Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

aleximages · Joined: 22 Nov 2011 Posts: 13

Thanks again woodyone. peteklinger thanks for so much help, that makes sense. I didn't really think that my images were public domain because they are redrawn original versions of public domain images, like Disney owns their own versions, which doesn't really matter to the reviewer, especially without the specific notes that I left out, they just see 'public domain'. Now I have a new plan of attack, plus I didn't resubmit, I just kept 'recycling rejected Images'. I'm going to regroup and then resubmit with all of this valuable information. Thanks a ton for all of your research and extensive experience. Alex.

darla · Joined: 29 Apr 2006 Posts: 888

Be sure to include a property release for your own artwork.

aleximages · Joined: 22 Nov 2011 Posts: 13

Thanks darla, I was just looking into that, I've got a little bit of homework now. I think I remember awhile back another newbie like myself wanted some critiques on his submissions but he was trying to pass off an old Indian photo with autotrace black and white (thinking maybe nobody had ever seen it before?), but not only did you recognize it but also the author and publisher ( I think it was a picture of White Cloud) which really surprised me and made me realize how careful and serious owning your own images is, no matter how rare or old it might be. ( if it wasn't you then, oops)

peteklinger · Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 4:33 pm

Your images are not Public Domain, they are copyrighted. The image you used for the source needs to be Public Domain.

Yes, you should add a property release for your own artwork, and it is protected. SS needs to have proof on file that you are the artist, not someone else and you just submitted their work.

The laws all changed on that back in the 70s.

Used to be, if I bought a painting, I owned it and the rights. (I'd have to look up the specific case law) But then it was revised to the artist still owned the reproduction rights, the owner owned the individual work of art.

There could be a whole forum just for legal and art. I suspect there are a few. LOL

Under no circumstances can you use anything Disney as source material. Easiest way to explain that is he started his studios in 1923, Walt Disney Studios 1926, so everything is still protected. Alice was done in 1951. Won't be PD for a long time.

1907: Copyright on Alice's Adventures In Wonderland expires in UK, and so it enters into the public domain. At least 8 new editions are published in that year alone.

Use the art from an edition from 1907 or before, for your source material. Or if you find one before 1923 you are also fine.

New art after 1923 will still be protected, while the book itself is not.

algol · Joined: 03 Oct 2007 Posts: 608

I don't think I had any trouble with SS over my Alice in Wonderland illustrations although I did submit them with a note explaining the subject was in the public domain, but I did have to write an essay on the subject (with references!) for DT to get them accepted. Then after a couple of years DT removed them and I had to write another essay to get them reinstated.

peteklinger · Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:10 pm

algol · Joined: 03 Oct 2007 Posts: 608

I think it's always safer to assume total ignorance on the part of the reviewer and put a note explaining anything and everything. This is probably unfair/unecessary for most reviewers, but it's fair enough that they can't be expected to know everything and go and research it if they don't.

Although I do expect them to have a good knowledge of English if they're making rejections based on keywords not being in English... *cough*.. DT... *cough* ;)