Author Topic: Usage of my image - what do you think? (Read 13384 times)

Pixel-Pizzazz · « **on:** December 06, 2008, 15:07 »

Do you think this usage of my 'lips' image for this new fragrance "Mwah" is within the terms at IS or Shutterstock?

Do you think they are using the lips as part of their logo/branding/identity?

http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Detail.aspx?axd=DetailPaging.Generic|1&axs=0|78010404%2c78010294%2c78010293%2c78010290%2c78010288%2c78010285%2c78010281%2c78010278%2c78010275%2c78010272%2c78010269%2c78010266%2c78010263%2c78010260%2c78010257%2c78010255%2c78010253%2c78010249%2c78010247%2c78010245%2c78010243%2c78010242%2c78010236%2c78010234%2c78010233%2c78010232%2c78010231%2c78010230%2c78010229%2c78010227%2c78010225%2c78010211%2c78010209%2c78010207%2c78009934%2c78009933%2c78009932%2c78009928%2c78009927%2c78009926%2c78009925%2c78009923%2c78009606%2c78009602%2c78009600%2c78009598%2c78009499%2c78009498%2c78009496%2c78009489|0&id=78010231 (launch backdrop and Mwah fragrance box)

http://www.neonmanagement.com/ (scrolling images)

madelaide · « **Reply #1 on:** December 06, 2008, 19:36 »

I would agree with you. Do you know it's your image?

Regards,
Adelaide

Pixel-Pizzazz · « **Reply #2 on:** December 06, 2008, 19:59 »

Quote from: madelaide on December 06, 2008, 19:36

I would agree with you. Do you know it's your image?

Regards,
Adelaide

Yes, I'm certain it is - I've viewed it and other promotional images like that one at a close and clear resolution already to be sure. Thanks for your feedback.

If you were me, how would your handle this, since the usage would even fall outside an extended license?

stokfoto · « **Reply #3 on:** December 06, 2008, 20:50 »

I guess first you should check with IS and SS to figure out if the usage covered by the terms of use. and if you figured out that they used the image out of the terms than you could either sue them or before that you could contact them and try to make a deal. but in all cases you should get a legal advice from a qualified lawyer.

madelaide · « **Reply #4 on:** December 06, 2008, 22:20 »

I think any of the sites would go after the infringing company for you - or not?

Regards,
Adelaide

Pixel-Pizzazz · « **Reply #5 on:** December 07, 2008, 13:22 »

Quote from: madelaide on December 06, 2008, 22:20

I think any of the sites would go after the infringing company for you - or not?

Regards,
Adelaide

I haven't looked into that yet. I think I will now though, despite my apprehensions with IS. I had success before with a usage problem on another image - but that time I knew forsure that DT supplied the image - so I only approached them - and they were right on it and the problem was resolved in a reasonable time frame. But, based on the length of time (2+ months) that IS has been dragging their heels on a ticket I submitted where another IS member is selling a derivative of one of my images - which is still unresolved - my first thought this time was to try and handle it without their 'help'. I've had better luck getting help from SS in the past - so I will see what they say first, I guess - although I think it's more likely the image was obtained from IS.

I had tried to get information directly from the agent for the fragrance - because I'm pretty reasonable and figured we could discuss matters before getting lawyers involved - but I've been getting the run around.

Thanks for your feedback again.

jsnover · « **Reply #6 on:** December 07, 2008, 13:38 »

There are a bunch of possibilities here. SS has a huge problem with its content showing up in collections of stuff - labelled as SS vectors - downloadable for free. There have also been cases where DT and SS have had people upload stolen stuff as their own work. Take a look at this pile (and it's been like this for many, many months)

http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=shutterstock+vectors&btnG=Search+Blogs

None of this means that it isn't your work, but just that there may be many problems to solve in trying to track down how the ad agency obtained the art. If, let's say, they obtained it from somewhere that appeared to them to be legit but in fact it was your work ripped off, who do you go after?

When you say "the agent for the fragrance" - do you mean the ad agency? What about going to the fragrance company and telling them you think their ad agency is using art that hasn't been properly licensed? Then perhaps the ad agency gets pressure from both sides.

Pixel-Pizzazz · « **Reply #7 on:** December 07, 2008, 18:01 »

Thanks for that info JS - I didn't know about the file sharing problems. Perhaps the designer can show a license they got to use my image in their logo - but I'll never conceed to that, so they will still need to cease use of it. My real concern is that I don't want to allow them to use it as their logo. If it was just part of their packaging and promotion but not part of the producto logo, I'd be AOK with the usage. I was told that the manufactor was "Designer Fragrances" - Bob Coleman. But I can't get any contact information for him. (He's in the UK) and that the distributor was Jigsaw (I have their UK phone number). I was hoping the agent would put me in touch (email / phone) with the package designer - but no luck yet. They could really just change the use to something more acceptable or swap out my lips for another and all would be OK. I really just want to proctect my copyright.

bittersweet · « **Reply #8 on:** December 07, 2008, 18:11 »

I'm curious to see what comes of this. It's hard to believe a designer could be so dumb as to use such a common vector subject matter as a logo without procuring the proper license. Maybe they thought it would be too hard to know for sure that it was yours since there are thousands of other nearly identical images out there. But then again, we are talking about a reality TV "star".

Good luck with it! Keep us posted on how it turns out.

Pixel-Pizzazz · « **Reply #9 on:** December 07, 2008, 18:29 »

Quote from: whatalife on December 07, 2008, 18:11

I'm curious to see what comes of this. It's hard to believe a designer could be so dumb as to use such a common vector subject matter as a logo without procuring the proper license. Maybe they thought it would be too hard to know for sure that it was yours since there are thousands of other nearly identical images out there. But then again, we are talking about a reality TV "star".

Good luck with it! Keep us posted on how it turns out.

Ha ha! Perhaps. Since it's my very own actual unadulterated lip print, I tend to recognize it even amoung the nearly identical ones - kinda like a finger print, I guess.

null · « **Reply #10 on:** December 07, 2008, 19:27 »

Quote from: Pixel-Pizzazz on December 07, 2008, 13:22

I had tried to get information directly from the agent for the fragrance - because I'm pretty reasonable and figured we could discuss matters before getting lawyers involved - but I've been getting the run around.

I thought common dictionary words were not copyrightable. Mwah is the Tagalog (Filipino) word for kiss, and it's used all over here on greeting cards and in conversations.

Phil · « **Reply #11 on:** December 07, 2008, 19:41 »

looks a hell of a lot like a logo to me.

I like the comment on the bottom of getty images

Getty Images reserves the right to pursue unauthorized users of this image or clip. If you violate our intellectual property you may be liable for: actual damages, loss of income, and profits you derive from the use of this image or clip, and, where appropriate, the costs of collection and/or statutory damages up to $150,000 (USD).

perhaps some of the micros need to make that stuff a bit more prevelant, wouldn't stop everyone but it would stop some people.

madelaide · « **Reply #12 on:** December 07, 2008, 19:49 »

Funny. I thought "mwah" was representing the sound of a kiss. Like "shoosh" for the sound we make when we want someone to get quiet.

Regards,
Adelaide

null · « **Reply #13 on:** December 07, 2008, 20:06 »

Quote from: madelaide on December 07, 2008, 19:49

Funny. I thought "mwah" was representing the sound of a kiss. Like "shoosh" for the sound we make when we want someone to get quiet.

Yes that's the origin. Now for a brand name a company can't research all exotic languages but Filipino is spoken by almost 100 million people, and mwah is an official dictionary word and even made it in English slang, probably by the many Filipino expats.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mwah

The word is also identical in all of the dialects of the archipelago. When I saw the photo first, it just looked like another "kisses" greeting card, not like an ad for a fragrance.

bittersweet · « **Reply #14 on:** December 07, 2008, 21:26 »

You are getting copyright confused with trademark. The specific visual representation of the word is a logo and would be protected if registered as a trademark. Plenty of common words are used as brand names every day, everywhere you look.

The lip print is what is in question here, and whether a royalty free stock image can be incorporated into a logo, which as we all know, violates the TOS on nearly every site.

Pixel-Pizzazz · « **Reply #15 on:** December 07, 2008, 21:36 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on December 07, 2008, 20:06

Quote from: madelaide on December 07, 2008, 19:49
Funny. I thought "mwah" was representing the sound of a kiss. Like "shoosh" for the sound we make when we want someone to get quiet.

Yes that's the origin. Now for a brand name a company can't research all exotic languages but Filipino is spoken by almost 100 million people, and mwah is an official dictionary word and even made it in English slang, probably by the many Filipino expats.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mwah

The word is also identical in all of the dialects of the archipelago. When I saw the photo first, it just looked like another "kisses" greeting card, not like an ad for a fragrance.

Interesting stuff. I didn't know that about the word. In the second link from my original post (if you click on the lips as they scroll by), it becomes more obvious that it is being used as a logo of sorts (branding or identity) for the fragrance alongside the other logos for the other brands they represent.

Thanks, everyone. for the feedback.

helix7 · « **Reply #16 on:** December 07, 2008, 23:20 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on December 07, 2008, 19:27

I thought common dictionary words were not copyrightable. Mwah is the Tagalog (Filipino) word for kiss, and it's used all over here on greeting cards and in conversations.

Well then I think companies like Apple, Staples, Manpower, Delta, Gap, Knight, Ball, Holly, West, Pool etc. are in big trouble.

Gregor909 · « **Reply #17 on:** December 08, 2008, 19:40 »

Just forget about it! Nobody gives a sh*t!
They stole my image for a Hollywood movie and the stock agency didn't even reply my mail.

Don't expect any justice in this business!

bittersweet · « **Reply #18 on:** December 08, 2008, 20:27 »

Quote from: Gregor909 on December 08, 2008, 19:40

They stole my image for a Hollywood movie

For a logo?

null · « **Reply #19 on:** December 11, 2008, 19:05 »

Quote from: whatalife on December 07, 2008, 21:26

The lip print is what is in question here, and whether a royalty free stock image can be incorporated into a logo, which as we all know, violates the TOS on nearly every site.

I agree about the logo, but what about the word itself? Of course agencies won't run the risk to accept a "mwah" photo since it's a waste of time to litigate the company for using a common dictionary word. But if the company would want to sue the "mwah" greeting card printers, I wish them a lot of success.

null · « **Reply #20 on:** December 11, 2008, 19:17 »

Quote from: helix7 on December 07, 2008, 23:20

Well then I think companies like Apple, Staples, Manpower, Delta, Gap, Knight, Ball, Holly, West, Pool etc. are in big trouble.

Apple is in deep trouble since it's the brand of the Beatles.

But anyways, Apple is for short, the real name is Apple Computer Inc. or Apple Inc. and Apple Records/Apple Corps.

Lawsuit link

The issue was settled by Apple Computer Inc. paying a certain sum to Apple Corp. and the promise never to enter the music business. And then there was iTunes

Pixel-Pizzazz · « **Reply #21 on:** November 19, 2010, 18:37 »

Well, I just got the final word on this from Istock, so I'm posting it so it can be used as a 'gauge' of sorts when wondering what Istock would do.

This was Istocks reply:

"We have completed our investigation into this matter and are confident that the image is being used for product packaging purposes which is permitted within the terms of the License Agreement."

NOTE: Istock has only been on this for 2.5 months.

I am a suprised. The regular license seems way too liberal, IMO, if this is acceptable use. IMO, it is clearly being used as part of a logo.

cathyslife · « **Reply #22 on:** November 19, 2010, 18:57 »

Quote from: Pixel-Pizzazz on November 19, 2010, 18:37

Well, I just got the final word on this from Istock, so I'm posting it so it can be used as a 'gauge' of sorts when wondering what Istock would do.

This was Istocks reply:

"We have completed our investigation into this matter and are confident that the image is being used for product packaging purposes which is permitted within the terms of the License Agreement."

NOTE: Istock has only been on this for 2.5 months.

I am a suprised. The regular license seems way too liberal, IMO, if this is acceptable use. IMO, it is clearly being used as part of a logo.

That's bogus. The lips and the word mwah clearly look like a logo.
Side note: the thread is dated December 2008. That means it took IS two years to investigate. Or is something wrong with the forum's dates? Maybe Leaf decided to use the wayback machine.

madelaide · « **Reply #23 on:** November 19, 2010, 19:19 »

^{<sarcastic mode on>}
Probably a big client whom IS doesn't want to bother with such minor issues. IS does what is best for us, so surely this will mean more sales to all contributors.
_{<sarcastic mode off>}

Pixel-Pizzazz · « **Reply #24 on:** November 19, 2010, 19:40 »

Quote from: cclapper on November 19, 2010, 18:57

Quote from: Pixel-Pizzazz on November 19, 2010, 18:37
Well, I just got the final word on this from Istock, so I'm posting it so it can be used as a 'gauge' of sorts when wondering what Istock would do.

This was Istocks reply:

"We have completed our investigation into this matter and are confident that the image is being used for product packaging purposes which is permitted within the terms of the License Agreement."

NOTE: Istock has only been on this for 2.5 months.

I am a suprised. The regular license seems way too liberal, IMO, if this is acceptable use. IMO, it is clearly being used as part of a logo.

That's bogus. The lips and the word mwah clearly look like a logo.
Side note: the thread is dated December 2008. That means it took IS two years to investigate. Or is something wrong with the forum's dates? Maybe Leaf decided to use the wayback machine.

I had originally tried to pursue it on my own (before I was exclusive at IS) - but it got no where. I gave it to Istock to investigate when I went exclusive (2.5 months ago). Veronica, on CE at Istock is very nice to deal with. I just don't agree with their conclusion, but like everything there, that is the way it is. My main concern was protecting my copyright by making it clear what usage was and was not allowed. If they are being given the go ahead to continue using it like they have been, I think it will potentially cause future problems for IS when other customers decide to do the same - opting to use regular 'icons' from the collection as opposed to the proposed 'logo's (yet to launch).

It wouldn't be the first time I'd be able to say to them "I told you so..."

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Usage of my image - what do you think? (Read 13384 times)

Pixel-Pizzazz

madelaide

Pixel-Pizzazz

stokfoto

madelaide

Pixel-Pizzazz

jsnover

Pixel-Pizzazz

bittersweet

Pixel-Pizzazz

null

Phil

madelaide

null

bittersweet

Pixel-Pizzazz

helix7

Gregor909

bittersweet

null

null

Pixel-Pizzazz

cathyslife

madelaide

Pixel-Pizzazz

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors