My first topic.

You see the ad here on top for iSyndica?
It is Swiss Knife.
It is allowed to use that picture for stock and ad? I thought Swiss Knife is like Eiffel Tower, etc. Very recognizable Intellectual Property. There is only one Swiss Knife.
Can someone correct me? Thank you.

almost 900 pictures on SS searching swiss knife!

Wow, now I am confused. They say you cannot use some products because they are unique and recognize, so they are Intellectual Property infringement. Like automobile luxury item because they make only that by the company.
I know there is no other product looking like Swiss Knife. So this is very confusing that they allow this and not the others. Same reason for computers and cell phone,etc. 
Really confusing now.

You see the ad here on top for iSyndica?

No. I use the Adblock Plus 1.2 addon in Firefox. I don't see any ads.

Well the Swiss Knife is a type of knife, similar to what the Swiss armed forces have. The term "Swiss Army Knife" is a trademark but, there are more manufacturers so the appearance of one probably isn't

I thought Swiss Knife is like Eiffel Tower, etc. Very recognizable Intellectual Property.

Just to get the facts straight: Eiffel tower is not copyrighted, the microstock sites are full of pictures of the Eiffel tower. (However the nighttime lights are copyrighted and an image of eiffel tower by night cannot be used commercially without permission)

But is not the purpose of Intellectual Propety because it is extremely recognizable?
Same like the problem with infringement of ad using Tom Waits copycat voice to be infringement?  Or a design that only is unique? like door of Ferrari, specific design of new computer Apple, ipod,etc?

Maybe like Perry say the design is old 1897 so trademark is no more. But I thought you can renew trademark registration.  Excuse for ignorance. It is because some time I get photos rejected by Istock for possible trademark infringement, so it is better we reject this image for the protection for everybody,.something like that.

"One of the main functions of a trademark is to prevent consumer confusion."

What comes into play, imo, is that iSyndica is not selling pocketknives.  There is no attempt at confusing people to buy a knife from IS instead of Swiss Army.

Ha! good point. Thank you sjlocke.
So, if photo studio buy picture of man with camera or wedding shot from microstock or mid stock or any stock,
and use for photo ad it is misleading too?  Maybe some wedding photographers are using stock photos . But we have no control or no evidence of consumer confusion.
Other posible is interior decor from stock photo for ad,
or pretty girl for dating agency on internet. But I am sure it is being used for that already.

Quote from: lefty on June 09, 2010, 09:43

(clip) It is because some time I get photos rejected by Istock for possible trademark infringement, so it is better we reject this image for the protection for everybody,.something like that.

I have gotten trademark or copyright infringement rejects on IS before, and after doing a search for exactly the same thing, found many that had been accepted, both before and after mine. The rejects are not always consistent.

In IStock case, I think this is possible, cclapper. I read on site that IStock is in process of deleting many existing pictures due to trademark problem possibility. For this reason, I think many of these inconsistency will be removed.

(However the nighttime lights are copyrighted and an image of eiffel tower by night cannot be used commercially without permission)

It's only the nighttime light show that is not allowed.

"One of the main functions of a trademark is to prevent consumer confusion."

What comes into play, imo, is that iSyndica is not selling pocketknives.  There is no attempt at confusing people to buy a knife from IS instead of Swiss Army.

It might also be a question of whether a trademark is used to lend credibility to another brand's product/service. For example, if you used LEGO characters to demonstrate one person leaping off a bridge, another calling a suicide helpline and choosing not to as an advert for the helpline, I feel it would be unlikely that anyone might believe 'Don't Jump Line' would be selling LEGO, but they might well believe that LEGO endorses them, and also associate suicides with LEGO in a way the trademark owner might not wish for (since it's a child's toy).

It's more than simply suggesting that another company is selling the same product.

I haven't seen the ad, but if it doesn't show the trademarks (which could be the logo, the name, or even the shape/colour/function - depending on trademark application), then it's no problem.

It's also worth noting that some trademark owners are not as anal as others, and are quite happy for you to show their trademark so long as you do so in a way that does not denigrate their product. 

Incidentally, LEGO are well known for denying use of their products in advertising, so they make a good example here.  Legally, you MAY use photos of your LEGO products that you own (but not the packaging which includes their copyrighted designs, artwork and photos) to advertise anything you darn well pleasey,  so long as the photo is not taken in such a way as to overly emphasize the LEGO trademarks or draw specific attention to them in such a way as to encourage the idea that LEGO is in any way associated with your marketing/product/service.  It remains a tricky area, and is best avoided, IMHO.

With regard to Victorinox/Wenger - who knows when they might choose to be more aggressive in defence of their trademark?  Surely it's easier to avoid the situation.