Quote from: lagereek on April 21, 2011, 09:21

Quote from: photo123 on April 21, 2011, 08:03

Quote from: lagereek on April 21, 2011, 06:46

Yes well hang on a minute!  Louis Vuittone, is a REALLY copyrighted brandname, the lot in fact, the letters LV, stand for trouble, unless you check it out, editorial or not, check it out.
Some 10 years back I was very lucky not to get into trouble with a stupid Gucci bag, I did get into trouble but bailed my way out of it by offering a dozen free shots.

can be VERY costly. So find out about it.

I'm very confused now. Please check the photo (not full size)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/23976648/IMG_5537-2drop.jpg
It's a simple bag photo but who knows i don't want to get in to trouble..

Thats NOT editorial!!  thats a product shot and pure advertising. Gotswyck is right!  no one is going to buy that. Dump it.

iStock has asked for product shots isolated on white.  To be used for illustrative purposes, not advertising.  And actually, so far sales on product/brand stuff have been pretty good. 

The bag in itself might be OK, as long as you dont use the LV initials or the brand name showing. Sure if it was an RM sale for thousands I might take a chance but for the peanuts of a Micro sale, no way.
besides how can you own the copy of something that is already copyrighted? why dont you just try and use Coca-cola or Apple or Shell and see how long it takes before you have a law- suit on your hands.

Editorial would have been if a woman in a crowd or something just happend to carry the bag.

Quote from: jen on April 21, 2011, 13:50

Quote from: lagereek on April 21, 2011, 09:21

Quote from: photo123 on April 21, 2011, 08:03

Quote from: lagereek on April 21, 2011, 06:46

Yes well hang on a minute!  Louis Vuittone, is a REALLY copyrighted brandname, the lot in fact, the letters LV, stand for trouble, unless you check it out, editorial or not, check it out.
Some 10 years back I was very lucky not to get into trouble with a stupid Gucci bag, I did get into trouble but bailed my way out of it by offering a dozen free shots.

can be VERY costly. So find out about it.

I'm very confused now. Please check the photo (not full size)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/23976648/IMG_5537-2drop.jpg
It's a simple bag photo but who knows i don't want to get in to trouble..

Thats NOT editorial!!  thats a product shot and pure advertising. Gotswyck is right!  no one is going to buy that. Dump it.

iStock has asked for product shots isolated on white.  To be used for illustrative purposes, not advertising.  And actually, so far sales on product/brand stuff have been pretty good. 

The bag in itself might be OK, as long as you dont use the LV initials or the brand name showing. Sure if it was an RM sale for thousands I might take a chance but for the peanuts of a Micro sale, no way.
besides how can you own the copy of something that is already copyrighted? why dont you just try and use Coca-cola or Apple or Shell and see how long it takes before you have a law- suit on your hands.

Editorial would have been if a woman in a crowd or something just happend to carry the bag.

It's apparent you don't undersrand the rules for editorial.  Any product shot is allowed - so long as it's not obviously taken on someone else's private property (that's the Disney issue). Editorial images cannot be used for advertising.  Also, staged images involving people with products are not allowed.  There are no limits on staged product-only images, including those with the LV logo.

Quote from: lagereek on April 21, 2011, 14:20

Quote from: jen on April 21, 2011, 13:50

Quote from: lagereek on April 21, 2011, 09:21

Quote from: photo123 on April 21, 2011, 08:03

Quote from: lagereek on April 21, 2011, 06:46

Yes well hang on a minute!  Louis Vuittone, is a REALLY copyrighted brandname, the lot in fact, the letters LV, stand for trouble, unless you check it out, editorial or not, check it out.
Some 10 years back I was very lucky not to get into trouble with a stupid Gucci bag, I did get into trouble but bailed my way out of it by offering a dozen free shots.

can be VERY costly. So find out about it.

I'm very confused now. Please check the photo (not full size)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/23976648/IMG_5537-2drop.jpg
It's a simple bag photo but who knows i don't want to get in to trouble..

Thats NOT editorial!!  thats a product shot and pure advertising. Gotswyck is right!  no one is going to buy that. Dump it.

iStock has asked for product shots isolated on white.  To be used for illustrative purposes, not advertising.  And actually, so far sales on product/brand stuff have been pretty good. 

The bag in itself might be OK, as long as you dont use the LV initials or the brand name showing. Sure if it was an RM sale for thousands I might take a chance but for the peanuts of a Micro sale, no way.
besides how can you own the copy of something that is already copyrighted? why dont you just try and use Coca-cola or Apple or Shell and see how long it takes before you have a law- suit on your hands.

Editorial would have been if a woman in a crowd or something just happend to carry the bag.

It's apparent you don't undersrand the rules for editorial.  Any product shot is allowed - so long as it's not obviously taken on someone else's private property (that's the Disney issue). Editorial images cannot be used for advertising.  Also, staged images involving people with products are not allowed.  There are no limits on staged product-only images, including those with the LV logo.

Oh well since you "UNDERSTAND" the rules of editorial,  no problem then, tell the guy to go ahead and use it. Any problems he can always refer to you.

Why not clone out all LV logos and use it as an RF?  There are lots of LV fakes out there.  May be more useful as a purse isolated on white.

Quote from: lagereek on April 23, 2011, 05:54

Oh well since you "UNDERSTAND" the rules of editorial,  no problem then, tell the guy to go ahead and use it. Any problems he can always refer to you.

What do you know that the iStock legal team doesn't?
I'm not trying to be snarky, I really want to learn about this and I'm having trouble finding resources.  Why is iStock specifically asking for product shots isolated on white if it's going to get everyone in trouble?

Nada!  and I dont really care, Im in advertising and industry!  all Im saying is I got into trouble for a Gucci bag but bailed myself out of it, rather then taking some forum members word for it, he should find out himself, especially since neither him nor you can afford a lawsuit. Thats all. Find out. End of story. Editorials are boring anyway.

That's different than a plain photo sold under an editorial license.  I read the court order and a big part of their complaint is that she was using their intellectual property to advertise her artwork (i.e. using the LV bag on advertisements for her art) and to sell merchandise, and that she was associating the LV brand with genocide. 

But it's an interesting case! 

Just to set the record straight, Yes you can upload a photo of a LV, Gucci or whatever brand named bag or any other object and sell it under an editorial license without any fear of comeback. If the buyer chooses to ignore the license terms and use it in an advert or other commercial usage that's down to them not the contributor.

On her painting you can see various companies logos, celebrities, politicians and flags. Only LV has sued her and the lawsuit continues since 2008. So RT has a point when advising that it's probably not worth the risk for the return you expect from this image.

On the other hand if someone uses your image and LV has a problem they will go after the company selling this image (IS in this case). I'm sure they know what they are doing because one of their examples of what we could sell editorial was a fender guitar, so brands are obviously ok to submit and any problem will be handled by them.

Again if some magazine buys an editorial photo of a celebrity for example and makes a montage where they replace their head with a dog head (!), or uses it in advertising, then it's their use of the image that is questionable and they are the ones that will be sued, not the photographer or IS.

Thank you for all comments.

Would istock accept this, It only is a paper bag ? Since when you zoom in 100%, looks like noisy because it's paper..

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/23976648/IMG_5720drop.jpg

I guess this one would have no trouble as previous.

I'm pretty sure that iStock would accept your original bag [1]. I can't see why they wouldn't accept the paper bag either: I've got a brand label carrier bag in. What's been discussed above is not about iStock but LV's apparent litigiousness.
[1] That said, I've had a very arbitrary rejection (about needing consent to submit photographs from private space when I was in a totally public place) and several which they've rejected for editorial and asked me to resubmit to the main collection (when they shouldn't be accepted for the main collection). My first Scout ticket for the latter has now been 'in but unanswered' for over nine weeks.

Why are you so infatuated with LV ?? 

What on earth makes you saythat?
Just because someone takes a pic of a bag and of the carrier it possibly was put in from the shop, it's hardly an infatuation.

I'm pretty sure that iStock would accept your original bag [1]. I can't see why they wouldn't accept the paper bag either: I've got a brand label carrier bag in. What's been discussed above is not about iStock but LV's apparent litigiousness.

Thank you for reply.You are right.
But this time i am asking if the quality is ok to submit. Since the bag is made in paper. when you zoom th pic looks not clear.. which makes me confused..
I am pretty sure too that this will not have a copyright issue by the way..
[/quote]
Trying to shoot things around which i think may sell well.
[/quote]
It all depends on which inspector you get, but I know what you mean about the paper; I've had a few printed on paper acceptances I wasn't sure about beforehand.

I'm pretty sure that iStock would accept your original bag [1]. I can't see why they wouldn't accept the paper bag either: I've got a brand label carrier bag in. What's been discussed above is not about iStock but LV's apparent litigiousness.

Thank you for reply.You are right.
But this time i am asking if the quality is ok to submit. Since the bag is made in paper. when you zoom th pic looks not clear.. which makes me confused..
I am pretty sure too that this will not have a copyright issue by the way..

Why are you so infatuated with LV ??  

Trying to shoot things around which i think may sell well.
[/quote]

Yes I understand but surely you can find something more stimulating then an LV bag ??  how about any of the Italian sport cars and with things around it, like a football match arena in background or a Rolex watch on somebodys hand with tons of interesting stuff around?  why a dreary old bag?