Replies
3527 Views
Last post December 22, 2008, 02:15
by shank_ali

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle