Hi all!
If you ask me - istock is overplaying that copyright thing by far. If you look at it that way, every single t-shirt (printed or not) is copyright, every jeans,...

Rejection reason:
"On socks. This file includes content that may be subject to copyright or trademark protection. Certain use of this file creates risk of infringement and we regret that it cannot be accepted, unless this content is removed from the file."

The other side is even less problematic.

What do you think?



here is a closeup

first of all very nice photograph. well done.
as for the copyright issue I think it one of the most confusing topics in   stock photography,but I personally would have removed this small detail before uploading no mater if I agree about copyright infringement  risk or not and   I'd expect IS to come up with something like that. I'd also remove the pumpkin picture on the  t-shirt
Recently I took a photo of a baby wearing a t-shirt but I hadn't paid much attention so I  hadn't realized it had  picture on it. Then I tried to remove the pic but it was sort of difficult   one  as the t-shirt was stripy and crispy and  I gave up and didn't upload it anywhere although it had a good potential to sale.I might try to re edit though.
at least you are lucky it doesn't seem to be too complex to remove these thingies.

Good luck

Sorry, but I have to agree with is on this one.  Although the socks themselves do not show a name on them, their particular design probably is protected, the specific combination of colors and stripes, etc. 
Rosta

And I agree too.

It all comes down to the increasingly litigious nature of our society these days.

There is a place for taking legal action against companies or individuals who are wantonly careless or who openly steal copyrighted ideas, etc. But, unfortunately,  people sue for the most ridiculous reasons nowadays. And they sometimes get awarded ridiculous amounts of damages.

And there's no such thing as a free lunch. In return, companies/organisations etc. become ridiculously cautious.

There was a case in UK this summer of a local council who removed all the hanging baskets of flowers from the town centre in case one broke free from its hanging and fell on someone's head.

Who's the loser in situations like this?

Ultimately it's YOUR back that they are protecting so just grin and bare it.

This is America! Everyone can sue everyone, for everything.... this is just ridiculous.

In my country there is no copyright law, so in theory you can have all software (windows, etc...) "legaly" pirated, and nobody will do nothing. You can easily go to police station and say: "hey, I have pirated widnows, office, and whole bunch of other software..." And they will say: "get outta here, we have some real work to do....". Not to mention photgraphy copyright....


But I also keep in mind copyright laws, and remove everything that might be copyright protected, but it is ridiculous. Come on, few letters on socks is protected, what's next? The dot printed on a paper will be protected too.... nice...

Quote from: Chode on November 11, 2007, 17:55
You can easily go to police station and say: "hey, I have pirated widnows, office, and whole bunch of other software..." And they will say: "get outta here, we have some real work to do....".

That would happen here in America too. 

I am becoming paranoid about copyright and more again about trademarks. I never know when an object is in these situation. Sometime I try to pass whit for example, a pair of cleats isolated on white. Then it's accepted at different places and others not. Very confusing.

I now try to take pictures of things who are manufactured by multiple companies. It decrease the risk that the object is too particular and at the same time protected by law

This is my experience of rejected objects for copyright issue (Even if the logos are off): Cleats, game cards, teddy bear, some boats...

I just got a rejection from iStock copyright issues on wooden ABC blocks. They've been accepted everywhere else but IS. I even removed the little pictures on the sides of the blocks so it was all wood grain on the sides and the front had the letter. I can see where they're coming from but it still pisses me off...

Thanks for the input everyone. Every single other agency accepted the image. There doesn´t seem to be a continuity.

It´s just one thing I don´t really understand.

If I were a company, I would be happy to have my products shown on pics. Well, actually they pay a lot of money for advertisments - just to show their produce. The more obvious, the better.

And I would sue, if they remove the logo from my t-shirt, because I have the right to have my logo on my t-shirt!!!

I wonder if these things will change sometime.

Quote from: nataq on November 12, 2007, 06:18

If I were a company, I would be happy to have my products shown on pics. Well, actually they pay a lot of money for advertisments - just to show their produce. The more obvious, the better.

Well, that would depend on how image is being used.
For a trademarked toy teddybear, for example, you can use it in a article about how some toys can be dangerous. That would be bad publicity that can cause drop in sales of that toy.

Quote from: nataq on November 12, 2007, 06:18

Thanks for the input everyone. Every single other agency accepted the image. There doesn´t seem to be a continuity.

Of course there there's no continuity. Every agency is a different business. They have different standards and different objectives.

Believe it or not, some of them are even located in different countries.   

well, what shall I say - you two convinced me!