MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: arapix on June 28, 2018, 09:09
-
Hello,
I have submitted an Editorial Vector that contains some social logos (facebook , twitter , etc. )
Last year I have submitted very close vector and it is accepted as : Editorial , and it's Popular now !
Now very close image with the same content is rejected !
Rejection reasons (2)
Non-Licensable Content: Due to legal compliance restrictions, we cannot license this content in our collection.
Title / Keyword Trademark: Title and/or keywords contain trademark issues (e.g., brand name, company name, etc).
Why is that however I submitted it as Editorial ?????
Please advise
-
well my understanding of this is that editorial is used to illustrate news, not as a way to bypass copyright laws. I would also have difficult times trying to understand why the facebook logo is editorial. The fact that something similar worked before seems like a mistake on their part, which does not remove liability. I would remove it before there is trouble.
-
Thanks niktol for your reply
well my understanding of this is that editorial is used to illustrate news, not as a way to bypass copyright laws.
As I know Editorial Use is a limit for the buyer usage , if the buyer used the image correctly there were be no problem , but how to define if this image can be used in news or not !
-
Hello,
I have submitted an Editorial Vector that contains some social logos (facebook , twitter , etc. )
Last year I have submitted very close vector and it is accepted as : Editorial , and it's Popular now !
Now very close image with the same content is rejected !
Rejection reasons (2)
Non-Licensable Content: Due to legal compliance restrictions, we cannot license this content in our collection.
Title / Keyword Trademark: Title and/or keywords contain trademark issues (e.g., brand name, company name, etc).
Why is that however I submitted it as Editorial ??? ??
Please advise
I am wondering why you would submit a second vector that is “very close” to the first. You have one popular one, maybe you think you can multiply your earnings by sending in near duplicates?
-
well my understanding of this is that editorial is used to illustrate news, not as a way to bypass copyright laws. I would also have difficult times trying to understand why the facebook logo is editorial. The fact that something similar worked before seems like a mistake on their part, which does not remove liability. I would remove it before there is trouble.
Your understanding is wrong. Have you never heard of Secondary Editorial?
SS also disagrees with your understanding:
https://www.shutterstock.com/search?search_source=base_search_form&language=en&image_type=all&searchterm=Facebook+Twitter (https://www.shutterstock.com/search?search_source=base_search_form&language=en&image_type=all&searchterm=Facebook+Twitter)
"4,491 Facebook Twitter stock photos, vectors, and illustrations are available royalty-free. "
-
Read their blog post:
https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/now-accepting-editorial-illustrations-and-vectors (https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/now-accepting-editorial-illustrations-and-vectors)
-
well my understanding of this is that editorial is used to illustrate news, not as a way to bypass copyright laws. I would also have difficult times trying to understand why the facebook logo is editorial. The fact that something similar worked before seems like a mistake on their part, which does not remove liability. I would remove it before there is trouble.
Your understanding is wrong. Have you never heard of Secondary Editorial?
SS also disagrees with your understanding:
https://www.shutterstock.com/search?search_source=base_search_form&language=en&image_type=all&searchterm=Facebook+Twitter (https://www.shutterstock.com/search?search_source=base_search_form&language=en&image_type=all&searchterm=Facebook+Twitter)
"4,491 Facebook Twitter stock photos, vectors, and illustrations are available royalty-free. "
No, I have not heard of Secondary Editorial. The blog posted above says
"We will not accept vectors with any logos/trademarks", which is my experience with no exceptions. Ignoring experience would contradict common sense.
-
Read their blog post:
https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/now-accepting-editorial-illustrations-and-vectors (https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/now-accepting-editorial-illustrations-and-vectors)
Sorry, I wasn’t clear - this is directed at the OP as an explanation as to why the logos were rejected. I would assume that any previously accepted were approved in error.
-
Editorial in that aspect could mean using the f logo as an icon depicting f or directing a user to f. Which I'm not sure why anyone pays for ... because they're free (fontawesome makes them embeddable into your html). Most companies offer their branding materials to help spread brand awareness and recognition. One of the better ones about it is probably twitter:
https://about.twitter.com/en_us/company/brand-resources.html
But, others ... smaller companies will usually have a .pdf usage guide or something and a downloadable .zip file containing all of the needed elements. I'm not sure why you'd sell and profit from other companies and designers but, since it's working ... good job I guess.
-
Thanks All for your useful replies.
I am wondering why you would submit a second vector that is “very close” to the first. You have one popular one, maybe you think you can multiply your earnings by sending in near duplicates?
It's very close yes , but sure it's different image but using the same social icons , this is what I meant !
-
Which I'm not sure why anyone pays for ... because they're free (fontawesome makes them embeddable into your html). Most companies offer their branding materials to help spread brand awareness and recognition. One of the better ones about it is probably twitter:
https://about.twitter.com/en_us/company/brand-resources.html
I am using mix of social logos to represent a new shape . So it's not just simple logo.
I have made logos collection to be an artistic work.