Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

vt750 · Joined: 11 Aug 2009 Posts: 7 Location: Luxembourg

Hi everyone
I am very surprissed and dissapointed, I have had a few images removed, after they had been accepted and even sold, of my motorbike. All logos were removed and there are many similar images on the site. The bike was customised and even an expert would have aproblem knowing the make, anyway is that a problem, there are many trucks aircraft cars etc on the site that I can identify.

vojtaheroutcom · Joined: 14 Aug 2008 Posts: 87 Location: Czech Republic

Same happened to me to today.
Already accepted file in my database was deleted and I got just e-mail saying:

We have removed the following images that you uploaded.
... deleted because: Quality
Control - Deleted per Legal, do not resubmit

Is this common? Coz it never happened to me during the year I am submitting photos here...

And will that happen more often now?

franckreporter · Joined: 27 Sep 2008 Posts: 189 Location: Italia

contact the help center

yarchyk · Joined: 01 May 2008 Posts: 67

Strange

hhltdave5 · Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:08 am

This has happened to many people and has been mentioned in other places in the forums. It is a business decision that seems to have been made for Shutterstock's protection.

There is one thing that submitters need to understand when it comes to images of certain products and that is that protections covered by trademark/copyright are constantly changing. Because of this images that were once approved may now be a violation of those protections and for legal reasons the images are no longer acceptable.

There need not be a logo present or a name visible it can be something as simple as a shape or form. Ford did this when it cracked down on the usage of their images by stock and advertising agencies. Remember that you are taking, submitting and getting money for something that belongs to them. If you do not have their permission to use it then that can be a violation of the protections.

These protections are only getting more and more strict and stock companies are not going to be taking the chance of legal litigation when it comes to these matters so they will tighten up their policies regarding it.

vojtaheroutcom · Joined: 14 Aug 2008 Posts: 87 Location: Czech Republic

hhltdave5 · Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:31 am

vorminbeeld · Joined: 29 Aug 2008 Posts: 84 Location: Netherlands

Same here. They deleted my best selling image because of legal reasons. It was a picture of a classic red Ford mustang convertible. Strange thing is that another picture of the same car is still available. I've sent a mail about this to Shutterstock. They answered that they gonna review other pictures as well. The car on my picture was from the seventies and is not produced anymore. Shutterstock answered that it is still protected by copyright and therefor it is not accepted anymore due to new rules. It's a pity that they didn't announced these new rules. New pictures of other classic cars which I've submitted were rejected. So I guess we can not submit cars anymore unless it's editorial. Probaly we can submit old cars and other vehicles which are free of copyright. I'm not familiar with that rules. Does anyone know?

hhltdave5 · Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:59 am

vorminbeeld · Joined: 29 Aug 2008 Posts: 84 Location: Netherlands

Thanks, This is from March. My image was accepted in June! I guess it slipped through.

gdlerner · Joined: 13 Feb 2006 Posts: 76

Same here. They deleted 5 image because of legal reasons
"deleted because: Quality Control - Deleted per Legal, do
not resubmit".The are some images I uploaded 3 years ago

paulprescott · Joined: 12 Mar 2008 Posts: 188

sumo · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 201

I can understand the need to be careful about "new" car images but images of cars 15-20 years old or older ?
come on thats just plain stupid to delete every image of a car on this ground.

I for my point wouldnt pay subscription for access to a site that has a whole subject matter missing. Not to mention if buildings are next and other such items.
If you go down that way youll end up with ONLY illustrations and then only of items and things nobody knows.

Canon, Nikon, Dell, HP, Compaq, kitchenaid etc all these companies can then on ground of this reasoning say
" hey that shape is a trademark of ours, we will sue you if you supply it."

This is a case of trademarks going to far and the lawers getting to much say in a matter that is at best a grey area if all trademarks and logos are removed.
Or do the trademarks of automobiles or other such products state that the shape of a car or product is part of the trademark ?
If that is the case I find it interesting that every carmaker isnt sueing each other since most types of cars today look the same more or less.

terrymr · Joined: 21 Dec 2008 Posts: 78

The statute applying copyright protection to buildings (after 1990) specifically allows “making, distributing, or public display of [pictorial representations] of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.” 17 U.S.C. § 120(a)

So the only concern from a Photographers point of view is that of trademarks or artistic works (other than the building) visible in the photograph.

gdlerner · Joined: 13 Feb 2006 Posts: 76

I still don t understand,the ares a new law?,they deleted already 5 from my gallery