Hello my friends,

I have this issue and i dont know how to solve it.

The photos are here: https://500px.com/xenupy/galleries/karmann-ghia [nofollow]

I have a property release that i sign as a owner and a photographer (it is indeed my car) and my wife sign as witness...

So... why shutterstock is always denying my photos (the other agencies accept them).

They say when they reject Intellectual Property infriges on another party, artwork is visible or an object design is protected by copyright and the property release  does not meet our requirements.

What is wrong?

Thank you all,

Great forum btw

For years, photos of cars, boats, planes, etc. were accepted by most of the agencies, as long as all logos were removed. Apparently there were lawsuits, and as a result, you can't upload these types of photos for commercial use anymore. The ones that were accepted before the problem still remain on the site, which is why you are seeing them. It doesn't seem fair, but that's what the agencies do, and pretty much nothing they do regarding contributors is fair.

The issue doesnt lie with the fact thats your car and you provided the property release
The issue is the design of the car, tires,etc are property of the manufacturer, and as such you can only submit as editorial

you can legally sell almost anything you take a photo of.

a photo you take of a car is your creative work. you can legally sell it. copyrights protect creative works, and your creative work in deciding the lighting, framing, angle, etc of the object, including cars, is 100% owned by you.

the copyright of a car only protects the manufacturer by preventing other car companies from manufacturing duplicate designs of the car. the copyright of a car does not transfer to photographs of a car. this is known as "fair use" and is explained on the US copyright web site.

logos **CANNOT** be copyrighted. logos are trademarks and protect sources. no logo can ever ever be copyrighted or copy protected. this has been upheld in court (Daniel Moore vs U of Alabama) where teh court determined that the photographer can take photos of logos (of the university football team) and sell them as he wishes.

The US government has stated that logos cannot be copyrighted. a simple search on google will affirm that logos **CANNOT** be copyrighted.

you can only infringe on the rights of a logo if you claim to be that company (put their logo on your own products and sell those products). selling paintings of logos, taking photos of logos, and filming logos is perfectly legal and you are free to profit from doing so.

you can legally take photos of any logo and sell them (upheld by Daniel Moore vs University of Alabama).

Andy Warhol famously painted pictures of famous logos without lawsuit, because it is legal.