highrockphoto
Joined: 18 May 2011
Posts: 2
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 5:11 pm
|  |
I've submitted my initial 10 images. Two would have been accepted and out of the 8 remaining, the only issues seem to be trademark / copyright / and branding infringements. Some are obvious and some are not. For the example image below, the reviewers comment was:
| Quote: | | Modern Architecture can be copyrighted like any other artwork. |
Image Title:
Angled View of Two Highrises, San Diego
My Keywords are:
Abstract, Angle, Angled, Architectural, Architecture, Arquitectónico, Arquitectura, Black and White, Black White, Blackandwhite, Blackwhite, Building, California, City, Design, Downtown, High-rise, Highrise, Monochromatic, Monochrome, Monotone, Neighborhood, No People, Noir, Noirblanc, San Deigo, Sandeigo, Structure, Tower, Urban, City
... So I am not really sure what I would need to change about this. The image itself seems generic enough to me...
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
133.43 KB |
| Viewed: |
373 Time(s) |
|
|
|
hhltdave5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 24100
Location: Our Stock, Food & Portrait photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:33 pm
| |
You have to understand that there are the copyright laws and then there are the policies of Shutterstock. Often times a stock site will have stricter rules that what the law may state.
When it comes to architectural copyrights there are special protections just for them other than the normal copyright protections found.
Generally speaking the law says "Protection for "architectural works" under § 102(a)(8) is available only for those works created on or after December 1, 1990."
There are exceptions however and as I said before if the shot does not adhere to the rules that Shutterstock has they will reject it. Basically SS no longer accepts images of buildings such as this when they are the main object of the shot. If they are a part of an overall cityscape then they will be judged on a case by case basis.
|
|
highrockphoto
Joined: 18 May 2011
Posts: 2
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:28 pm
| |
@hhltdave5 -- thanks, great explanation, that makes sense, I actually had an image of the same building that they "would have accepted" as it was a closeup detail and you could not identify the building.
|
|
Log in
