MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: madelaide on November 24, 2010, 15:28
-
The sun at the top left logo is mine. It is a logo, isn't it?
I never had an EL sale for this image. :(
-
Nothing to see here. forgot the link?
-
OOPS!!!! ::)
http://www.mecvs.net/ (http://www.mecvs.net/)
-
Looks like a logo to me.
-
Looks like they embedded your image into theirs and formed one file for their header (use view info on mouse-over with a right click) the same as they did with the ribbon used with the CVS logo. To me it is just embellishing their logo with your graphic for this site. So the gray area is if whether or not that embellishment constitutes use as a logo. I'd side with the logo use if they used it like this in other sales material as well.
I don't think this this would be an issue if the image was placed a bit farther from the logo. Just like nobody would think the palm tree image would be considered a logo use.
-
Does a logo need an EL on all sites Maria uploaded it to?
-
Not sure what you mean by "logo". They can display the image with their company name if they like as long as they are licensed for usage in that medium/ with that circulation.
What they can't do is trademark the illustration as a logo because you have the copyright to it, and in any case other people have purchased licenses for use in the past (i.e. they can't stop other people displaying it in exactly the same way with their company name).
-
Does a logo need an EL on all sites Maria uploaded it to?
Images purchased from iStock may not be used as logos. Though they seem to be quite loose on what is or isn't a logo.
If their Logo Programme ever gets started, that's a whole different ball game.
-
If you have a image + text that is a symbol of the site, is repeated in every page (and perhaps printed material or PDFs), doesn't it configure a logo? ???
Anyway, I was checking the license terms. In IS, they say:
Prohibited uses for both Standard and Extended license (...)
Use in any logo or trademark
And in DT:
May I use the images on business cards?
(...) Note that the images cannot be used as part of a logo with any type of license that we provide, except for the SR-EL license (Sell the rights) which includes this usage.
-
Unless they trademark it it is not really a "logo". Anyone else could buy the appropriate license and do the same thing with it.
The difference is that a logo is protected by a trademark.
Unless they have sought to trademark it (which would be a violation of your rights as copyright holder and in violation of their license) I'm not sure what you can do about it.
They are just using it to give a consistent look to all their material.
-
Unless they trademark it it is not really a "logo". Anyone else could buy the appropriate license and do the same thing with it.
The difference is that a logo is protected by a trademark.
Unless they have sought to trademark it (which would be a violation of your rights as copyright holder and in violation of their license) I'm not sure what you can do about it.
They are just using it to give a consistent look to all their material.
That is legally true, but if Maria finds that they have used that image + words in other material besides just this web site, I am thinking that she would have a very good case to have it removed. But I think you are right, Microbius. When it comes down to it, I'm not sure what she can do about it. Ask for it to be removed. If her answer is no, then what??
-
I would be glad to write them a letter in Dutch, but
1 - Only IS seems to ask and EL for a logo. Who says they downloaded it from IS?
2 - It's a non-for profit informal self-help group with a WP design where they even kept the original template photos (top right). They clearly aren't rocket scientists in IT.
3 - As we all know deep down, they will have "borrowed" that image somewhere (removing the watermark by a kid with PS from the torrents) since I'm sure they never heard of IP and stock before.
The only thing Maria could do in this case is ask for a link to her port on the site, but they will probably be too frightened and cook another "logo".
-
I'm not sure what she can do about it. Ask for it to be removed. If her answer is no, then what??
Eat crow. :P
-
I would be glad to write them a letter in Dutch, but
1 - Only IS seems to ask and EL for a logo. Who says they downloaded it from IS?
No. IS don't allow images to be used for logos (Until/if/when their logo programme goes live).
4. Standard License Prohibitions
(a) Prohibited Uses. You may not do anything with the Content that is not expressly permitted in the preceding section or permitted by an Extended License. For greater certainty, the following are “Prohibited Uses” and you may not:
[snip 1-3]
4. use any of the Content as part of a trade-mark, design-mark, trade-name, business name, service mark, or logo;
-
Ok, the logo thing is a grey area. Let's assume it's not a logo, and FD confirmed they are not a company, but a support group. That doesn't bother me.
I believe they didn't buy any images. Some of the thumbnails in the site are in IS. Mine isn't. Some larger images Tineye found in those wallpaper sites. I believe they have no idea that they are doing something wrong. But since I have no proof the images were not purchased, I can't even say anything. :-\
-
Years ago I decided not to worry too much about this whole topic. The fact is that if you have images on the internet they will be stolen by those who simply are thieves and by those with no clue about copyright.
I believe the sites are well aware of the magnitude problem and choose not to do much because the legal expenses would be prohibitively high. They probably have a form email they send out with a warning but that's about it. If it is a hugely visible theft by a large entity they might make a phone call. I think they will only get legally involved if the thief is in a business directly competitive with them, such as a microstock wanna-be well aware of the legal situation.
As for them spending much time defending a single image for a single replaceable contributor don't hold your breath.
DISCLAIMER: Much of this is speculation on my part borne out by what I've read here or experienced myself.
-
Ok, the logo thing is a grey area. Let's assume it's not a logo, and FD confirmed they are not a company, but a support group. That doesn't bother me.
I believe they didn't buy any images. Some of the thumbnails in the site are in IS. Mine isn't. Some larger images Tineye found in those wallpaper sites. I believe they have no idea that they are doing something wrong. But since I have no proof the images were not purchased, I can't even say anything. :-\
It looks like a logo to me. If it bothers you, then contact them nicely and ask them to review the licensing agreement where they bought it because it looks like a logo or branding. Also, you can offer to create something exclusive for them. These are tricky issues because people really don't seem to understand that a logo should be something exclusive to your company. It always mystifies me when someone grabs something off my blog and asks if they can use it as their mascot or logo without even knowing what it was created for.
-
I don't think you will get anywhere with them on that, sorry to say.
They informed me that this use, of my lips image is within the standard license:
http://discountperfumesuk.com/images/17657.jpg (http://discountperfumesuk.com/images/17657.jpg)
http://bp2.blogger.com/_vaRjb7MDSEM/R0L1XeMNcyI/AAAAAAAABqg/5I3wRS6Muhs/s1600-h/Chanelle+Hayes.jpg (http://bp2.blogger.com/_vaRjb7MDSEM/R0L1XeMNcyI/AAAAAAAABqg/5I3wRS6Muhs/s1600-h/Chanelle+Hayes.jpg)
Clearly the lips are used for branding, if not a logo, in my case, IMO - but Istock does not see any violation here.
-
I don't think you will get anywhere with them on that, sorry to say.
They informed me that this use, of my lips image is within the standard license:
[url]http://discountperfumesuk.com/images/17657.jpg[/url] ([url]http://discountperfumesuk.com/images/17657.jpg[/url])
[url]http://bp2.blogger.com/_vaRjb7MDSEM/R0L1XeMNcyI/AAAAAAAABqg/5I3wRS6Muhs/s1600-h/Chanelle+Hayes.jpg[/url] ([url]http://bp2.blogger.com/_vaRjb7MDSEM/R0L1XeMNcyI/AAAAAAAABqg/5I3wRS6Muhs/s1600-h/Chanelle+Hayes.jpg[/url])
Clearly the lips are used for branding, if not a logo, in my case, IMO - but Istock does not see any violation here.
I'd ask IS for an example of what is a violation. If the use you linked above to isn't a violation, nothing is.
-
Looks like an attempt to break every law in the book on branding , trade names and image rights.
Give CHANEL a heads up and see if they will stop them.................'Fragrance by Chanelle'.............c'mon.
Mwah + lips looks like a logo to me.
-
These pics were published in September 2007.
http://www.celebrity-pix.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=138#138 (http://www.celebrity-pix.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=138#138)
-
Ok, the logo thing is a grey area. Let's assume it's not a logo, and FD confirmed they are not a company, but a support group. That doesn't bother me.
I believe they didn't buy any images. Some of the thumbnails in the site are in IS. Mine isn't. Some larger images Tineye found in those wallpaper sites. I believe they have no idea that they are doing something wrong. But since I have no proof the images were not purchased, I can't even say anything. :-\
You are thinking too much:) Waay too much.. Even if they are a company and making a lot of money, they can still use it within the limits of RF license..
As long as they don't register the logo or trademark it, they are free to use it. I am sure they didn't trademark it as their logo. They are surely aware that other people can purchase the same sun and use it the same way. If they don't mind using an image "that you own" in their logo, that's fine. Not really something that should bother you as long as they pay for the standard RF license.
Yes, not an EL is required.
No need to dig it deeper as there is no money in this..
-
You are thinking too much:) Waay too much.. Even if they are a company and making a lot of money, they can still use it within the limits of RF license..
As long as they don't register the logo or trademark it, they are free to use it. I am sure they didn't trademark it as their logo. They are surely aware that other people can purchase the same sun and use it the same way. If they don't mind using an image "that you own" in their logo, that's fine. Not really something that should bother you as long as they pay for the standard RF license.
Yes, not an EL is required.
No need to dig it deeper as there is no money in this..
No, that's not how I read it. Here is the paragraph:
(a) Prohibited Uses. You may not do anything with the Content that is not expressly permitted in the preceding section or permitted by an Extended License. For greater certainty, the following are “Prohibited Uses” and you may not:
[snip 1-3]
4. use any of the Content as part of a trade-mark, design-mark, trade-name, business name, service mark, or logo;
It clearly says OR logo. To me, that means the logo does not have to be trademarked or be registered. But I agree, it is all a moot point. I clearly believe it's a logo, in both pixel-pizazz's case and in this one, but no one is going to do anything about it.
-
A logo does not need to be trademarked or registered to be considered as such. Use of the logo as part of their branding is still a logo and recognizable as such.
-
As long as someone does not copyright or trademark the image as part of their logo, usually this use is acceptable as part of most image licenses on most sites. We permit such use, but make it clear that the customer cannot copyright or trademark the image:
http://www.clipartof.com/info/faq#can_I_use_the_images_for_my_logo (http://www.clipartof.com/info/faq#can_I_use_the_images_for_my_logo)
Jamie Voetsch
http://www.ClipartOf.com/ (http://www.ClipartOf.com/)
-
I understand, but your example is only "one site"s terms and conditions and it doesn't prevent any other sites to offer different licenses. Some sites permit such usage as long as the buyer does not attempt to trademark it.
You are thinking too much:) Waay too much.. Even if they are a company and making a lot of money, they can still use it within the limits of RF license..
As long as they don't register the logo or trademark it, they are free to use it. I am sure they didn't trademark it as their logo. They are surely aware that other people can purchase the same sun and use it the same way. If they don't mind using an image "that you own" in their logo, that's fine. Not really something that should bother you as long as they pay for the standard RF license.
Yes, not an EL is required.
No need to dig it deeper as there is no money in this..
No, that's not how I read it. Here is the paragraph:
(a) Prohibited Uses. You may not do anything with the Content that is not expressly permitted in the preceding section or permitted by an Extended License. For greater certainty, the following are “Prohibited Uses” and you may not:
[snip 1-3]
4. use any of the Content as part of a trade-mark, design-mark, trade-name, business name, service mark, or logo;
It clearly says OR logo. To me, that means the logo does not have to be trademarked or be registered. But I agree, it is all a moot point. I clearly believe it's a logo, in both pixel-pizazz's case and in this one, but no one is going to do anything about it.
-
As long as someone does not copyright or trademark the image as part of their logo, usually this use is acceptable as part of most image licenses on most sites. We permit such use, but make it clear that the customer cannot copyright or trademark the image:
[url]http://www.clipartof.com/info/faq#can_I_use_the_images_for_my_logo[/url] ([url]http://www.clipartof.com/info/faq#can_I_use_the_images_for_my_logo[/url])
Jamie Voetsch
[url]http://www.ClipartOf.com/[/url] ([url]http://www.ClipartOf.com/[/url])
Then I believe the wording in the License Agreement is misleading and should be changed to reflect that acceptability, because the way it is worded now it is NOT acceptable to use images in logos, trademark or no. It's like they are saying one thing in the agreement, but then, oops, just kidding. No problem, it can be used in that way. We decided that that is NOT a logo (even though the image fulfills the definition of a logo). The rules of the game are clearly written, but then they kind of get made up as the agency goes along, as long as it suits them and makes them money.
Maria's logo is probably being used in a small time way. Not that that makes it any more acceptable. But clearly the mwah logo is being used all over the place and very publicly. That they are allowed to do that, to me, constitutes copyright infringement per the wording in the license agreement on most sites.
-
Thats why I said it varies from site to site. I was just giving an example of one site.
Jamie Voetsch
http://www.ClipartOf.com/ (http://www.ClipartOf.com/)
-
As long as someone does not copyright or trademark the image as part of their logo, usually this use is acceptable as part of most image licenses on most sites. We permit such use, but make it clear that the customer cannot copyright or trademark the image:
[url]http://www.clipartof.com/info/faq#can_I_use_the_images_for_my_logo[/url] ([url]http://www.clipartof.com/info/faq#can_I_use_the_images_for_my_logo[/url])
Jamie Voetsch
[url]http://www.ClipartOf.com/[/url] ([url]http://www.ClipartOf.com/[/url])
Thanks for the input.
Please help me with my way of understanding. What I understand is that we need to protect our copyright. If we allow our image to be used that way (like my lips) and the user can prove that they have been 'allowed' to use it in such a way and that is serves as a recognizable brand of theirs - then they can actually take up ownership of the copyright. I have always thought of it as being similar to property (land) rights and how someone else can claim title to your land if you allow them to squat on it for a (set out) period of time. That is why I understand that some are fierce in protecting their copyright.
Please correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding about how I can lose copyright of my image by allowing someone to use it in such a way that it may very likely become enmeshed with their identity.
-
Logo is often a loose term for a trademark. Whether a design is a trademark or not is NOT determined by an application for registration. It is determined by how the trademark is used, through the interpretation of statutes or common law (case law). In common law countries such as US and Canada, an unregistered trademark may still be considered as a trademark under common law precedents and unfair competitin legislations.
A trademark or logo is used to identify the owner of the goods and services, so the owner will benefit from the goodwill through the recognition.
The legislation in each country provides for the definition of "USE". A trademark must be used as a trademark in order to be considered a trademark. Courts will interprete "USE" according to case law as well.
In Madelaide's case, it does not look like that her design was used as a trademark, it looks like as a decorative feature. But to be sure, you have to look deeper.
Ok, the logo thing is a grey area. Let's assume it's not a logo, and FD confirmed they are not a company, but a support group. That doesn't bother me.
I believe they didn't buy any images. Some of the thumbnails in the site are in IS. Mine isn't. Some larger images Tineye found in those wallpaper sites. I believe they have no idea that they are doing something wrong. But since I have no proof the images were not purchased, I can't even say anything. :-\
You are thinking too much:) Waay too much.. Even if they are a company and making a lot of money, they can still use it within the limits of RF license..
As long as they don't register the logo or trademark it, they are free to use it. I am sure they didn't trademark it as their logo. They are surely aware that other people can purchase the same sun and use it the same way. If they don't mind using an image "that you own" in their logo, that's fine. Not really something that should bother you as long as they pay for the standard RF license.
Yes, not an EL is required.
No need to dig it deeper as there is no money in this..