Author Topic: This is a logo, isn't it? (Read 15280 times)

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.

arquiplay77 · « **Reply #1 on:** November 24, 2010, 15:44 »

Nothing to see here. forgot the link?

madelaide · « **Reply #2 on:** November 24, 2010, 15:48 »

OOPS!!!!

http://www.mecvs.net/

Blufish · « **Reply #3 on:** November 24, 2010, 15:54 »

Looks like a logo to me.

louoates · « **Reply #4 on:** November 24, 2010, 16:10 »

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.

FD · « **Reply #5 on:** November 26, 2010, 03:10 »

Does a logo need an EL on all sites Maria uploaded it to?

Microbius · « **Reply #6 on:** November 26, 2010, 03:25 »

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).

ShadySue · « **Reply #7 on:** November 26, 2010, 04:44 »

Quote from: FD-regular on November 26, 2010, 03:10

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.

madelaide · « **Reply #8 on:** November 26, 2010, 04:46 »

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:

Quote

Prohibited uses for both Standard and Extended license (...)
Use in any logo or trademark

And in DT:

Quote

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.

Microbius · « **Reply #9 on:** November 26, 2010, 06:39 »

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.

cathyslife · « **Reply #10 on:** November 26, 2010, 08:23 »

Quote from: Microbius on November 26, 2010, 06:39

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??

FD · « **Reply #11 on:** November 26, 2010, 08:24 »

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".

FD · « **Reply #12 on:** November 26, 2010, 08:25 »

Quote from: cclapper on November 26, 2010, 08:23

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #13 on:** November 26, 2010, 08:51 »

Quote from: FD-regular on November 26, 2010, 08:24

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;

madelaide · « **Reply #14 on:** November 26, 2010, 11:15 »

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. $:-\$

louoates · « **Reply #15 on:** November 26, 2010, 12:26 »

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.

cthoman · « **Reply #16 on:** November 26, 2010, 12:51 »

Quote from: madelaide on November 26, 2010, 11:15

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.

Pixel-Pizzazz · « **Reply #17 on:** November 26, 2010, 13:29 »

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://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.

louoates · « **Reply #18 on:** November 26, 2010, 15:39 »

Quote from: Pixel-Pizzazz on November 26, 2010, 13:29

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://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'd ask IS for an example of what is a violation. If the use you linked above to isn't a violation, nothing is.

OM · « **Reply #19 on:** November 26, 2010, 17:06 »

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #20 on:** November 26, 2010, 17:20 »

These pics were published in September 2007.
http://www.celebrity-pix.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=138#138

cidepix · « **Reply #21 on:** November 27, 2010, 10:49 »

Quote from: madelaide on November 26, 2010, 11:15

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..

cathyslife · « **Reply #22 on:** November 27, 2010, 15:45 »

Quote from: cidepix on November 27, 2010, 10:49

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:

Quote

(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.

Blufish · « **Reply #23 on:** November 27, 2010, 16:04 »

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: This is a logo, isn't it? (Read 15280 times)

madelaide

arquiplay77

madelaide

Blufish

louoates

FD

Microbius

ShadySue

madelaide

Microbius

cathyslife

FD

FD

ShadySue

madelaide

louoates

cthoman

Pixel-Pizzazz

louoates

OM

ShadySue

cidepix

cathyslife

Blufish

jvoetsch

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors