Author Topic: everything in the world is copyrighted (Read 24841 times)

stockastic · « **on:** February 27, 2010, 16:53 »

I just had a photo of a sock monkey rejected by IS. Yes, a sock monkey - a kid's stuffed toy. And they reason was "content that may be subject to copyright or trademark protection." Apparently they've received threatening letters from the National Sock Monkey Assocation. Or maybe I should have attached a release signed by S. Monkey.

So, stuffed toys are out. I guess all toys are out. Come to think of it, what's the difference - legally - between a sock monkey and the dinnerware and cutlery in food shots? Isn't any manufactured product today to some extent the work of a designer?

I give up at this point. What's left to submit? I shouldn't even bother to point out that IS already has several photos of sock monkeys. Or maybe they were stock monkeys.

crazychristina · « **Reply #1 on:** February 27, 2010, 16:56 »

A couple of istock photographers got around this problem by making their own stuffed toys to their own designs.

madelaide · « **Reply #2 on:** February 27, 2010, 17:00 »

Is the toy the main subject? It is normally the problem, unlike silverware in food shots. But sometimes it's just the very specific brand that can not be used in any way.

Digital66 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 27, 2010, 17:02 »

I had that problem with an image of a young girl playing with a home made rag doll.

Sometimes this is so ridiculous. But, what can we do?

vonkara · « **Reply #4 on:** February 27, 2010, 17:10 »

everything in the world is copyrighted It look like it

What I got rejected for copyrights in the last 2 years... represent almost 50% of my rejections
- Open books (text is copyrighted, sometimes even because of the cover without any informations on)

- Vehicles (ambulance, police cars, sometimes vintage cars, limousine, ect) all logos removed, even sometimes with modified elements, either on white or included in a concept background

- Cloth (like checked picnic cloth, red and green velvet background and some random cloth with patterns)

Plus many I can't remember now. There is many things I have never try because I knew it could be rejected, most of them are toys like dominos ect

stockastic · « **Reply #5 on:** February 27, 2010, 17:13 »

madelaide, I could not imagine a more generic, anonyomous sock monkey. The photo is nothing but a dead-on face shot, that's the gimmick. People might by it for use as an avatar, or other forms of humor. SS and DT already accepted it.

I had several other crazy rejections today. A bunch for isolations containing "areas that are too feathered or too rough". Not only can I not find any spots I could improve, they're essentially identical (in this regard) to others in the same batch that were approved, and much better than similar shots I did months ago that were accepted.

I'll just wait a while and resubmit them all and I'll bet they get in. It's worked in the past, as has appealing to 'scout'. If only these reviewers would attach the slightest clue as to what they're seeing wrong.

stockastic · « **Reply #6 on:** February 27, 2010, 17:16 »

Vonkara (and others), I think part of what is going on is that these microstocks already have images of these subjects, which they are not systematically removing, and they're thinking they're legally covered in some sense just by rejecting new ones.

Too bad for them. My sock monkey was way better than the ones the have.

This photo was also my first rejection at CutCaster - for "limited commericial value". Ok, I see that CC has no sense of humor. I've already sold this one a couple of times at SS.

nruboc · « **Reply #7 on:** February 27, 2010, 17:34 »

News Flash: Microstock agencies announce they will only accept nudes since all clothing has been deemed copyrighted.

FD · « **Reply #8 on:** February 27, 2010, 17:37 »

Quote from: stockastic on February 27, 2010, 17:13

A bunch for isolations containing "areas that are too feathered or too rough". Not only can I not find any spots I could improve, they're essentially identical (in this regard) to others in the same batch that were approved, and much better than similar shots I did months ago that were accepted.

I got the feathered or too rough inspector too this week. Normally they attach the problem section but not here. Similars from the same series were accepted before without any problem. Of course I can all "resubmit" them but that takes too much time for an XS sale once in a while. I wonder who can see the difference between a 1 or 1.5px feather on a 21MP image used as XS in a sidebar. They sell well on SS for double the price (0.38 vs 0.19) and that will do.

stockastic · « **Reply #9 on:** February 27, 2010, 17:44 »

The really aggravating thing is that months ago they were accepting shots of mine which weren't as good as these - my isolation techniques have improved. I can do most of it photographically now.

In one case there was no feathering or hand isolation done at all. I'm clueless on that one.

donding · « **Reply #10 on:** February 27, 2010, 18:01 »

Quote from: stockastic on February 27, 2010, 17:44

The really aggravating thing is that months ago they were accepting shots of mine which weren't as good as these - my isolation techniques have improved. I can do most of it photographically now.

In one case there was no feathering or hand isolation done at all. I'm clueless on that one.

I've gotten some of those too which were well deserved, but some were not and it seems if the isolated product has a rough texture to it they call it noise...if it has a furry type texture on the outer edges they call it bad isolation. I don't even mess with resubmitting those.

elvinstar · « **Reply #11 on:** February 27, 2010, 18:22 »

I love getting the "areas that are too feathered or too rough" rejection when my isolation is done 100% in camera. I would laugh if it didn't make me so mad!

Suljo · « **Reply #12 on:** February 27, 2010, 18:30 »

One time they reject photo of travel bag with small wheels and guess reviewer imagination?
In the middle of the wheel is hexagonal head of imbus screw which is shaft of that plastic wheel and reject it for trade mark/copyright issue?!?

stockastic · « **Reply #13 on:** February 27, 2010, 18:40 »

The root of this problem seems to be IStock's "image thing". While promoting themselves as having better images than the competition, they've created a culture of cavalier rejection and over-the-top inspection criteria.

All of my "problem" images have already been accepted by SS, FT and DT - that's because I don't submit anything to IS until it's already been accepted by the other 3.

My acceptance at SS, DT, FT is very high, and when I get a rejection I always see the reason. IS is just ceasing to make sense to me. If SS ever offers exclusivity, with incentives, I'm out of IS that day.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #14 on:** February 27, 2010, 19:28 »

The sock monkey thing doesn't surprise me.

http://www.sockmonkey.com/

stockastic · « **Reply #15 on:** February 27, 2010, 20:09 »

Yes, someone, somewhere, has a copyright on the sock monkey, or at least the pattern for making one (and I didn't photograph the pattern). That was my point. Just about any product with style - be it a toy, an article of clothing, a car or a pipe wrench - was 'designed' and may have some sort of copyright on it, and could be recognized in a photo -at least by its designer. Office furniture. Tableware. Even the layout of a circuit board is intellectual property. Say doesn't the teddy bear in that shot look awfully like Pooh...?

The absence of logos is no longer enough to assuage the fears of IS's lawyers.

My reading of this Wikipedia article is that the 'sock monkey' appeared by1932 or possibly earlier. In 1955 the Nelson Knitting Company (sockmonkey.com) was awarded a patent on the pattern for making a sock monkey. There is no mention of a copyright on the design:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sock_monkey

No Longer Cares · « **Reply #16 on:** February 27, 2010, 20:24 »

For me, IS is the most frustrating site to upload to. Not because of the process; because of the reviews. I stopped bothering with them a long time ago. Every now and then I toss a photo there to see how it goes.

I just do not know what to expect.

Cityscape photo rejected for keyword: business (rejected for that one keyword, that’s it)
Model wearing a necklace that is a fake dog tag: image contains a license plate (even if it did, you can't even make anything out on it) the only text on it was the birthdate of his child.
San Jacinto Monument: rejected for keyword ( Battle (Historical War Event) ); I guess you have to be in the historical war event itself to use that keyword?

I can go on and on and on... so I don't anymore...

I guess the exclusives there do not have to worry about my images taking sales, although I still get multiple payouts a month with just 265 images.

donding · « **Reply #17 on:** February 27, 2010, 20:25 »

Quote from: stockastic on February 27, 2010, 20:09

Yes, someone, somewhere, has a copyright on the sock monkey, or at least the pattern for making one (and I didn't photograph the pattern). That was my point. Just about any product with style - be it a toy, an article of clothing, a car or a pipe wrench - was 'designed' and may have some sort of copyright on it, and could be recognized in a photo -at least by its designer. Office furniture. Tableware. Even the layout of a circuit board is intellectual property. Say doesn't the teddy bear in that shot look awfully like Pooh...?

The absence of logos is no longer enough to assuage the fears of IS's lawyers.

My reading of this Wikipedia article is that the 'sock monkey' appeared by1932 or possibly earlier. In 1955 the Nelson Knitting Company (sockmonkey.com) was awarded a patent on the pattern for making a sock monkey. There is no mention of a copyright on the design:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sock_monkey

I believe the patent on it would be the copyright. Patents are in place so people can't copycat a product and claim it as their own. Now I'm not sure how that works with images but I'd assume that would be copyright infringement.

stockastic · « **Reply #18 on:** February 27, 2010, 21:05 »

Quote from: donding on February 27, 2010, 20:25

I believe the patent on it would be the copyright. Patents are in place so people can't copycat a product and claim it as their own. Now I'm not sure how that works with images but I'd assume that would be copyright infringement.

The 1955 patent is on the pattern (set of directions) for making a sock monkey from one of their "Red Heel" socks. They knew their socks were popular for making sock monkeys and they wanted to capitalize on it, so they drew up a pattern and got a patent. The actual 'sock monkey' concept goes way back, and as far as I can see, is not copyrighted - and Nelson Knitting didn't invent it.

Here is an ETSY page for a person who sells all sorts of hand made sock monkey variations:

http://www.etsy.com/shop/THEMONKEYSHOP

donding · « **Reply #19 on:** February 27, 2010, 21:20 »

Here's the free pattern on that patent. Maybe they should be in trouble for copyright infringement....

stockastic · « **Reply #20 on:** February 27, 2010, 22:12 »

Quote from: donding on February 27, 2010, 21:20

Here's the free pattern on that patent. Maybe they should be in trouble for copyright infringement....

All Nelson had was a patent on a particular way to make a sock monkey from a particular type of sock (theirs). You could create your own pattern, that's ok too. As far as I could find by Googling there is no copyright on the term "sock monkey" or the image of a sock monkey. It's like "teddy bear".

Someone has a patent on the CFL light bulb. But you can still sell photos of fluorescent bulbs, and the microstocks have tons of them. The patent is on the process and materials for making them - not on the appearance of the bulb.

I can certainly believe that a reviewer might suspect the sock monkey is a copyrighted image and they're probably being told to reject if they have the slightest doubt. The interesting question to me, now, is - could I get it approved if I told them otherwise? I'm guessing not.

donding · « **Reply #21 on:** February 27, 2010, 22:25 »

Quote from: stockastic on February 27, 2010, 22:12

The interesting question to me, now, is - could I get it approved if I told them otherwise? I'm guessing not.

I think you are probably guessing right.

MichaelJay · « **Reply #22 on:** February 28, 2010, 04:49 »

Quote from: stockastic on February 27, 2010, 22:12

The interesting question to me, now, is - could I get it approved if I told them otherwise? I'm guessing not.

If you believe you have proof enough, you should submit it to Scout with all the information and links you can provide. The executive team then will decide about your image. If your image is found to be acceptable, you can later on provide this information to inspectors by adding a note in the file description.

gostwyck · « **Reply #23 on:** February 28, 2010, 05:20 »

Quote from: elvinstar on February 27, 2010, 18:22

I love getting the "areas that are too feathered or too rough" rejection when my isolation is done 100% in camera. I would laugh if it didn't make me so mad!

It just means that there isn't a clearly defined boundary, in some areas, between the subject and the background. It is not suggesting that you've done anything when processing the image, quite the reverse in fact. Simply shrinking the image to a smaller size can often improve the situation enough for the image to be accepted.

FD · « **Reply #24 on:** February 28, 2010, 07:02 »

Quote from: elvinstar on February 27, 2010, 18:22

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).

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: everything in the world is copyrighted (Read 24841 times)

stockastic

crazychristina

madelaide

Digital66

vonkara

stockastic

stockastic

nruboc

FD

stockastic

donding

elvinstar

Suljo

stockastic

Sean Locke Photography

stockastic

No Longer Cares

donding

stockastic

donding

stockastic

donding

MichaelJay

gostwyck

FD

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors