The ultimate situation is they closed my account because they wanted me to write "long titles" and I don't have the time to rewrite titles for my 20,000 clips. in fact, they have other sellers on their site with "short titles" similar to mine. to them, a short tile is 8 to 10 words. they want narrative titles with 25 to 30 words.

I contacted about 7 people at their company, their founder and president, and their investors, and they don't care, and the majority did not respond, including the founder and president.

Then they claim I released confidential information about there company which is nonsense, I have no confidential information about their company.

and I should point out that I did not violate their contract as they claim. I don't have any confidential information about dissolve, and therefor it is impossible to disclose anything. so they will terminate contributors without just cause.

I have been working with large numbers of companies for many years, built my first web page in 1994. I used to have 150 employees. I can say beyond any doubt that when a company has a certain way of behaving, or a certain attitude amongst its employees they never change. I have gone years with the same subpar treatment from many companies and they do it to everyone and hide it. sometimes it is the lower level employees, and sometimes it is from the top.

the sad part is that so many companies are afraid of their clients that they make stupid decisions thinking they are preserving their company and they in fact do the opposite.

glad I moved out of the US, in the part of the world I live in, you can go in and talk to the owner of the biggest companies, 1000x larger than dissolve, and they are more than happy to talk to people and fix problems.

the funny part is I pride myself at how much effort and time I put into making short titles which perfectly describe my content, and they want me to do the exact opposite and put in excessive wordy nonsense which doesn't accurately describe the main theme of the clip.

I think it is just a novice mistake that the company made because they don't fully understand SEO or search engines. but the retaliation and punishment is out of line, and unfortunately is typical of a lot of inexperienced managers who don't understand how to work with people, or because they have a negative attitude towards others.

I do love videoblocks, I am amazed at how well things are working out for me, but I want dissolve to succeed also regardless of how a few bad employees behave. I would be so happy if they would just fix everything and give me a real fair shot and restructure their staff with people that genuinely care about contributors.

First of all, I have 20,000 clips, but they do not have my 20,000 clips.

Second, the problem started when I had only a few hundred videos uploaded.

third, my videos sell very well on other web sites with the same metadata. They presented no evidence that my metadata or titles were causing my videos to not sell. In fact, my dissolve sales were very strong at the beginning until they penalized my rankings.

Fourth, the title policy they had is absolutely stupid. no one says "I need a video of a man talking on a cell phone with a tree and a dog in the background". but dissolve requires stupid titles like that. the titles are not even shown on dissolve's site unless you select a  video or hover over it, which proves it is the thumbnail which sells the video, and not the title.

I checked a recent sale I had with dissolve, and it was at the end of search results along with my videos that have never sold.

Last hosting is very cheap. I did a study and calculated on one site that it takes 3 days for me to earn enough money for the site to pay the hosting costs, and that was when I was making far less money.

The problem is like I said, they want their contributors to do their SEO because they think it will increase their organic search results on web sites like google, and they are completely wrong and will fail at earning money that way.

Dissolve has some bad employees (AB and CL) and they should be fired.

Dissolve knows who I am.

Most of my content has been live on Dissolve for 2 months.

I then received a message from CL stating that my account is underperforming, and that I am being banned from uploading, and that Dissolve is banning people form uploading because of low sales. I pointed out that my videos have been online for only 2 months and they refuse to respond to me.

In addition, they told me they are not going to review any of my existing uploads until 2017, and only if I have high volume of sales.

How can they expect my videos to sell well in the first 2 months they are online?

It makes no sense.

I have written numerous emails to AB and CL and they just ignore me.

in the United States of America, there is no law that requires a release form for copyright use or trademark use, including in regards to stock footage.

I don't remember the exact law, but I think the federal law is that any company that pays an individual (who is not an employee) more than $100 in the tax year must send out the 1099 before January 31st after the tax year ends.

in almost all cases, stock photos and footage will never infringe anyone's trademark. I cannot think of 1 single case where a stock photo or stock video will infringe a trademark.

why?

trademarks are *NOT* granted copyright protection in the US. stock photos and footage are artistic works. trademarks are not artistic works, they are identifiers of source.

if you try to register a trademark with the copyright office, it will be rejected.

trademarks identify the source of the good or service. they can only be infringing if they are used in advertising, to promote products or services to the general public via mass media. stock footage and stock photography is not 'advertising' because the footage does not promote specific products or services for a specific manufacturer or service provider.


have there been court cases proving that third party trademarks can be sold by photographers for profit?

US 11th Circuit THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA BOARD OF TRUSTEES v. NEW LIFE ART INC DANIEL MOORE

IV. CONCLUSION

"Moore's depiction of the University's uniforms in his unlicensed paintings, prints, and calendars is not prohibited by the prior licensing agreements.   Additionally, the paintings, prints, and calendars do not violate the Lanham Act because these artistically expressive objects are protected by the First Amendment, by virtue of our application of the Rogers balancing test.   The uniforms in these works of art are artistically relevant to the underlying works, Moore never explicitly misled consumers as to the source of the items, and the interests in artistic expression outweigh the risk of confusion as to endorsement."
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1603066.html#sthash.5uxkyXUP.dpuf

the Lanham Act is the law that regulates trademarks. if he infringed on the university's trademarks, the judge would have said that the Lanham Act was violated, which in this case it was not.

note that it says he never misled consumers as to the source of the items. that means that if Moore was claiming to be the University of Alabama, he would have infringed their trademark, because trademarks protect the source, not the product itself.


what is trademark protection?

trademark protection means that no other business can use your logo or name in the same class of business to identify the source of the goods or services (manufacturer). when you apply for a trademark, you have to list 1 or 2 classes of business (such as Internet Search Engines or Automobile Manufacturing) so you can have Apple Computer and Apple Records and they can both use the name Apple without infringing on each other's rights, as long as they sell separate goods or services. you can have IBM for computers and IBM for laundry services and IBM for a grocery store and they do not infringe with each other.


if I take a photo of a trademark, such as the Ford logo, does it infringe the Ford trademark?

*NO*. a photo is an artistic work. a trademark is not. the logo cannot be offered copyright protection, even if it is a design. Artist Andy Warhol painted Coca Cola logos, campbells soup logos, and other popular logos and did so legally.

what does infringe a trademark?

you infringe a trademark when you claim to be the business named in the trademark. for example, if you started your own IBM computer company, customers might be confused and think you are the famous IBM, and buy your services, and that would infringe the IBM trademark. trademarks protect the *SOURCE* of goods, meaning the manufacturer or service provider.

why doesn't a stock photo infringe on a trademark?

stock footage does not infringe on trademarks because when you take the photo, and sell it, you are not claiming to be the business identified by the trademark. for example, if I take a photo of a Ford logo, and sell that photo, I am not claiming to be the Ford Motor Company. I identify myself as a photographer. there is no trademark infringement.


how might a stock photo infringe on a trademark?

stock photos will never infringe trademarks as far as the photographer is concerned, or as far as any stock footage marketplace is concerned. the media can only be infringing if the buyer uses it to compete against the trademark owner, by luring away customers to a similar product that is produced by another manufacturer.

so if you have a photo of a computer on a table for your law form, and the computer has the Dell logo, it is *NOT* trademark infringement. it would only be infringing if the person using the photo is in the computer business, sells desktops, claims to be Dell, but isn't. in all other cases it is not infringing, and in all cases the photographer has no liability.

US Supreme Court rulings have upheld that copyrighted works that have substantial legitimate uses can be sold legally (Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. ). So if you have a logo in your photo, and the photo can be used without competing against the owner of the logo, then it is a legal use as defined by the US Supreme Court. so a law office can have a logo of Dell Computer in its advertising without infringing on intellectual property rights owned by Dell Computer.


trademarks need to be used  in commerce in order to receive protection. that means that a business must use the trademark in advertising in order to be registered (or it must file an intent to use the trademark in advertising). selling stock footage is not 'use in advertising' any more than selling any other product because the footage itself does not advertise a specific product or service.

in order to be granted trademark registration, you have to submit multiple samples of use in advertising which includes the trademark. this means you have to show a page of a newspaper that has your ad in it along with the rest of the newspaper content, a flyer that you distribute which contains your services and the logo, a page from a magazine that has the logo, a print out of a web page that has the logo, or a photo of product packaging that has the trademark. if you cannot provide these samples of use in advertising, then the trademark registration will be denied. a stock photo is not proof of use in advertising, nor is a stock video, even if it contains a logo.


all liability of trademark infringement falls upon the buyer of the stock footage and how he uses the media in advertising. trademark infringement can only occur in advertising (being shown to the mass public for the purpose of promoting a product or service identified by the logo). selling stock footage to industry professionals is not infringing because stock photos are not advertisements.

In the case of University of Alabama vs Daniel Moore, the court ruled that the photographer Daniel Moore had the right to sell photos and prints of University of Alabama football games, including the logos and the likenesses of the players.

it is legal in the United States of America to sell stock photos and videos which contain the trademarks of other companies, according to US Copyright Law.

According to the US Copyright Office, all boats are not protected by copyright, and this includes Carnival Cruise Lines.

SHUTTERSTOCK SAYS:

http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/contributor-resources/legal/stock-photo-restrictions/

Carnival Cruise Line Ships
�The term �Carnival Cruise Line� and Carnival Cruise Line�s unique branching funnel design are protected under trademark.
�Unacceptable for commercial use.
�Images that contain Carnival Cruise Line�s unique branching funnel design are acceptable for editorial use with a proper caption.


US Copyright Office says:

http://copyright.gov/circs/circ41.pdf

section 102 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the United States Code), as amended on December 1, 1990

Ineligible Building Designs

Structures other than buildings, such as bridges, cloverleafs, dams, walkways,
tents, recreational vehicles, mobile homes, and boats

According to the United States Copyright Office, Carnival Cruise Ships (and other boats) are *NOT* protected by copyright under any circumstances, regardless of their "unique branching funnel design".


In addition, Shutterstock says:
"Carnival Cruise Line�s unique branching funnel design are protected under trademark"

trademarks cannot be copyright under any circumstances. if the design in question is the shape of the boat, it also cannot be trademarked.

I once saw footage that I bought, and used in my own tv commercial, in a tv commercial for another company.

From: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 15:28:19 -0500
Subject: RE: General copyright



17 USC 102(a) lists eight categories of �works of authorship� covered by the act. The list does not include athletic events, and, although the list is concededly non-exclusive, such events are neither similar nor analogous to any of the listed categories. NBA v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1997)



The court found that a sporting event was not a creative expression because they are not �authored.� In theory, sports have no underlying script. Further, the court elaborated that to allow copyright of a sports competition, then figure skaters, whose moves are orchestrated, could copyright their moves, such as the triple lutz, and prevent their competitors from using the same move and that would destroy competition in sports. Similarly, the Copyright Office will not register work out/exercise routines. 805.5(B)(3) Compendium 3rd Edition.



H.R. No. 94-1476 at 52, reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5665. The House Report also makes clear that it is the broadcast, not the underlying game, that is the subject of copyright protection. In explaining how game broadcasts meet the Act's requirement that the subject matter be an �original work[ ] of authorship,� 17 U.S.C. � 102(a), the House Report stated:

                When a football game is being covered by four television cameras, with a director guiding the activities of the four cameramen and choosing which of their               electronic images are sent out to the public and in what order, there is little doubt that what the cameramen and the director are doing constitutes �authorship.�


 

JS

U.S. Copyright Office

101 Independence Avenue, S.E.

Washington, DC  20559-6000

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 877-476-0778 (toll free) or 202-707-5959         

Website:  www.copyright.gov

I am working with at least 10 agencies for video. This is a list of what I believe these agencies should do but they often don't.


- when media is disapproved, give us a chance to correct the problem (such as a missing model release) instead of demanding that we reupload everything. some of us have large profiles and I am so far behind that I never ever will reupload any content to fix a rejection

- accept every format and every codec. some companies accept almost everything I ever uploaded, which means I can send the original unmodified files that I recorded. other companies demand that conversions be made, which means they get my work last or never at all.

- don't ask us to select categories. make your category system keyword based, and make your site auto matically pick the right category. this allows us to submit faster.

- autofill as much info as possible when we fill out forms. very few companies do this

- all CSV uploads for metadata. a few companies do not. these are the ones where all of my videos are always pending for many weeks or months

- when we submit a bug report to your customer support, don't retaliate against us by refusing to approve our content. send the bug report to your developers so the problems can be fixed, which will reduce the number of times sellers contact customer support

- accept csv uploads from other sites. right now, I have to generate lots of csvs and it would be nice it I just had to make 1

- don't take metadata in XLS or other binary formats. use CSV plain text. it is easier to make CSV than XLS.

- use the maximum amount of space on the browser for the user interface. some sites I can only view 1 media clip at a time (fotolia) because the interface is horrible

- don't make the check boxes and other links on your seller page so close to white in color that I can't find them. (fotolia)

- put the important things, like check boxes to select a clip, at the top of the form, not in the middle. at the top, it is easy to find and always in the same place. in the middle, I have to hunt for it, and scroll the form off the page

- don't make the check boxes on forms so small that they are difficult to click (fotolia, videoblocks)

- always put the original file name with the video form so we can find it in our spreadsheet

- if you are going to remove keywords because they are plural for example, don't make us submit the clip a second time. just remove the keywords and submit it (shutterstock)

- allows us to download a spreadsheet or a nicely laid out plain text page with all content that has been rejected so we can easily fix the problem, instead of making us click on hundreds of pages to find all the rejected items (shutterstock).

always put a large thumbnail that either displays the video when the mouse hovers, or displays a full size thumbnail. many forms I can't fill out because I can't see the thumbnail, or can't recognize the person in the tiny thumbnail

- lay out the page so we can see the maximum number of forms onscreen at the same time. if there is a lot of 'whitespace', you are making it difficult for us to work (videoblocks)

- don't wait until we have 1,000 videos pending before you process them. they all get thrown onto your site perhaps once per month, and we get awful exposure for 'new uploads' because all our content pushes off the rest of our content.

- let us search out submissions by filename so we can find our files

- let us see all the files associated with a model, plus a total count, so we can know if all the files were uploaded and processed correctly.

- let us sort our submissions by every imaginable way. date uploaded, date approved, file size, filename, title, number of keywords, number of sales, etc. it helps us find what we need easier.

- sort all your drop down menus. put the most recent or most popular in the first few positions, but please alphabetize everything else, or let us choose.

- make sure our model release forms have a name associated with them and not just a filename (istock).

- support FTP (istock). everyone uses ftp. ftp is widely support. dropbox has many problems with it.

- allow us to have an employee log in to do metadata for our accounts

- allow us to group our content by batches. makes it a lot less clutter. dissolve and istock do a good job with this.

- come up with better exclusivity programs. I would not use any of these programs because I can make the same amount of money or far more simply by submitting my content to lots of different sites. in my opinion, the higher % of exclusivity is not worth it. we need better placement, or top placement for a week, faster approval, etc.

- automatically detect and remove duplicate uploads. it is not hard to do. you just get the SHA1 or MD5 checksum for the files. if there is a duplicate, and the file size is the same, it is probably a duplicate upload. you don't even need to check the whole file. you can check the first 1% or a video and you will probably get unique checksums. then flag or remove any duplicate uploads. only 1 site I know of does it right now.