MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: REJECTED, Cause- Contains potential trademark or copyright infringement WHERE?  (Read 9375 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 29, 2011, 22:01 »
0
Ok I posted my 10 images for 1st time for approval in SS... 4 were rejected with comments and rest without any comments.
but these 2 photos got strange reason for rejection--
 "Trademark--Contains potential trademark or copyright infringement" (for both these photos)

But i did not find any logo or something anywhere in my whole photo, do you ?
More over these 2 are already in my DT gallery so why did they not find any Trademark potential ?
please help me. Its so frustrating. Can I reclaim for these 2 photos in SS ?







« Reply #1 on: November 29, 2011, 22:05 »
0
I think they simply assume that anything 'iconic' -like a yellow smiley - has to be copyrighted by someone, somewhere.

« Reply #2 on: November 29, 2011, 22:10 »
0
But then they can assume anything for any submission man... anyways what about this doll ? If they had considered any 1 of these then i could have scored 7/10... ???

« Reply #3 on: November 29, 2011, 22:15 »
+2
the smiley is a trademark somewhere and a doll might also be. It is very difficult to upload toys of any kind especially if they are the main focus of the image.

If a child was holding the doll and the doll was just a minor part of the image it might be a different decision.

the agencies apparently all have different legal opinions, but in the end - how is the inspector going to know if this doll is not some super extra new hyper doll trademarked in some parts of the world?

« Reply #4 on: November 29, 2011, 22:23 »
+1
This is strange man... then why don't they consider a tree, garden or a shape of pond,a crown or a patter/design as trademark of some restaurant,any school or any cloth company.. I seriously cant digest such reasons... everything has a chance of being a potential trademark somewhere in any corner of the world... or else they simply must not accept an individual doll or any object. In fact they should not keep a category named "Object or abstract" also. So funny.

« Reply #5 on: November 29, 2011, 22:35 »
+1
welcome to the world of stock ;)

you will also run into cases where files are accepted and then two years later deactivated. it all depends how much different companies enjoy suing each other.

on istock we had many car images deactivated, electric guitars etc...

and - it is always your duty as a photographer to find out if your image conflicts with any law. just because an agency accepts a file doesnt mean you are not liable or that it is legally ok.

if you really want to do stock, youll learn about thee things.

for instance you cant take pictures of the eiffel tower in paris at night - because the light show is trademarked. during the day - no problem. you cant take pictures of the sydney opera house, all kinds of gardens and buildings and castles.

all kinds of wallpaper prints are trademarked as well.

so it is not just objects.

RacePhoto

« Reply #6 on: November 29, 2011, 22:39 »
+1
But then they can assume anything for any submission man... anyways what about this doll ? If they had considered any 1 of these then i could have scored 7/10... ???

Yes they can do whatever they want, get ready for that. No use arguing, except in forum debates. The agenciys do whatever they want. I'm fine with that. They also change their mind or sometimes one reviewers opinion is different from the next one.

The problem with the doll is someone designed and manufactured it, it's protected for the eyes, nose, mouth, face, and probably the navel. Avoid these kind of subjects until you get accepted.

Ball never applied for a trademark or copyright of the smiley and earned just $45 for his work. State Mutual, similarly, did not make any money from the design. Ball's son, Charles Ball is reported to have said his father never regretted not registering the copyright. Telegram & Gazette reported Charles Ball as saying "he was not a money-driven guy, he used to say, 'Hey, I can only eat one steak at a time, drive one car at a time'".

Emphasis mine. Maybe they feel the yellow ball is distinctive enough that someone would claim their version is protected?

If you have four of seven rejected, that means they stopped looking, not that the other six were accepted. That's why people have oftne said, submit all new images. However if you know for certain that something was accepted, it should be reasonable to believe it will be accepted again.

« Reply #7 on: November 29, 2011, 22:44 »
-1
ok so simply SS does not accept any one in his 1st attempt lol

« Reply #8 on: November 29, 2011, 22:52 »
0
Wal Mart is trying to claim ownership of the smiley face - they haven't fully succeeded yet, but I doubt anyone wants to face their lawyers. (in France some other guy owns the rights to it).

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0508-04.htm

sc

« Reply #9 on: November 29, 2011, 22:54 »
0
http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/legal/stock-photo-restrictions

Quote:
"Smiley Face

Smiley has been a registered trademark in some countries since 1971.
Smiley face submissions will be evaluated on a case by case basis."

« Reply #10 on: November 29, 2011, 23:43 »
0

« Reply #11 on: November 29, 2011, 23:53 »
+1
just because older files were accepted doesn't mean they have to do it today. laws change, standards evolve.

some agencies will delete old files, some won't.

« Reply #12 on: November 30, 2011, 00:02 »
0
They must delete or they should put a note in the front page or atleast in shutterbuzz where they have mentioned that "smiley face is trademark from 1971" that they are not accepting such smiley from date-xyz. Photos of smileys submitted before that date are retained in SS. etc etc More over they dont mention the date uploaded any photo like IS..
Because many a new contributors like me 1st explore the site's gallery to know what kind of photos are being accepted before planning to submit their own photos
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 00:04 by dr_skn08 »

sc

« Reply #13 on: November 30, 2011, 00:07 »
0
But then they can assume anything for any submission man... anyways what about this doll ? If they had considered any 1 of these then i could have scored 7/10... ???

Yes they can do whatever they want, get ready for that. No use arguing, except in forum debates. The agenciys do whatever they want. I'm fine with that. They also change their mind or sometimes one reviewers opinion is different from the next one.

The problem with the doll is someone designed and manufactured it, it's protected for the eyes, nose, mouth, face, and probably the navel. Avoid these kind of subjects until you get accepted.

Ball never applied for a trademark or copyright of the smiley and earned just $45 for his work. State Mutual, similarly, did not make any money from the design. Ball's son, Charles Ball is reported to have said his father never regretted not registering the copyright. Telegram & Gazette reported Charles Ball as saying "he was not a money-driven guy, he used to say, 'Hey, I can only eat one steak at a time, drive one car at a time'".

Emphasis mine. Maybe they feel the yellow ball is distinctive enough that someone would claim their version is protected?

If you have four of seven rejected, that means they stopped looking, not that the other six were accepted. That's why people have oftne said, submit all new images. However if you know for certain that something was accepted, it should be reasonable to believe it will be accepted again.

That is incorrect. They review all the images if they don't have a reason they would have been accepted by that reviewer. But they will also tell you that you should submit 10 new images on your next attempt. There is no guarantee that the next reviewer will pass those images.

« Reply #14 on: November 30, 2011, 00:11 »
0
The doll is of course copyrighted since you didn't design/make it and it's the main focus of the image. No experienced stocker would dare to shoot/upload commercial objects unless editorially.
The smiley is an exact copy of the Yahoo smiley and available on many emoticon sites, even as vectors. You can't piggyback on their success unless it would be blurred somewhere in the background.
Just try to upload original work, like models with a proper release. If you upload other's people creative efforts you'll get a reputation as a bottom-feeder.

« Reply #15 on: November 30, 2011, 00:23 »
0
@attila.
You mean unless one object is not self made it can not be submitted as RF. So according to you all the smiley objects without people are either self made or are posted before yahoo came to exist that sometime before 2000 or 2001 ?
And how can one say that its not made in my own factory (as there is no visible logo on it) Lol this is IMHO really not a valid points.

« Reply #16 on: November 30, 2011, 00:37 »
0
You mean unless one object is not self made it can not be submitted as RF.
Not really, it should be a commercial object and it should be recognizable as unique work, like the doll. Plates, spoons, forks, gavels, most clothes are also made by others, but considered generic enough to pass. Cars and cruiseships on the other hand are not so generic unless you crop a detail out. It's a thin line but experience will tell.
So according to you all the smiley objects without people are either self made or are posted before yahoo came to exist that sometime before 2000 or 2001 ?
No idea but the smiley is very recognizable and used all over the web, also Yahoo. You can't pass it as original work anyways, not even if you change some small details. It doesn't matter since obviously it's a commercial object so see below.
And how can one say that its not made in my own factory (as there is no visible logo on it)
In that case you'll have to try to convince the reviewer that the doll is made indeed in your factory and upload a property release for it, stating that you as the owner of the company owns the design.
Imagine this : the doll is sold as commercial RF and used by a competitor of the actual doll designer/factory that made it. He could sue the agency's ass off. That's why agencies try to stay on the safe side.
Lol this is IMHO really not a valid points.
They are for the reviewer since your images were rejected.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 00:39 by AttilaTheNun »


« Reply #17 on: November 30, 2011, 00:54 »
0
lol. I am planning to submit all 10 editorial photos after 30 days so that there is no chance of such contradictory decisions lol

traveler1116

« Reply #18 on: November 30, 2011, 01:06 »
0
Harvey Ball World Smile Foundation: http://www.worldsmile.org/

« Reply #19 on: November 30, 2011, 01:14 »
0
yes. Even i know many links about spoile being trademark. I also posted above links of similar smileys which are posted and accepted in SS.
Do give me links where my doll is a trademark.

« Reply #20 on: November 30, 2011, 01:36 »
0
I have a question regarding copyrights : The thumb up from facebook is copyrighted?

RacePhoto

« Reply #21 on: November 30, 2011, 01:44 »
0
http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/legal/stock-photo-restrictions

Quote:
"Smiley Face

Smiley has been a registered trademark in some countries since 1971.
Smiley face submissions will be evaluated on a case by case basis."


Thanks, I did more research and I was right for where I live, I'm wrong for the rest of the world. Sorry about that.

French journalist Franklin Loufrani registered the iconic smiley face image as a trademark in France in 1971, and he created "The Smiley Licensing Corporation, Ltd." to sell, license, and advertise the smiley face image in the United Kingdom and Europe. In 2001 the name of Loufrani's company was changed to SmileyWorld, which has managed to register the symbol in over 100 countries (not including the USA) for 25 classes of goods and services.

« Reply #22 on: November 30, 2011, 02:09 »
0
I have a question regarding copyrights : The thumb up from facebook is copyrighted?
This proves that there is always a chance of rejection on the basis of copyright... better not to post an object's photo in your 1st  approval step... from my own experience i learnt that. No Guarantee that your own thumb is not a copyright of anyone and if not then also post in editorial... atleast for initial approval lol. be in safe side, otherwise you keep shouting later and people will keep on providing you the links that your thumb is copyright hehehehehe

« Reply #23 on: November 30, 2011, 07:25 »
0
They must delete or they should put a note in the front page or atleast in shutterbuzz where they have mentioned that "smiley face is trademark from 1971" that they are not accepting such smiley from date-xyz. Photos of smileys submitted before that date are retained in SS. etc etc More over they dont mention the date uploaded any photo like IS..
Because many a new contributors like me 1st explore the site's gallery to know what kind of photos are being accepted before planning to submit their own photos

There are too many changes all the time. It is your job to learn about the industry.

On istock you will find an excellent critique forum. Even if you dont post there just reading around is very educational. I dont know if SS has something similar.

« Reply #24 on: November 30, 2011, 07:45 »
0
ok. thank you for suggesting cobalt

« Reply #25 on: August 28, 2014, 11:04 »
0
The doll is of course copyrighted since you didn't design/make it and it's the main focus of the image. No experienced stocker would dare to shoot/upload commercial objects unless editorially.
The smiley is an exact copy of the Yahoo smiley and available on many emoticon sites, even as vectors. You can't piggyback on their success unless it would be blurred somewhere in the background.
Just try to upload original work, like models with a proper release. If you upload other's people creative efforts you'll get a reputation as a bottom-feeder.


Hugo, so you designed/made the main focus of these images and the objects are not commercial or they are submitted editorially?

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-hands-playing-cards-image14947480

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-laptop-beach-image347301

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photography-tall-modern-office-building-image240132

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-mountain-bike-beach-image372105

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-call-support-center-gear-image3604637

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-teen-emo-punk-global-power-image4172918

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-aircraft-landing-landing-lights-image218539

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photography-arabic-abstract-building-interior-image685422

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-asian-tricycle-image4672010

These are only from the first page of your portfolio. Are you sure you really mean what you are saying?

« Reply #26 on: August 28, 2014, 11:59 »
+1
ANCIENT thread alert!


« Reply #27 on: August 28, 2014, 12:23 »
+3
ANCIENT thread alert!

I wish I read your alert before I waste 10 minutes on the 1st page of this and did not notice the dates.   LOL


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
6435 Views
Last post May 10, 2008, 02:41
by DanP68
3 Replies
3412 Views
Last post May 26, 2010, 16:25
by litifeta
7 Replies
3389 Views
Last post June 07, 2010, 18:32
by Phil
5 Replies
2389 Views
Last post July 01, 2013, 07:52
by ruxpriencdiam
8 Replies
2420 Views
Last post September 01, 2016, 09:13
by Noedelhap

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results