MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: everything in the world is copyrighted  (Read 20233 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RT


« Reply #50 on: March 10, 2010, 19:26 »
0

Maybe you should look up what a trademark actually is

Where did I say "trademark"?  

You didn't you said "Lawyers now control who can use which colors" and  "John deere owns green and yellow"  neither statement is accurate and shows that you don't understand what the issue is about, which is why I suggested you looked up what a trademark means, maybe then you'd understand why and how John Deere (not lawyers) are able to control (not own) certain colours.
It might also help you understand why your comments about 'selling a green towel, submitting a stock photo of a green oven mitt and marketing your toaster in two colours you've picked' are as you put it earlier 'nuts'


RacePhoto

« Reply #51 on: March 10, 2010, 22:15 »
0

Maybe you should look up what a trademark actually is

Where did I say "trademark"?  

You didn't need to, the argument you are making has to do with trademarked colors, in combination, on agricultural equipment. Also it's not just any green and yellow, it's John Deere Green and yellow which is an exact color. I believe the paint is only made by one licensed company.

John Deere had registered the colour combination green-yellow for agricultural machines as a CTM based on acquired distinctiveness.

A toaster is not agricultural equipment. :)

Now someone tell me how you can protect Ayers Rock (not just a rock!) which is a natural feature of the planet. And before you jump into cultural understanding and religion, the American Indians could have the rights to the Grand Canyon on the same basis. See where it's getting a bit silly to claim a whole mountain is protected? :D Yellowstone? Devils Tower? Niagara Falls, want me to make a huge list of native significant sites?

If Ayers Rock is a NT site like the rest of the UK, not public land, and not supported by taxpayer dollars, they could restrict any photography within the park area, but not all photography of the mountain, should someone be outside the area they own and manage.

« Reply #52 on: March 10, 2010, 23:33 »
0

Maybe you should look up what a trademark actually is

Where did I say "trademark"?  

You didn't need to, the argument you are making has to do with trademarked colors, in combination, on agricultural equipment. Also it's not just any green and yellow, it's John Deere Green and yellow which is an exact color. I believe the paint is only made by one licensed company.

John Deere had registered the colour combination green-yellow for agricultural machines as a CTM based on acquired distinctiveness.

A toaster is not agricultural equipment. :)

Now someone tell me how you can protect Ayers Rock (not just a rock!) which is a natural feature of the planet. And before you jump into cultural understanding and religion, the American Indians could have the rights to the Grand Canyon on the same basis. See where it's getting a bit silly to claim a whole mountain is protected? :D Yellowstone? Devils Tower? Niagara Falls, want me to make a huge list of native significant sites?

If Ayers Rock is a NT site like the rest of the UK, not public land, and not supported by taxpayer dollars, they could restrict any photography within the park area, but not all photography of the mountain, should someone be outside the area they own and manage.
Uluru (Ayers Rock) is not on public land - it's owned by the  Pitjanjara  -  The land is only managed by the National Parks people. The owners let you in on condition you respect their beliefs and don't do stuff that would offend them.

RacePhoto

« Reply #53 on: March 11, 2010, 17:56 »
0

Maybe you should look up what a trademark actually is

Where did I say "trademark"?  

You didn't need to, the argument you are making has to do with trademarked colors, in combination, on agricultural equipment. Also it's not just any green and yellow, it's John Deere Green and yellow which is an exact color. I believe the paint is only made by one licensed company.

John Deere had registered the colour combination green-yellow for agricultural machines as a CTM based on acquired distinctiveness.

A toaster is not agricultural equipment. :)

Now someone tell me how you can protect Ayers Rock (not just a rock!) which is a natural feature of the planet. And before you jump into cultural understanding and religion, the American Indians could have the rights to the Grand Canyon on the same basis. See where it's getting a bit silly to claim a whole mountain is protected? :D Yellowstone? Devils Tower? Niagara Falls, want me to make a huge list of native significant sites?

If Ayers Rock is a NT site like the rest of the UK, not public land, and not supported by taxpayer dollars, they could restrict any photography within the park area, but not all photography of the mountain, should someone be outside the area they own and manage.
Uluru (Ayers Rock) is not on public land - it's owned by the  Pitjanjara  -  The land is only managed by the National Parks people. The owners let you in on condition you respect their beliefs and don't do stuff that would offend them.

Well there's the answer. Private property, so they can "call the shots" or restrict them. :) The Director of National Parks connection also puts it out of reach because of their restrictions. If you can get a shot and not be on their land, it's fine. Same as castles,monuments, gardens, historic sites, and everything else that's regulated by the National Trust. The Director of National Parks has a 99 year lease on the property. They can restrict what you do on their property.

However I still don't understand someone claiming you can not take or sell a picture of a 500 million year old rock formation. This returns to the "everything in the world is copyrighted" topic. It is a naturally formed mountain!

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #54 on: March 11, 2010, 18:56 »
0
Hmmmm
I was thinking of booking a trip to Madagascar (actually, I was booked last year,but they cancelled the trip of FO advice following the coup). I got a 'general information' pdf in today which inter alia said:
"NB: Extortionate camera fees are sometimes charged at the National Parks to those who seem to be taking photographs in a professional capacity (i.e. EU305 per person per park)."
Note that at today's exchange rates that's about US$417 per park. The trip I was looking at includes six national parks.
Looks like it's back to the drawing board.  :'(

RacePhoto

« Reply #55 on: March 11, 2010, 20:10 »
0
Hmmmm
I was thinking of booking a trip to Madagascar (actually, I was booked last year,but they cancelled the trip of FO advice following the coup). I got a 'general information' pdf in today which inter alia said:
"NB: Extortionate camera fees are sometimes charged at the National Parks to those who seem to be taking photographs in a professional capacity (i.e. EU305 per person per park)."
Note that at today's exchange rates that's about US$417 per park. The trip I was looking at includes six national parks.
Looks like it's back to the drawing board.  :'(

Didn't you always want to own a G11?  :)

Just read about the coup, people cutting the endangered Rosewood in rain forest, corruption up. Tourism down 70% based on warnings. Sounds scary enough that if I won a free trip I might pass it up.

Looks like a pretty place.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #56 on: March 12, 2010, 12:16 »
0
Hmmmm
I was thinking of booking a trip to Madagascar (actually, I was booked last year,but they cancelled the trip of FO advice following the coup). I got a 'general information' pdf in today which inter alia said:
"NB: Extortionate camera fees are sometimes charged at the National Parks to those who seem to be taking photographs in a professional capacity (i.e. EU305 per person per park)."
Note that at today's exchange rates that's about US$417 per park. The trip I was looking at includes six national parks.
Looks like it's back to the drawing board.  :'(

Didn't you always want to own a G11?  :)

Just read about the coup, people cutting the endangered Rosewood in rain forest, corruption up. Tourism down 70% based on warnings. Sounds scary enough that if I won a free trip I might pass it up.

Looks like a pretty place.

I have a G9, but having asked for more info, it seems the rule was made a while ago and applies to anything over - wait for it - 3Mp!!!
USians tend to be more nervous travellers (on average) than Brits, but I think it's because the US advisory is hyper-cautious. On my very first visit to an Internet cafe for my very first foray online I happened to land in the US advisory for Kenya - it was totally horrendous. Based on what I read there, I'd never have gone - but I was only about a fortnight back from a 3-week trip.
So I looked up what they were saying about the UK - I'd never come here having read that either!
Anyway, the UK foreign office says only stay out of the capital; don't vaunt expensive items like cameras in populated areas and travel with an experienced ground agent.
I've wanted to go for years, but most trips are in Oct-early Dec when I have to work.


« Reply #58 on: March 15, 2010, 19:00 »
0
I love getting the "areas that are too feathered or too rough" rejection when my isolation is done 100% in camera.
I'm always checking at 300% around the edges. It can happen that edges are bleached out (especially hair) when your background is more than 1.5 stop overexposed. It's not because it's done in cam that it is good per se (I plead guilty).

But

  - why should we care about anything that's only "noticeable" at 300%?

  - you're describing a photographic/lighting issue, but their rejection implies a Photoshopped isolation.  You can't feather, or creae a "rough" edge, photographically.


As they raise their standards to the highest imaginable levels, I assume they're also increasing commissions?  Oh wait, exactly the opposite is true.  But surely, they're dropping old images that don't meet these new stratospheric standards?  Nope.  They, and their accumulated popularity ranking, will be lined up in front of yours forever.

 

« Reply #59 on: March 15, 2010, 21:22 »
0
I'm always checking at 300% around the edges. It can happen that edges are bleached out (especially hair) when your background is more than 1.5 stop overexposed. It's not because it's done in cam that it is good per se (I plead guilty).

But
  - why should we care about anything that's only "noticeable" at 300%?
  - you're describing a photographic/lighting issue, but their rejection implies a Photoshopped isolation.  You can't feather, or creae a "rough" edge, photographically.

At 300% it's easier to see and to remedy, but you will notice it at 100% too. To follow-up the fate of that series, it was first rejected for keywords, then for a logo (rightly so), then for "feathering", then a second time for "feathering". With the third reject, I finally got a decent explanation: areas out of focus should be feathered very softly as a hard feathering there looks "unnatural". The image can be seen here. The arm was slightly out of focus so I feathered it with 3px, but apparently it was not enough.

I have a disagreement about this with the reviewer, I'm afraid. Overwhites can be used as such on a white screen or paper background, but many people use them to cut those out easily. With a wide feathering, this is much more difficult as you can't get rid easily from the transition shades between the white background and the object. The same reason I avoid shadows under an isolated object. If the buyer wants to use the image as is, he can easily blur the out of focus edges himself, over any added background, and that would look "natural".

As a final step to recover the series, I combined the 6 21Mpx images into one, reducing the 120Mpx to 6Mpx, so that any out-of-focus would be gone (see here). Now this one was rejected with the reason: "please upload all 6 images individually".  ;D

It will teach me a lesson never to resubmit on IS again, even if the reject reason is simple like forgot to attach a MRF. As soon as you've corrected those, they will find another reason to reject. It's simply not worth the hassle and the time to be sold now and then for 0.19$ as Xs, when it was sold on SS already a few times for double that amount.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2010, 22:38 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #60 on: March 15, 2010, 22:11 »
0
Thanks for the detailed account, I learned some things.

At IS, I hardly ever resubmit - like you say, they tend to find something else the second time, so it's a waste of effort.  I just wait a few weeks and submit the same image again, and often it's accepted.

Recently I had one rejected for "noise" and/or "artifacts" (SS, DT and FT all accepted it).  I searched in the dark corners, and did find some small areas with color noise. I carefully reworked the image with additional noise rejection, selectively applied, and did some other touching up - in the end, I felt I had a much nicer image.  I proudly resubmitted and it was rejected as "too filtered".

I get the feeling that if people from IS ever ready posts like this, they just laugh. They have so incredibly many photos now, and so many pouring in every week, they could care less about contributors being frustrated or giving up.

I've been doing microstock for a year and it seems to be making progressively less sense.   It's just an occasional thing with me now. I've given up on ever making any serious money through these channels.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2010, 23:00 by stockastic »

« Reply #61 on: March 23, 2010, 22:22 »
0
Back to my original topic - Sock Monkey was accepted by SS, DT and FT, no problem.  It's even sold a couple of timess, so I decided to try another one, came up with what I thought was a funny and topical idea using the sock monkey.  

SS, although they approved the first one, rejected the second one as "trademark... not editorial".  

I resubmitted as "editorial".  

SS then rejected it as "not an editorial image."
« Last Edit: March 23, 2010, 22:34 by stockastic »

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #62 on: March 24, 2010, 05:47 »
0
Re. colours, as some intelligent lady mentioned earlier, Cadbury don't want chocolate companies to use purple, but they know, that other companies ARE ENTITLED to use purple if they wish on their packaging since Cadbury DID NOT INVENT THE COLOUR! :D So let's get a little bit real here..

What you can do legally, if someone sells a yellow tractor, or purple bar of chocolate, is sue them on the basis that they are IMPERSONATING your company, in order to make a sale. And by the way these law suits almost never win because it's extremely hard to prove. The person using the colour of your branding would have to take money knowing that the customer may be mistaken in the identity of your brand, as distinct from a trademarked one, in fact the trademark doesn't even have to exist to sue on this basis..

You can use any colour you want, as long as it's not red with a yellow M, for a chip shop that isn't MacDonalds, not because they own the colours red and yellow, but because it could be proven that the customers think you are MacD's, therefore you are impersonating another business.. but their legal team would even still have to prove that you took money from people who believed you were MacD's.

With stock images and copyright/branding, I mean, I do think they are taking it too far at times, but then I have absolutely no idea what trouble they get into if they leave something slip by.. if the legal consequences are very bad, then I understand 'over' vigilance.

« Reply #63 on: March 24, 2010, 06:51 »
0
What you can do legally, if someone sells a yellow tractor, or purple bar of chocolate, is sue them on the basis that they are IMPERSONATING your company, in order to make a sale. And by the way these law suits almost never win because it's extremely hard to prove.


Really, they almost never win?
http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/bt/int/20071018/20071018_wham-o.html
Following a seven-day trial, Slip 'N Slide manufacturer Wham-O Inc. has won a $6 million jury verdict that found that rival ToyQuest willfully infringed its federally registered trademark for the color yellow for water slides.
http://www.colormatters.com/color_trademark.html
A federal district court ruled in favor of Dap and granted protection to their red packaging.
http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/news-announcements/60683-mlb-properties-settles-trademark-lawsuit-upper-deck.html
Upper Deck agreed it will not make any new sets of cards using MLB logos, uniforms, trade dress, or Club color combinations.

« Reply #64 on: March 24, 2010, 13:13 »
0
What you can do legally, if someone sells a yellow tractor, or purple bar of chocolate, is sue them on the basis that they are IMPERSONATING your company, in order to make a sale. And by the way these law suits almost never win because it's extremely hard to prove.


Really, they almost never win?
http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/bt/int/20071018/20071018_wham-o.html
Following a seven-day trial, Slip 'N Slide manufacturer Wham-O Inc. has won a $6 million jury verdict that found that rival ToyQuest willfully infringed its federally registered trademark for the color yellow for water slides.
http://www.colormatters.com/color_trademark.html
A federal district court ruled in favor of Dap and granted protection to their red packaging.
http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/news-announcements/60683-mlb-properties-settles-trademark-lawsuit-upper-deck.html
Upper Deck agreed it will not make any new sets of cards using MLB logos, uniforms, trade dress, or Club color combinations.


i still don't understand why any photographer would risk all the consequeces just for a few pennies for a dl.
it isn't that you don't have anything else to shoot.
oh, or is it because they think they found a "niche" because there is no one who has uploaded those images?
well, the reason why they didn't is just that, the established stock photographers like Sean,etc.. know better than to risk
receiving a Cease and Desist order.

once, someone did erroneously stated here that it is not the contributor's responsibility , but the buyer. so you can risk anything .
but i am not sure about that too. as if i am not mistaken, in the agreement it is us the contributor who gets the boots everytime.

IS rejected several of my work based on "risk of IP infringement". 
i am actually not as informed as i should be. for that, i have since increased my priority to IS since i feel the reviewer is more informed
and it sort of makes me feel more comfortable . i'd sooner accept the rejection than get an approval then rush back to delete the image after finding out i could be in deep sh*t .

still, i do see other sites with these images , some even on their front page.
this makes me squirm for being a contributor there.
would you not?   exit stage left... really quick. including deleting all my images with them, little by little. esp. if their sales is almost
non existent. no wonder !

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #65 on: March 24, 2010, 15:48 »
0
What you can do legally, if someone sells a yellow tractor, or purple bar of chocolate, is sue them on the basis that they are IMPERSONATING your company, in order to make a sale. And by the way these law suits almost never win because it's extremely hard to prove.


Really, they almost never win?
http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/bt/int/20071018/20071018_wham-o.html
Following a seven-day trial, Slip 'N Slide manufacturer Wham-O Inc. has won a $6 million jury verdict that found that rival ToyQuest willfully infringed its federally registered trademark for the color yellow for water slides.
http://www.colormatters.com/color_trademark.html
A federal district court ruled in favor of Dap and granted protection to their red packaging.
http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/news-announcements/60683-mlb-properties-settles-trademark-lawsuit-upper-deck.html
Upper Deck agreed it will not make any new sets of cards using MLB logos, uniforms, trade dress, or Club color combinations.


I'm sure if you go speak to the lawyer involved in that case, you will find the argument included 'impersonation' of the business as part of the suit, otherwise they would not have won..

"The jury rendered a verdict against ToyQuest for willful infringement, intentional false advertising, and willful dilution of WHAM-O's famous YELLOW trademark."

"The verdict is a major victory for WHAM-O in its ongoing efforts to prevent others from using its federally registered trademarks to deceive consumers into thinking they are purchasing original WHAM-O products."

Anyway, back on topic.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2010, 15:54 by hqimages »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
5265 Views
Last post December 13, 2007, 18:52
by cathyslife
13 Replies
5389 Views
Last post March 22, 2008, 14:37
by fintastique
9 Replies
7389 Views
Last post March 27, 2009, 20:29
by madelaide
46 Replies
21590 Views
Last post April 29, 2010, 07:09
by click_click
25 Replies
7552 Views
Last post November 02, 2017, 03:04
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle