MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: Pixart on May 17, 2007, 16:55
-
A photo that has a teddy bear and a homemade quilt has been rejected by just SS for possible trademark infringement. It's an old generic teddy bear but I've heard that some sites don't like toys of any kind. There is a pattern and tiny images in the quilt fabric, could this be the trademark? I try to avoid t-shirts, etc. with images, but never thought about simple fabric material. Anyone know?
-
The entire trademark thing is awash with inconsistency: a teddy bear is not okay, but a cell phone is. It's okay to show an image of a Ferrari, but not to mention this iconic brand in the keywords. A baby sipping a bottle is okay, but a baby playing with a rattle isn't.
Perfectly senseless.
If you want to sell the image, they'll probably insist you get property releases - easy to do for the homemade blanket, but impossible for the teddy bear.
-
The entire trademark thing is awash with inconsistency: a teddy bear is not okay, but a cell phone is. It's okay to show an image of a Ferrari, but not to mention this iconic brand in the keywords. A baby sipping a bottle is okay, but a baby playing with a rattle isn't.
Perfectly senseless.
If you want to sell the image, they'll probably insist you get property releases - easy to do for the homemade blanket, but impossible for the teddy bear.
It's not senseless if you understand that you're talking about a bunch of different things. Trademark, copyright, trade dress, etc. You're grouping them all together in one big mess.
-
In case anyone wants to know.... someone else posted on SS forum yesterday with the same question. It was indeed their teddy bear that was rejected so I'm presuming it was NOT the pattern on the fabric in my photo. Reading the thread, they presumably reject all teddy bears for trademark reasons.
Even though - same bear in a baby crib was accepted a couple days earlier, but not as prominent I guess.
-
You're grouping them all together in one big mess.
Of course he is. It is one big mess. The teddy-bear thing is mostly well known now, but still, nobody have been able to explain to me why a generic teddy-bear, which by nature is a traditional, generic design, should have a stronger protection than a mobile phone, which has recently been designed by an artist or designer, and which is currently being marketed by some corporation.
This is a tasteless power-play by some of the industrial giants that is often approaching mind-control. They allow themselves to push their designs, logos and marketing up our noses through advertising and TV commercials 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, making themselves a prominent part of our lives. But the moment we take photos of that life and try selling it, it's suddenly their private property again.
While they are apparently in the clear from a legal point of view, it makes me wonder who owns my life.
-
Perfectly senseless.
It's not senseless if you understand that you're talking about a bunch of different things. Trademark, copyright, trade dress, etc. You're grouping them all together in one big mess.
What is the difference between an ipod, laptop or camera and a teddy bear? I would have thought the teddy bear was the least harmful yet that is the one the choose to reject - mmmm - senseless.
-
Interesting enough, I had a teddy bear accepted on SS that I did a month or so ago. The bear was the central focus of them image.
go figure...
I've just come to accept that the whole copyright thing is confusing and just accept when something is rejected because of it.
-
Interesting enough, I had a teddy bear accepted on SS that I did a month or so ago. The bear was the central focus of them image.
go figure...
I've just come to accept that the whole copyright thing is confusing and just accept when something is rejected because of it.
I'm with you, Mattb, I just go with the flow and don't try to understand it - lol
-
The bear that was posted on SS was later excepted.
Here is the difference between a teddy-bear, ipod, etc.
home-made bear = artwork (legal definition) = artist owns copyright = individual artist that is able to sue
mass-produced generic bear = corporately owned copyright = no suit because possible damages is less than attorney's fees (big corporate firm)
mass-produced identifiable bear (curious george) = corporately owned copyright = trademark suit (note: not copyright because purpose would be to protect the "curious george" mark which includes image of monkey)
ipod = apple = copyrighted general image of, trademarked name, design patented = vigorous enforcement of any intellectual property even if probability that they will lose
laptop = no copyright unless you leave the name of the manufacturer's name on it.
Yes all of intellectual property is complicated, but not senseless. You just have to actually study or read about the subject in order to understand it.