Author Topic: image rejected based on IP infriingement (Read 6326 times)

Alfa156Melb · « **on:** August 17, 2015, 06:07 »

Hi All!

I've recently been accepted into Shutterstock which I'm really happy about.

However i have a couple of images of a vintage camera that keeps getting rejected based on intellectual property rights.

I don't understand it, it's a 1950's camera and I've removed any identifying features such as numbers and brand name. yet when I search for camera's in Shutterstock there are hundreds of images of cameras, some similar to mine.

Here's one of the pics:

I'd love to have some insight as to why so many other similar images are allowed, but this one isn't?

Maximilian · « **Reply #1 on:** August 17, 2015, 07:09 »

From a business perspective that's logical?
How many images of old cameras are still needed?
Modern and contemporary motifs are much more in demand.
And this image is cut at bottom.

lionheart · « **Reply #2 on:** August 17, 2015, 07:49 »

There is a golden sticker to the right of the camera's body ... maybe ...

cathyslife · « **Reply #3 on:** August 17, 2015, 07:56 »

The hundreds that are already there may have been submitted before they cracked down on some of those types of products (easily recognizable brand?). Or your images conflict with an inspector's who has the same type of image.

Alfa156Melb · « **Reply #4 on:** August 17, 2015, 08:49 »

Yes I know its cut at the bottom, it may not be a good image but that wasn't the point. It was IP..

All of you make good points.. maybe they have cracked down?

The gold sticker is a QC mark it says 'passed' on it.

Oh well, I'll steer clear of camera's in the future!

SandBoxStudio · « **Reply #5 on:** August 17, 2015, 12:57 »

Hello Alfa156.

Even if removing yellow sticker on the right wont do it.

Cameras
-Isolated images of cameras or camera equipment (anything which could be seen as a “product shot”) are copyrighted.
-Unacceptable for commercial use.

That mean you could submit it as editorial. Or change the way camera looks like.

Always try to remove everything what looks like font-logo-sticker-text-label-warning message etc

Hope this help !

jefftakespics2 · « **Reply #6 on:** August 17, 2015, 12:57 »

I believe the current rule is that they will not take an image of a camera if it is the main element of a photo. Someone walking with a camera around their neck is fine, or taking a photo, but straight product shot images of cameras are not being accepted.

Alfa156Melb · « **Reply #7 on:** August 17, 2015, 18:23 »

Thanks for your feedback everyone

Seems you're right, they don't do camera's anymore.

I'll resubmit as editorial...

cuppacoffee · « **Reply #8 on:** August 17, 2015, 19:01 »

If you are going to submit it as editorial go back to the version with the logos on it as there would be more use for a camera image with the exact markings on it. A generic camera with no markings is not much good when illustrating an article about a specific camera and that is the only reason it would sell in the editorial market.

Alfa156Melb · « **Reply #9 on:** August 17, 2015, 19:04 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on August 17, 2015, 19:01

If you are going to submit it as editorial go back to the version with the logos on it as there would be more use for a camera image with the exact markings on it. A generic camera with no markings is not much good when illustrating an article about a specific camera and that is the only reason it would sell in the editorial market.

OK will do, thanks for the heads up...

Rinderart · « **Reply #10 on:** August 17, 2015, 19:53 »

Quote from: Alfa156Melb on August 17, 2015, 19:04

Quote from: cuppacoffee on August 17, 2015, 19:01
If you are going to submit it as editorial go back to the version with the logos on it as there would be more use for a camera image with the exact markings on it. A generic camera with no markings is not much good when illustrating an article about a specific camera and that is the only reason it would sell in the editorial market.

OK will do, thanks for the heads up...

Good call.

Alfa156Melb · « **Reply #11 on:** August 17, 2015, 23:52 »

Well, I've resubmitted.. Hope it works this time.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #12 on:** August 18, 2015, 06:56 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on August 17, 2015, 19:01

If you are going to submit it as editorial go back to the version with the logos on it as there would be more use for a camera image with the exact markings on it. A generic camera with no markings is not much good when illustrating an article about a specific camera and that is the only reason it would sell in the editorial market.

Your not supposed to alter an editorial image anyway

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #13 on:** August 19, 2015, 18:40 »

read this, I know it's IS but should be help for explaining http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/training-manuals/video/legal-requirements-copyright-trademark-and-trade-dress

Alfa156Melb · « **Reply #14 on:** August 19, 2015, 18:58 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on August 19, 2015, 18:40

read this, I know it's IS but should be help for explaining http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/training-manuals/video/legal-requirements-copyright-trademark-and-trade-dress

Very helpful, thanks.

Well i resubmitted as editorial and it got rejected again.... for poor lighting! Poo.

I thought the lighting was ok?

Live and learn

Pauws99 · « **Reply #15 on:** August 20, 2015, 01:33 »

These days i just swallow SS rejections and move on - otherwise I'd drive myself crazy.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: image rejected based on IP infriingement (Read 6326 times)

Alfa156Melb

Maximilian

lionheart

cathyslife

Alfa156Melb

SandBoxStudio

jefftakespics2

Alfa156Melb

cuppacoffee

Alfa156Melb

Rinderart

Alfa156Melb

Microstockphoto

YadaYadaYada

Alfa156Melb

Pauws99

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors