it is easy to fix these type of problems. use a command in the http server config to deny any access from the given URL. might be more difficult to do with a CDN from a third party because they won't offer it as a feature, but easy to do in house.

use sendthisfile.com

in the US it would probably fall under fair use because it is a new creative work that is derived from an existing work.

"Fair use is a doctrine originating in the law of the United States that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder"

Only a court of law can determine if a work falls under Fair Use.

However, Royalty Free licenses on most stock sites usually do not permit you to modify someone else's work and resell it.

It will not be copyright infringement, but it will be an infringement of the Royalty Free license they probably purchased it under.

IP protection for cars fall under patent law.

scultptures are copyrightable because they are not produced for utilitarian reasons, people just look at sculptures.

guitars are produced for a utilitarian reason, to play music. the design can be patented but not copyrighted.

you said: " Who wants to waste time and energy on a potential court case, even if you might win?"

you are completely wrong, and this is a nonsense argument.

any manufactured product in the world, by the definition of the ignorant, is 'copyrighted and trademarked', and therefor it would be illegal to sell any photo with any manufactured product. which means all legal photos would have to be naked people and nature.

the original poster was within his legal rights and an educated stock agency is better than an ignorant stock agency.

copyrights protect artistic works (drawings, paintings, literature, photos, movies, etc). they do not protect anything that has utility (the shape of a guitar). guitars are not creative works. guitar shapes are NOT protected by copyright.

trademarks protect brand names and sources of manufacture or services. they do NOT protect guitar shapes.

the image should not have been rejected.

I have been doing testing and have determined that they are rejecting photos using overly-simplistic software algorithms.

All of my titles, keywords, EXIF, IPTC and csv files are computer generated with custom software that I wrote.

DP approves most of my video. for photos, I have some success but otherwise they do mass rejections, like 90% or more of my work. their reasons often don't make sense.
 
I started out good but the last week or so I have been getting these mass rejections. for example, they will say an image is too similar to another but it will be a unique image.
 
sometimes they approve my older work that is not good, and reject my better work

I use the folders.
 
it helps me keep track of my work, you can check some stats per folder, and you can be more strategic with submissions. I also use it to count how many images are in each folder vs how many I uploaded. I was able to determine that there is a bug with video uploads in regards to the file start time.

this is a good start:
http://communications-media.lawyers.com/privacy-law/child-photography-or-videotaping-consent-laws-are-changing.html
 
my advice, if you intend to film something and you are not sure about laws, call the police station in that area and tell them you are a photographer and what you plan on doing and whether you need any permits or if there are any laws or ordinances you need to worry about

my all time total for video is over $650, for about 2 years

Many of the stock agencies, including istock, alamy, and shutterstock, are completely wrong about what it means to be 'editorial'.

Copyright law (in the US) has something called "Fair Use". it is in the actual copyright code. there are 4 types of fair use, one of which is "commentary".

What stock agencies call 'editorial' according to copyright law is actually 'commentary'.

Examples of 'commentary' are news outlets, blogs, etc. Non-advertising. Using images and talking about what is in the image, or using the image to support a news story or other commentary. They are not advertising products or services, they are discussing something.

Fair Use / Commentary / Editorial is based on usage, not on sales. That means whether something is Fair Use or editorial is 100% dependent on the person using it in presentation to the general public (such as in advertising or in a news story or blog post). Selling on a stock agency web site is not 'use' of the image to the general public.

Stock agencies cannot legally make a determination if something is "Fair Use" (editorial) or not. Only a court of law, such as the US Supreme Court, can make that determination.

News media outlets always do commentary or editorial (with exception of their advertising, which is separate). any use by news media outlets is Fair Use / editorial. to a news media outlet, or a blog poster, or a documentary, all stock images and videos are 'editorial'. they don't need release forms according to US copyright law, although they often ask for them when they can. but they don't need to.

Advertisers don't always need release forms. they can blur content that they do not have release forms for, for example, and legally use any image in advertising. they can use content with logos as long as they are not claiming to be the company with the logo. remember the pepsi / coke commercials where they show a coke machine next to a pepsi machine, do you think they gave each other permission to use their logos in a competitors ads? they didn't because it is not necessary to have permission to use someone else's logo unless you claim to be that company. upheld by Daniel Moore vs U of Alabama.

Stock agencies should have done the following:
- put all images online without categorizing them as 'editorial' or 'non editorial'
- with each image, list whether or not release forms are provided for models, property, etc
- allow the buyer / user to decide if he needs the release forms

again, copyrights can only be infringed by usage (presenting to the general public). selling on stock agency sites is not usage to the general public (even if the general public can see it).

stock agencies are 100% wrong when they claim that an image is to be for editorial use only or otherwise. they are not legally permitted to make that determination because they have no idea how the content is going to be used by the buyer. that is why each company has different policies, because they are wrong, and they copy from each other and perpetuate incorrect beliefs.