pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Trademarks/copyright and responsibility  (Read 4587 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 20, 2008, 13:22 »
0
Occasionally I am finding pictures with clear trademarks, names, etc. I wonder how that could be accepted? I was making this mistake at the beginning uploading shots of my car on the desert. It's obvious what model and make it is at first sight but I got even they got small part of the word "Nissan" under 2x magnification it was rejected so I stopped to do this cause it cannot be accepted as "suv on a desert" ;-)

I wonder who would be responsible for copyright violation in these cases, photographer who uploaded this photo or agency who accepted it against its own policy?


« Reply #1 on: August 20, 2008, 13:27 »
0
Maybe you could clone out these letters.
I have done so with hotels names etc. and got accepted.

Now I am very cautious with Trademarks but like everything else , as I found, it seems to vary from site to site.

jsnover

« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2008, 13:43 »
0
I think that the responsibility is clearly with the photographer, although I'm sure if someone was going after compensation they'd try the agency as well - deeper pockets. I wouldn't be too concerned about other people breaking the rules - it doesn't mean that you can. If you want to live life on the edge, upload protected (trademarked, copyrighted, etc.) material to the sites that are lax and see what happens :)

« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2008, 15:19 »
0
Heres an intersting article written by Dan Heller concerning stock photos and the copyright/trademark issue.

 My understanding of this is that in the end the person responsible would be the BUYER, not the site or the content provider. The terms of use under an RF license clearly state how it can and can not be used. Since only the buyer knows how they are going to use the image its there responsibility to know how they can and can not use an image legally and to obtain any releases needed for that use. The sites all state something very similar to that in the agreements buyers have to agree to to by any content.

Heres a few examples:

Quote from the Big StockPhoto site.

"The responsibility of determining whether your use is legal is yours, since it's impossible for BigStockPhoto to know what your planned usage for the photo is."

Quote from Istock's buyer usage agreement. Key for photographers and illustrator here is the term, "content Provider", that would be the copyright holder.

"(b) IN NO EVENT SHALL ISTOCKPHOTO OR ANY OF ITS AFFILIATES OR CONTENT PROVIDERS OR THEIR RESPECTIVE DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, SHAREHOLDERS, PARTNERS OR AGENTS BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, INTERRUPTION, LOSS OF BUSINESS INFORMATION, OR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY LOSS) IN CONNECTION WITH ANY CLAIM, LOSS, DAMAGE, ACTION, SUIT OR OTHER PROCEEDING ARISING UNDER OR OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION YOUR USE OF, RELIANCE UPON, ACCESS TO, OR EXPLOITATION OF THE CONTENT, OR ANY PART THEREOF, OR ANY RIGHTS GRANTED TO YOU HEREUNDER, EVEN IF WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, WHETHER THE ACTION IS BASED ON CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), INFRINGEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OR OTHERWISE."

Quote from Dreamstime:
Model and Property Releases/Clearances

The rights Dreamstime grants you do not include a license to any person, place, property, or subject matter depicted in an Image, which may be subject to copyrights, trademarks, rights of publicity, moral rights, property rights or other rights belonging to third parties. Dreamstime makes no representations or warranties that it owns or licenses any rights nor does Dreamstime grant you any rights including copyright, trademarks, or rights of publicity belonging to any person, place, property, or subject matter depicted in any Image. Furthermore, Dreamstime makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of any information provided with the Images. You are solely responsible for determining whether your use of any Image requires the consent of any third party or the license of any additional rights, and you should not rely solely on the information provided by Dreamstime. If you are unsure whether additional rights are needed for your use, you are responsible for obtaining competent legal counsel.
In addition, a model release document must be uploaded by photographers, members of Dreamstime's community, confirming that the persons included in their Image have signed a written agreement. By uploading this document, the photographers certify that the information contained within is complete and accurate.

If an Image is designated as model-released, it means that the person(s) included in the Image has/have signed a release permitting reproduction of the Image, subject to the restrictions contained in this Agreement, including, without limitation, sensitive subject uses. If Dreamstime erroneously advises you that an Image is model-released when it is not, Dreamstime's liability shall be limited to the amount you paid Dreamstime for the use of the Image. If an Image depicts a person and is used in a manner that implies the use or endorsement of a product or service by that model, you must indicate that the person depicted is a model and used only for illustrative purposes. Under no circumstances, you cannot use an image with a person or more, in a context suggesting he/she or they are endorsing a subject that can be seen as sensitive. Any license granted by Dreamstime is conditioned upon your obtaining all necessary third-party rights, releases and permissions. You agree to provide Dreamstime with proof of such releases and permissions upon request."
"

« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2008, 18:08 »
0
@Mshake: this is actually great article.

« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2008, 21:09 »
0
All this still does not prevent certain sites from rejecting images even if no logos etc. are present in the image. They call it "potential" copyright issue.

Basically - the writing is on the wall for photographers. Soon it will be impossible to photograph any item or object which has been produced or created by any human being by any manufacturing process.

Also, you will not be able to photograph landscapes - there are already a lot of places where you can't take pictures - and this includes national parks, landmarks etc. - even if this is public area. Usually one trust or the other sees the opportunity to cash in, and usually under pretences of "protecting", "preserving" or some such - and usually this is a lot of pure BS.

Basically - anything of value on this Earth has a claim staked out. So, if it has even the slightest "potential" of creating some buck - even from a photograph someone may take - it becomes either "protected", or "culturaly significant", or some other dodgy reason.

While the law does not go as far as the above description - the popular perception certainly shifted the balance in this direction. And the law is usually a representation of perceptions as to what is acceptable and what is not. It does not matter - it will happen sooner or later.

I guess this will also be the time when they will make you to pay for the air you breathe - and don't laugh, the recent activities in the "carbon trading" is a beginning of that - it is just that the general public is too stupid and indifferent to care. Well, the average citizen will care when this happens and I just can't wait to hear all the bleating...

Like or not - the world is slowly becoming one large prison.  :'(

« Reply #6 on: August 21, 2008, 14:39 »
0
I think someone got up  on the wrong side of the bed.....

All this still does not prevent certain sites from rejecting images even if no logos etc. are present in the image. They call it "potential" copyright issue.

Basically - the writing is on the wall for photographers. Soon it will be impossible to photograph any item or object which has been produced or created by any human being by any manufacturing process.

Also, you will not be able to photograph landscapes - there are already a lot of places where you can't take pictures - and this includes national parks, landmarks etc. - even if this is public area. Usually one trust or the other sees the opportunity to cash in, and usually under pretences of "protecting", "preserving" or some such - and usually this is a lot of pure BS.

Basically - anything of value on this Earth has a claim staked out. So, if it has even the slightest "potential" of creating some buck - even from a photograph someone may take - it becomes either "protected", or "culturaly significant", or some other dodgy reason.

While the law does not go as far as the above description - the popular perception certainly shifted the balance in this direction. And the law is usually a representation of perceptions as to what is acceptable and what is not. It does not matter - it will happen sooner or later.

I guess this will also be the time when they will make you to pay for the air you breathe - and don't laugh, the recent activities in the "carbon trading" is a beginning of that - it is just that the general public is too stupid and indifferent to care. Well, the average citizen will care when this happens and I just can't wait to hear all the bleating...

Like or not - the world is slowly becoming one large prison.  :'(

« Reply #7 on: August 21, 2008, 16:46 »
0
"I think someone got up  on the wrong side of the bed....."

Sure, sure...the obvious is not so obvious, is it ?

« Reply #8 on: August 21, 2008, 17:54 »
0
All this still does not prevent certain sites from rejecting images even if no logos etc. are present in the image. They call it "potential" copyright issue.

Basically - the writing is on the wall for photographers. Soon it will be impossible to photograph any item or object which has been produced or created by any human being by any manufacturing process.

Also, you will not be able to photograph landscapes - there are already a lot of places where you can't take pictures - and this includes national parks, landmarks etc. - even if this is public area. Usually one trust or the other sees the opportunity to cash in, and usually under pretences of "protecting", "preserving" or some such - and usually this is a lot of pure BS.

Basically - anything of value on this Earth has a claim staked out. So, if it has even the slightest "potential" of creating some buck - even from a photograph someone may take - it becomes either "protected", or "culturaly significant", or some other dodgy reason.

While the law does not go as far as the above description - the popular perception certainly shifted the balance in this direction. And the law is usually a representation of perceptions as to what is acceptable and what is not. It does not matter - it will happen sooner or later.

I guess this will also be the time when they will make you to pay for the air you breathe - and don't laugh, the recent activities in the "carbon trading" is a beginning of that - it is just that the general public is too stupid and indifferent to care. Well, the average citizen will care when this happens and I just can't wait to hear all the bleating...

Like or not - the world is slowly becoming one large prison.  :'(

YAH!!!!!  SO TRUE... no, I'm not cynical either, nor did I get up on the wrong side of the bed, but walked smack into "everything is governed by the buck$"

I'm just a totally imprisoned "the glass is totally full" person.

Try find gold or oil in your back yard only to find out you only own the top soil!

« Reply #9 on: August 22, 2008, 08:51 »
0
All this still does not prevent certain sites from rejecting images even if no logos etc. are present in the image. They call it "potential" copyright issue.

Basically - the writing is on the wall for photographers. Soon it will be impossible to photograph any item or object which has been produced or created by any human being by any manufacturing process.

Also, you will not be able to photograph landscapes - there are already a lot of places where you can't take pictures - and this includes national parks, landmarks etc. - even if this is public area. Usually one trust or the other sees the opportunity to cash in, and usually under pretences of "protecting", "preserving" or some such - and usually this is a lot of pure BS.

Basically - anything of value on this Earth has a claim staked out. So, if it has even the slightest "potential" of creating some buck - even from a photograph someone may take - it becomes either "protected", or "culturaly significant", or some other dodgy reason.

While the law does not go as far as the above description - the popular perception certainly shifted the balance in this direction. And the law is usually a representation of perceptions as to what is acceptable and what is not. It does not matter - it will happen sooner or later.

I guess this will also be the time when they will make you to pay for the air you breathe - and don't laugh, the recent activities in the "carbon trading" is a beginning of that - it is just that the general public is too stupid and indifferent to care. Well, the average citizen will care when this happens and I just can't wait to hear all the bleating...

Like or not - the world is slowly becoming one large prison.  :'(

While I could agree with you in some points, I fully disagree to your example of carbon trading. It is not making people pay for the air that they breath but making companies pay for the air they pollute. Which is a good thing.

And to the topic of the thread:
I also believe that in the end it is the buyers responsibility to check if his usage is legally correct. Although the terms and conditions of the different microsites may ask their contributors to provide  that they possess all possible releases (or even want to see them), that does not free them nor the buyer from a certain amount of diligence on their side.
That said, if someone would submit a picture containing a clearly recognizable trademark (something wellknown to the public), the site admits it and a buyer uses this picture e.g. in commercials for a competitive product, I doubt that both buyer and micro agency can claim they just trusted the terms and conditions of the website...

« Reply #10 on: August 22, 2008, 13:26 »
0
As noted in the previous post.  The user of the image is the one that infriges, not the photographer.  Of course one needs to get the opinion of an attorney familar with these issues for a real answer.  I have heard several copyright and trademark attorneys criticize Dan Heller as he has given some information that is not correct, so use his advice with some caution.

Dan Greenberg, a copyright attorney, has stated why do photographers go to photographers for copyright information?

Scott

« Reply #11 on: August 22, 2008, 20:13 »
0
"It is not making people pay for the air that they breath but making companies pay for the air they pollute. Which is a good thing."

Dirkr, mate, get some reality check...there is already a market for carbon credits and where do you think the monies for buying those credits come from: from the company's bottom line ?!

In other words: the polluters will buy carbon credits and keep polluting. The cost will be passed onto customer (with some additional margin, after all - why not make some more profit here, while appearing to be environmentally responsible ?). The governments will grab their share of cash in the process...and nothing will change, except you will be out of pocket.

I hear all these wishful thinking plans by all the do-gooders: the customers will dump the products which are too expensive due to built-in carbon tradindg costs etc. and "clean" companies will come up on top. Yeah, and Santa Claus comes in through the chimney every Christmas. What will really happen - more effort and study directed at how far the manufacturing costs and quality can be reduced by placing manufacturing in some dark corner of the world.

It is good to care about the world around us: it is even better to be realistic at the same time. When one is realistic - some of one's plans may eventually be put in practice. But dreams...remain only dreams, always.

People who cry for reducing pollution etc. are just that...dreamers. And a lot of people who rushed to implement "reduction" are only interested because they see it as a business opportunity and a lot of cash to be made quickly and without any effort.

Cheers :)
« Last Edit: August 23, 2008, 04:39 by leszek »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
2369 Views
Last post May 20, 2009, 03:12
by dirkr
3 Replies
1696 Views
Last post August 12, 2013, 23:04
by Anita Potter
31 Replies
7326 Views
Last post September 26, 2016, 19:57
by AlessandraRC
7 Replies
2668 Views
Last post January 05, 2017, 08:09
by Pauws99
9 Replies
2871 Views
Last post August 20, 2019, 12:01
by unnonimus

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results