|
|
Welcome, Anonymous (Profile, Private Messages)
Having trouble signing into the forums? Please [ logout ] and log back in.
 Log in
| Author |
Message |
kenny123
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 3641
Location: Masterton, New Zealand
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:19 pm
|  |
just had one myself for a car |
|
Photoshow
Joined: 05 Nov 2004
Posts: 4893
Location: Somewhere between where I'm going and where I've been
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:42 pm
| |
With the newly announced clearance guarantee we can expect SS to remove anything that SS is not positive is 100% clear of model release, copyright, trademark or personal property / privacy issues. If there is any doubt then you can expect that they will remove the image. |
|
jayshrp
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 129
Location: Fairport Harbor Ohio
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:37 pm
| |
| mikeledray wrote: | | jayshrp wrote: | | I mind!! Mine was one of my top sellers. I have even sold EL's of it. |
was your top image a Harley Davidson?
Harley corp. if very controlling of images and designs of their motorcycles
They may have stepped up the enforcement and started warning stock photo sites
but generic mc shots where you can not tell what type of bike it is?
does not make sence to me and when I look for Harley and motorcyles left on ss there were like 88 pages!
I would appreciate an reason and guideline
I think this is one of the ways SS does let US the photo suppliers down if the lack of communication
without US they would not be in business |
Yes mine was of me on a Harley Davidson. |
|
jayshrp
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 129
Location: Fairport Harbor Ohio
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:45 pm
| |
| stu wrote: | I just got one of these:
James Stuart Griffith,
We have removed the following images that you uploaded.
Car Entering Tunnel (944637) deleted because: Quality Control - Deleted per
Legal, do not resubmit
Regards,
ShutterStock Support
Does this mean there was an question of actual quality, as it has sold for years, or is it because it was make of a sports car? Thoughts? |
WHAT THE ????? Sheesh !! At this rate nothing will be safe. I don't think you can take a photo of anything in the world that does'nt belong to someone. Will a bear at yellowstone not be aloud because it belongs to the National park? Where will it end? |
|
aguus
Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 5
Location: Russia, Sakhalin
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:16 am
| |
How about sheet music? SS rejected two images with sheet music background for copyright infringement, however, it was an original sheet music of Baroque composer Antonio Vivaldi who died on July, 1741.
It is my understanding (by the way, I am a lawyer, practicing, i.e. IP law) that his original music is in free public domain for a long period of time and therefore it is not protected by copyright or by other legal means. I found a lot of images of sheet music in full or in part in SS database.
Last edited by aguus on Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:32 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
PaulCowan
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 1529
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:25 am
| |
| aguus wrote: | How about sheet music? SS rejected two images with sheet music background for copyright infringement, however, it was an original sheet music of Baroque composer Antonio Vivaldi who died on July, 1741.
It is my understanding (by the way, I am a lawyer, practicing IP laws) that his original music is in free public domain for a long period of time and therefore it is not protected by copyright or by other legal means. I found a lot of images of sheet music in full or in part in SS database. |
I guess they are going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If they can imagine that there might be a copyright problem they will bin the image, because they don't have time to check every single string of musical notes etc. to find out if it is new or old.
The censor's first rule has always been: "If in doubt, ban it." |
|
aguus
Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 5
Location: Russia, Sakhalin
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:36 am
| |
Do you think it may help if I resubmit these images and provide the reviewers' crew with some additional information? Like, it is in the free public domain, not copyrighted, etc? |
|
mounatinpix
Joined: 28 Aug 2008
Posts: 143
Location: Switzerland
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:18 am
| |
| aguus wrote: | | Do you think it may help if I resubmit these images and provide the reviewers' crew with some additional information? Like, it is in the free public domain, not copyrighted, etc? |
definitely that is what I'd do. I have nearly always found that when an appeal is properly presented with good grounds, that it is taken seriously by the reviewing team. Especially if the image is an important one for you.
Maybe you could let us know the outcome? |
|
aguus
Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 5
Location: Russia, Sakhalin
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:33 am
| |
OK, I will. |
|
ruxpriencdiam
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 1211
Location: Virginia
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:53 am
| |
So if i get this right no
motorcycles
cars
bicycles
planes
boats
ATV's
snowmobiles
trains
construction equiptment
dozers
excavaters
backhoes
bobcats
Basicaly anything that is a machine that is recognisable that could contain a trademark if this is true there are a lot of lost opportunities out there! |
|
kschulze
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 306
Location: Downers Grove, Illinois, U.S.A.
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:04 am
| |
| mikeledray wrote: | | mounatinpix wrote: | | mikeledray wrote: | there are still 88 pages of "motorcycles" on ss and at least 50 "Harley Davidison" images
what gives? |
B ikes today
C ars tomorrow
[b]D ogs next week[/b]H ogs some time next year maybe
there's an alphabetical progression emerging :-) |
NOOOOOOO not DOGS!
lol
Poor Fifi!
lol
Im not worried about dogs Yet! |
What are we coming to? First motorcycles, then dogs. I hear there's a company that patented the genetic code of the Bichon Frise -- in 1957! Apparently, Mike, you're in violation and all your photos of Fifi will have to come down! Instead of a footnote that reads "100,000 new photos added in the past week," it's going to read "10,000 new photos added in the past week." Can you believe it? |
|
mikeledray
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 9228
Location: Southern California
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:34 am
| |
| kschulze wrote: | | mikeledray wrote: | | mounatinpix wrote: | | mikeledray wrote: | there are still 88 pages of "motorcycles" on ss and at least 50 "Harley Davidison" images
what gives? |
B ikes today
C ars tomorrow
[b]D ogs next week[/b]H ogs some time next year maybe
there's an alphabetical progression emerging :-) |
NOOOOOOO not DOGS!
lol
Poor Fifi!
lol
Im not worried about dogs Yet! |
What are we coming to? First motorcycles, then dogs. I hear there's a company that patented the genetic code of the Bichon Frise -- in 1957! Apparently, Mike, you're in violation and all your photos of Fifi will have to come down! Instead of a footnote that reads "100,000 new photos added in the past week," it's going to read "10,000 new photos added in the past week." Can you believe it? |
LOL
Luckly I own THAT pattent!
:) |
|
triceratops
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 3417
Location: The other Nevada
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:10 pm
| |
| ruxpriencdiam wrote: | So if i get this right no
motorcycles
cars
bicycles
planes
boats
ATV's
snowmobiles
trains
construction equiptment
dozers
excavaters
backhoes
bobcats
Basicaly anything that is a machine that is recognisable that could contain a trademark if this is true there are a lot of lost opportunities out there! |
No, a great opportunity to move selected images to an RM site with better control over where an image is used and a better understanding of when a release is needed and when not. I suspect the problem at microstock sites is the sheer volume of images and lack of ability to control where they are used. So many that they can't look at each one objectively and must, therefore, take a broad brush to all. This will force each of us to be more discriminating, not so much as to what we photograph, but rather where we place the image for sale. Bland, non-controversial, non-cutting edge images on microstock and the good stuff on higher end sites. It's a changing business model and we must change along with it. |
|
triceratops
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 3417
Location: The other Nevada
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:13 pm
| |
| kschulze wrote: | | What are we coming to? First motorcycles, then dogs. I hear there's a company that patented the genetic code of the Bichon Frise -- in 1957! Apparently, Mike, you're in violation and all your photos of Fifi will have to come down! Instead of a footnote that reads "100,000 new photos added in the past week," it's going to read "10,000 new photos added in the past week." Can you believe it? |
More like "10,000 old photos deleted this week." |
|
suesmith
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 232
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:52 pm
| |
| stu wrote: | I just got one of these:
James Stuart Griffith,
We have removed the following images that you uploaded.
Car Entering Tunnel (944637) deleted because: Quality Control - Deleted per
Legal, do not resubmit
Regards,
ShutterStock Support
Does this mean there was an question of actual quality, as it has sold for years, or is it because it was make of a sports car? Thoughts? |
I received the same message today for an old, rusted, beat up, abandoned car partially buried in snow in a ghost town. Could be a Ford, but there were no identifying logos remaining when I took the photo and I'm not that familiar with cars from that era. It was a decent seller for me.
Like the rest of you, I'd love to see a list of what is no longer acceptable. Or maybe the shorter list of what IS allowed... |
|
| |
|
Shutterstock Forum for Submitters
|
