Author Topic: Blackberry: yes / iPhone: no? (Read 5022 times)

danhowl · « **on:** April 11, 2010, 08:46 »

I've had 3 rejections of images that included model holding an iPhone. In each case, the rejection information stated only:

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

In the photos, the product was only partially shown (at most only 1/3 of product was visable) and the logo was removed.

example:
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/12503485/2/istockphoto_12503485-teenager-with-cell-phone.jpg)

I searched the library with the keyword smartphone and found numerous photos showing models using recognizable Blackberry and Sidekick smart phones. In literally dozens of cases, more recognizable products than the in the photos rejected.

I'm trying to understand how an iPhone has more copyright/trademark protection than Blackberry and Sidekick models.

The images were accepted at Shutterstock and Dreamstime.

cathyslife · « **Reply #1 on:** April 11, 2010, 09:18 »

Quote from: danhowl on April 11, 2010, 08:46

I'm trying to understand how an iPhone has more copyright/trademark protection than Blackberry and Sidekick models.
The images were accepted at Shutterstock and Dreamstime.

I'm not sure any of us will ever understand. But the images that are currently there may have been uploaded before the crackdown or they mysteriously slipped through (friend of a reviewer?).

I had a photo rejected because the model had ipod earphones in her ears. Barely any of the earphone showed, it was NOT the subject of the photo, but nonetheless recognizable and therefore rejected. I understand your frustration, that's for sure.

click_click · « **Reply #2 on:** April 11, 2010, 09:32 »

While I understand that IP laws have to be respected by every agency (which is fine by me), especially since IS and SS offer a warranty for their images being free of any third party rights - I don't understand why content that has been uploaded in the past is exempt from these laws.

Do laws not apply to images that are older although the same protected property is shown?

This shouldn't be a "whoever came first wins" situation. It's a legal matter.

On Shutterstock, StockXpert and other agencies old images are constantly removed because property laws change or are now being enforced more.

cathyslife · « **Reply #3 on:** April 11, 2010, 09:36 »

Quote from: click_click on April 11, 2010, 09:32

While I understand that IP laws have to be respected by every agency (which is fine by me), especially since IS and SS offer a warranty for their images being free of any third party rights - I don't understand why content that has been uploaded in the past is exempt from these laws.

Do laws not apply to images that are older although the same protected property is shown?

This shouldn't be a "whoever came first wins" situation. It's a legal matter.

On Shutterstock, StockXpert and other agencies old images are constantly removed because property laws change or are now being enforced more.

I certainly hope that no one is exempt, I hope it is just a case of having to clean how many millions of images might take a while.

click_click · « **Reply #4 on:** April 11, 2010, 09:41 »

for the record: Of course I mean "guarantee" not "warranty" (English is not my mother tongue)

red · « **Reply #5 on:** April 11, 2010, 13:12 »

It's my guess that the millions of images already online that got through before the crackdown are at the bottom of the list of "things to do" on the sites. It is hard enough for them to keep up with reviewing new images. Few liked the "report bad keywords" feature on DT that allowed members to point out bad words, can you imagine if a site introduced a "report bag logos" feature? It causes bad feeling when a member reports a problem with another's image but less so when a member of admin does.

danhowl · « **Reply #6 on:** April 12, 2010, 07:55 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on April 11, 2010, 13:12

It's my guess that the millions of images already online that got through before the crackdown are at the bottom of the list of "things to do" on the sites.

I don't think this completely gets to the heart of the question. There seems to be an inconsistency when dealing with trademark or copyrights. As mentioned in another thread here, almost every product is subject to some kind of patent, trademark or copyright. A blanket ban on all intellectual property influenced products would not be practical. You would never see any model wearing shoes for example. At some level inclusion of products in the overall composition is acceptable. In many cases, it seems, removal of the logo is sufficient.

cathyslife · « **Reply #7 on:** April 12, 2010, 09:01 »

Quote

I don't think this completely gets to the heart of the question. There seems to be an inconsistency when dealing with trademark or copyrights.

Yes, there most definitely is an inconsistency. And even when it is spelled out in black and white on the IS wiki, one reviewer might accept something and another will recognize the item as being in the wiki and reject it. There is never going to be a way to get around it.

If it makes you feel better, you can email the offending images and your complaint to support, but don't expect your helpfulness to be welcomed or anything to be changed.

stockastic · « **Reply #8 on:** April 12, 2010, 10:17 »

As I've posted before - I think microstock is on a road to complete madness. Just about any product you can think of is to some extent the work of a designer, and is potentially recognizable. Clothing, tableware, computers, phones, tools, you name it - carried to its logical extreme, this policy would end stock photography.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #9 on:** April 12, 2010, 11:52 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 12, 2010, 10:17

As I've posted before - I think microstock is on a road to complete madness. Just about any product you can think of is to some extent the work of a designer, and is potentially recognizable. Clothing, tableware, computers, phones, tools, you name it - carried to its logical extreme, this policy would end stock photography.

Very succinctly put. I always thought that these items were okay as long as logs were erased and they were somehow part of a larger picture. I imagine most fashionable clothing, eyeglasses, cars, furniture etc, are all copyrighted.

Pixart · « **Reply #10 on:** April 12, 2010, 14:10 »

Outside of micro, you see a Blackberry in more places than Itouch. Itouch must be very rigid with commercial use, or they are simply not willing to pay more than RIM. Since I got a Blackberry I've noticed that most tv characters use the latest Blackberry Curve. I'm guessing that a couple of the U.S. networks likely have blanket contract with RIM to use them in their in-house projects. If another style of phone crept into the shot the clearance supervisor would have to either have the scene edited, reshot or write up a contract with the other cell phone co, if she sees it's a Blackberry the scene is approved. Maybe RIM made a better offer, or thinks that all exposure is good exposure.

I wondered about product placement and subliminal marketing in Micro. When you watch them eat Doritos on 90210, Doritios has paid to place that product there. Next time you pay for gas, you see the Dorito display and think about that surfer kid on 90210 and buy a bag. My nephew has a line of clothing. Man, he would love it if I put his label in my shots. I'm guessing that even if they were released the agencies would stand by the "No Logos" policy though.

cathyslife · « **Reply #11 on:** April 12, 2010, 14:19 »

Quote

My nephew has a line of clothing. Man, he would love it if I put his label in my shots. I'm guessing that even if they were released the agencies would stand by the "No Logos" policy though.

If you had a property release from your nephew, I don't see why it wouldn't be allowed.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Blackberry: yes / iPhone: no? (Read 5022 times)

danhowl

cathyslife

click_click

cathyslife

click_click

red

danhowl

cathyslife

stockastic

PeterChigmaroff

Pixart

cathyslife

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors