MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: heywoody on July 26, 2012, 07:55
-
I just had this image rejected on 123 for potential copyright - can't see anything on these vehicles in SS's shutterbuzz and wondering if anyone is aware of restrictions generally? It's pending on some other sites and wondering if I should pull it.
(http://www.shutterpoint.com/photos/W/927249-Spitfire-and-U-boat_thum.jpg)
This one is currently available on IS, SS, DT and FT - maybe british warplanes are copyrighted and german ones not ??
(http://www.shutterpoint.com/photos/W/871369-High-altitude-WWII-fighter-planes_thum.jpg)
-
It is probably the 3d models that they mean not the original design of the ships/ planes.
-
Maybe the wing logos? The equivalent U.S. would not be allowed I don't think. Don't know how the UK feels
-
Nope all military vehicles are off limits due to copyright/trademark.
And there is a contributor at SS who was sent a letter from them after he complained about his boot rejection and he was told "all Boots are off limits".
LINKS:
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=110200&highlight=army+vehicles (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=110200&highlight=army+vehicles)
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=123791&start=15 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=123791&start=15)
-
Maybe the wing logos? The equivalent U.S. would not be allowed I don't think. Don't know how the UK feels
The sub is already on a few sites in a different setting and there's a kind of tank with the nazi cross also - could actually be a case of nazi ok, winners not ok as the former unlikely to take an action :-\
-
I had two images of the interior of a B-17 (.50 cal machine gun and loaded bomb bay) recently rejected at Bigstock for potential copyright. The reason they stated was that there were so few refurbished and flying B-17's around today that the owner would likely recognize his plane. If I couldn't get a property release for the images, I could resubmit them as editorial. Fortunately the same images are up and selling elsewhere so I won't worry about these two at BS.
-
Get the impression that, like most other things in the legal spectrum, there are more exceptions than there are rules. I would not like to be in the shoes of a reviewer, who can put my employer at risk by accepting an image which can put them on the wrong side of a compensation claim (and damage their reputation). So I guess they follow the golden rule, when in doubt, reject (and some site's reviewers are probably, correctly or incorrectly, more cautious than others).