pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: "Trademark" rejection reason  (Read 4551 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 24, 2013, 06:54 »
0
I recently put forward my application to become a contributor for Shutterstock- i got 6/10 accepted ( :-[)

Anyway, one of the submitted photos (http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-map-tokyo-japan-image25564636), was rejected for "Trademark--Contains potential trademark or copyright infringement".

I can't see a reason for this from looking at the photo again, as there are no distinguishing features of this that relate it to a certain map/atlas organisation.

I have quite a large set of map photos like this and if each will be rejected for this reason that would be bloody annoying. Can anyone see any potential trademark breach that i am missing?

I also didnt realise that you needed credentials for editorial photos (one of a rally and the other of a ferrari flag- http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-ferrari-f1-flag-image15126821). Would i really need to upload proof to show that i had "permission" to take a photo of a ferrari flag? Surely, MS is getting a little too picky now...

Thanks for your thoughts


 


cuppacoffee

« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2013, 07:17 »
0
Maps are a sticky category when it comes to copyright. Simply put, maps are copyrighted unless they are old, have been created from scratch or are in the public domain. Some agencies accept them and some do not. You will find accepted ones on several sites that were uploaded before they began to crack down on copyrights and trademarks. Lately on DT they are not usually accepted unless they look like you created them yourself or you put a note in the comment to the reviewer/editor field that you got them from the public domain with a link to the source and how you changed or modified them (you cannot simply take a common domain map and reproduce it).

« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2013, 07:23 »
0
Thanks. I've seen that some maps have been accepted on Shutterstock as editorial now. Way Forward?

« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2013, 07:25 »
0
And in response to the point about DT cracking down on map uploads, i had a few more accepted last week.

cuppacoffee

« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2013, 08:57 »
0
Yeah, luck of the draw. Reviewers vary. But, we all know that. I've submitted some images to DT (I know that you are asking about SS) that were rejected for editorial then resubmitted as editorial and was told they didn't need to be editorial. Usually if you keep track of the rejection reasons and send a message to an admin they will take a look and reply with a better answer. I was told that all DT reviewers spoke english, but not how well.


suwanneeredhead

  • O.I.D. Sufferer (Obsessive Illustration Disorder)
« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2013, 13:22 »
0
Thanks. I've seen that some maps have been accepted on Shutterstock as editorial now. Way Forward?

If you're speaking of illustrations, that cannot be true as Shutterstock does not accept any drawings/illustrations marked as "editorial." No exceptions.  If you've seen maps marked "editorial," then they are photographs of printed maps.

I have maps in my port, they required me to cite a public domain source of the maps (federal highway maps) and leave off any key or legend as elements of those are often copyrighted separately.

So, if you want them approved, cite your public domain source, and don't mark them Editorial.

« Reply #7 on: August 25, 2013, 15:26 »
0
They're just photos of cities marked from an Atlas...

From what you are saying can i upload these as RF as long as i state the atlas name/edition etc? If so, where would i put this0 in the description?

Ron

« Reply #8 on: August 25, 2013, 15:31 »
0
In a note to the reviewer

« Reply #9 on: August 25, 2013, 17:12 »
0
SS will reject anything that has the remotest chance of being copyright protected - for your first 10 play safe.

« Reply #10 on: August 25, 2013, 17:49 »
0
Shutterstock doesn't take public domain scans anymore, anyway. Got to create your own material instead of scanning someone else's.

« Reply #11 on: August 25, 2013, 18:11 »
0
;
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:04 by Audi 5000 »

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #12 on: August 25, 2013, 18:34 »
0
Shutterstock doesn't take public domain scans anymore, anyway. Got to create your own material instead of scanning someone else's.

it seems to me that if they are really in the public domain then it should be fine, it provides a service.  How easy is it to find high resolution images of some of that old artwork?  I think shutterstock messed up by being too lax on what they let in.  They let people submit things from well into the 1900s (even 1920s if I'm not mistaken) whereas istock only lets things in from pre 1890s.  Shuuterstock probably got in trouble for some of that material.

I am surprised how many maps get onto the sites though, most are not public domain or old.  I guess that will be stopped at some point in the future.
Here is a quote that is from Scott that is in a thread on this site already somewhere.

In case anyone missed it.

Quote
Hello All,

Sorry for the delay.

Regarding questions that came up about our policy with respect to public domain images:

Public domain images are typically those images for which the copyright has expired. Generally, it is safe to say that any image (published or unpublished) created before 1892 or by a U.S. artist who died prior to 1942 is in the public domain in the United States. It is not however easy to determine if an image fits those criteria and is in fact in the public domain. As copyright laws vary from country to country, determining the copyright status of images created outside of the United States is more complex.

Unfortunately, researching and verifying the copyright status of public domain images is not practical as part of the review process. On occasion, our policies have attempted to be more forgiving, but we can no longer accept public domain images. For the foreseeable future we will be adhering to our existing guidelines, which prominently state "submissions must be wholly owned by the submitter. Found or public domain images or footage cannot be submitted under any circumstances."

http://submit.shutterstock.com/guidelines.mhtml

Thanks for your understanding and we sincerely apologize for any confusion.

There are no plans to remove public domain images that are currently in the collection, but we reserve the right to do so as we perform routine reviews and quality assurance.

In addition, thank you for the feedback regarding our other review policies and communications. As always, our goal is to have and maintain the best submission experience and your feedback is helpful.

Best Regards,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

« Reply #13 on: August 25, 2013, 18:41 »
-1
;
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:03 by Audi 5000 »

Ron

« Reply #14 on: August 26, 2013, 02:19 »
0
Nasa elemenets is still fine, they have never been difficult about that. I recently submitted an image of the moon altered with a US flag and they took it, and many other's new images with nasa elements.

« Reply #15 on: August 26, 2013, 07:49 »
0
So they stopped taking stamps, maps, and images with elements from nasa?  Wouldn't that blanket statement rule out flags like the union jack and the stars and stripes?  And looking even further back, what about 10000 year old cave art.  There must be some exceptions to the wholly owned rule.

I don't know about stamps and maps. It's not something  I do. I would say old map scans, no. Stamps maybe as editorial. Flags would be fine as long as you create the image of the flag. I don't know about the union jack, but the U.S. flag certainly isn't trademarked and neither are any state flags or historical flags associated with the United States. Cave art would be fine, I suppose, unless someone has managed to trademark the site somehow.

Ron

« Reply #16 on: August 26, 2013, 07:53 »
0
I asked the Canadian government about the use of the Canadian flag, their unofficial answer was, I could use the flag in my images but they couldnt officially say yes, as that would mean they would officially approve my creation for official uses.


« Reply #17 on: August 26, 2013, 08:19 »
0
;
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:02 by Audi 5000 »

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #18 on: August 26, 2013, 08:33 »
0
They accept NASA.

Quote
NASA (including Visible Earth)

    An online catalog of NASA images and animations.
    Submitted content that incorporates NASA elements/imagery must contain the following text in the title:  Elements of this image furnished by NASA


Quote
Postal Stamps

    Unacceptable for commercial use.
    Acceptable for editorial use only where the postal stamp is a genuine postal stamp accompanied by a proper editorial caption.


Quote
Globes and Maps

    Globes and Maps may be subject to copyright.
    Images of globes and maps for commercial use will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
    General restrictions for Globes and Maps submitted for commercial use include: flat scans of maps, recognizable symbols or components which are particular to the cartographer, and a key or legend in focus


Quote
Passport Stamps

    Submissions will be evaluated on a case by case basis.
    Unacceptable for commercial use where identifying elements are visible in the stamp(s).


Quote
United Nations Flag and Emblem

    Unacceptable for commercial use.
    Editorial submissions will be considered with a proper caption.


Most everything can be found right here and the rest are in forum post's from moderators.

http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/legal/stock-photo-restrictions

Cave paintings could be copyrighted depending on the park they are in, there are cases where there are images rejected because of the park where they were taken that owns the copyrights to what is on the park property.

Quote
Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park (including Ayers Rock)

    Located in the Northern Territory of Australia.
    Unacceptable for commercial/editorial use.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #19 on: August 26, 2013, 20:28 »
+1
While the cave paintings aren't protected by copyright, the right to use or display them are held hostage. NT and Heritage in Great Britain are grabbing more and more properties and rights. Inside some sites = No photography allowed. Bottom line comes down to, not the original copyright but somehow someone claiming to own image rights, because they own the object or place or rights.

Once a copyright expires, it cannot be renewed or restored.

Simple example. Mona Lisa is public domain, owned by France, in the Louvre. Since I'm not the owner, I can't take a photo, and besides I'd need permission from the Louvre. That makes the new restriction clause from SS easier to understand. If it's not my possession, and I don't own it, it can't be used. Even if it is public domain.

USA Postage stamps are PD, owend by the people, up until 1972, USPS is not a business, everything after that is protected. Doesn't matter too much. SS says, NO!

The National Park is leased by the government and they control the rights on that property.


Quote
Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park (including Ayers Rock)

    Located in the Northern Territory of Australia.
    Unacceptable for commercial/editorial use.

Ah Ha, proof that Nietzsche was wrong, God isn't dead, because someone is claiming copyright for a mountain!  ;D Ayers Rock

Ron

« Reply #20 on: August 27, 2013, 02:39 »
0
Well, interesting, I had an email conversation with Singapore government reps, and I did not get permission to use their flag. So I deleted it from my site, SS and 123 rejected it already for the same reasons.

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;ident=280a9818-9661-4fed-b6cc-784463ace351;page=0;query=DocId%3A%223100849d-3555-4b06-ba59-bf4998ae34f2%22%20Status%3Ainforce%20Depth%3A0;rec=0#pr9-he-.

Paragraph 9 Use of flag.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #21 on: August 27, 2013, 22:10 »
0
Yes that is interesting. We don't just have to draw or take photos, we have to be International Copyright attorneys too!  ??? And my education from the 70s "Photography and The Law" was out of date, the laws have changed.

What about Kenya? My Step-Daughter went there and someone told her, it was illegal to photograph the flag or Government buildings?

Flag law a new area of interest? LOL


Well, interesting, I had an email conversation with Singapore government reps, and I did not get permission to use their flag. So I deleted it from my site, SS and 123 rejected it already for the same reasons.

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;ident=280a9818-9661-4fed-b6cc-784463ace351;page=0;query=DocId%3A%223100849d-3555-4b06-ba59-bf4998ae34f2%22%20Status%3Ainforce%20Depth%3A0;rec=0#pr9-he-.

Paragraph 9 Use of flag.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
4252 Views
Last post April 21, 2008, 08:01
by anonymous
19 Replies
9816 Views
Last post May 02, 2008, 07:24
by Dreamframer
9 Replies
5639 Views
Last post March 22, 2011, 13:12
by donding
6 Replies
2214 Views
Last post May 10, 2012, 08:22
by jm
2 Replies
2189 Views
Last post December 19, 2015, 07:47
by max headroom

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results