| Author |
Message |
sundeep
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 106
Location: http://fotohobbist.com/
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:01 am
|  |
I recently had the two attached images rejected for Trademark--Contains potential trademark or copyright infringement.
Both the images are of figurines / home decoration items and do not contain any trademarks per se.
please guide as to what trademark / copyright issue need to considered before uploading such images.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
97.49 KB |
| Viewed: |
894 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
79.82 KB |
| Viewed: |
894 Time(s) |
|
|
|
hhltdave5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 24065
Location: Our Stock, Food & Portrait photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:25 am
| |
They were most likely considered art work (sculptures) and therefore were created by an artist. The artwork itself could be copyrighted. There does not necessarily need a logo, name or trademark visible for it to be rejected for copyright protections.
|
|
sundeep
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 106
Location: http://fotohobbist.com/
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:41 am
| |
| hhltdave5 wrote: | | They were most likely considered art work (sculptures) and therefore were created by an artist. The artwork itself could be copyrighted. There does not necessarily need a logo, name or trademark visible for it to be rejected for copyright protections. |
hmm.. maybe. is this rule / guidance valid for mass produced items ?
|
|
ruxpriencdiam
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 26213
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 11:03 am
| |
| sundeep wrote: | | hhltdave5 wrote: | | They were most likely considered art work (sculptures) and therefore were created by an artist. The artwork itself could be copyrighted. There does not necessarily need a logo, name or trademark visible for it to be rejected for copyright protections. |
hmm.. maybe. is this rule / guidance valid for mass produced items ? |
Yes it is as i was told by Jeff, Laurin, Dave and more on a few i had rejected but were mass produced in china.
Thing is even mass produced are created by someone and that someone will know it is their product therefore copyrighted.
|
|
hhltdave5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 24065
Location: Our Stock, Food & Portrait photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 11:10 am
| |
| sundeep wrote: | | hhltdave5 wrote: | | They were most likely considered art work (sculptures) and therefore were created by an artist. The artwork itself could be copyrighted. There does not necessarily need a logo, name or trademark visible for it to be rejected for copyright protections. |
hmm.. maybe. is this rule / guidance valid for mass produced items ? |
To be honest this is a subject that no one has an exact answer for. Somethings will get through and some will not. I usually go with if it is something that looks like artwork they will likely err on the side of caution.
The problem is if you take this to a supposed logical conclusion everything in this world was designed and created by someone. So in that case nothing should ever be accepted even down to a white plate.
Of course that would be taking things to the extreme so the stock sites try to find a line that is safe and let things that fall on one side of the line be accepted and those on the other side rejected.
I just try to stay away from things that lean toward art related and I am usually happy with the results.
|
|
sundeep
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 106
Location: http://fotohobbist.com/
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 11:37 am
| |
| hhltdave5 wrote: |
To be honest this is a subject that no one has an exact answer for. Somethings will get through and some will not. I usually go with if it is something that looks like artwork they will likely err on the side of caution.
The problem is if you take this to a supposed logical conclusion everything in this world was designed and created by someone. So in that case nothing should ever be accepted even down to a white plate.
Of course that would be taking things to the extreme so the stock sites try to find a line that is safe and let things that fall on one side of the line be accepted and those on the other side rejected.
I just try to stay away from things that lean toward art related and I am usually happy with the results. |
One other question on this topic. If i as an individual have bought say a mass produced item or say a work of art. Does that not mean i own that item, including some of the rights around it including taking photographs and selling them. I mean if i buy something, does it not automatically make me the owner of that item and give me some rights around it (isn't the copyright on the item and manufacture of the same vs taking images and selling those by the person who has bought the item) ?
In such an instance can the property release not be signed by the person who has bought the item ?
|
|
ruxpriencdiam
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 26213
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:07 pm
| |
| sundeep wrote: | | hhltdave5 wrote: |
To be honest this is a subject that no one has an exact answer for. Somethings will get through and some will not. I usually go with if it is something that looks like artwork they will likely err on the side of caution.
The problem is if you take this to a supposed logical conclusion everything in this world was designed and created by someone. So in that case nothing should ever be accepted even down to a white plate.
Of course that would be taking things to the extreme so the stock sites try to find a line that is safe and let things that fall on one side of the line be accepted and those on the other side rejected.
I just try to stay away from things that lean toward art related and I am usually happy with the results. |
One other question on this topic. If i as an individual have bought say a mass produced item or say a work of art. Does that not mean i own that item, including some of the rights around it including taking photographs and selling them. I mean if i buy something, does it not automatically make me the owner of that item and give me some rights around it (isn't the copyright on the item and manufacture of the same vs taking images and selling those by the person who has bought the item) ?
In such an instance can the property release not be signed by the person who has bought the item ? |
Nope because no matter what the original artist owns the copyright or trademark and only they can sign the property release and only they can sell it for profit if you do they can go after you for copyright infringement and sue you.
The copyright belongs to the original artist for as long as they are alive and then it is transferred to their heirs when they die.
You wouldn't want someone buying your artwork and then profiting off of it with out you getting a return for it would you?
|
|
hhltdave5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 24065
Location: Our Stock, Food & Portrait photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:08 pm
| |
| sundeep wrote: | | hhltdave5 wrote: |
To be honest this is a subject that no one has an exact answer for. Somethings will get through and some will not. I usually go with if it is something that looks like artwork they will likely err on the side of caution.
The problem is if you take this to a supposed logical conclusion everything in this world was designed and created by someone. So in that case nothing should ever be accepted even down to a white plate.
Of course that would be taking things to the extreme so the stock sites try to find a line that is safe and let things that fall on one side of the line be accepted and those on the other side rejected.
I just try to stay away from things that lean toward art related and I am usually happy with the results. |
One other question on this topic. If i as an individual have bought say a mass produced item or say a work of art. Does that not mean i own that item, including some of the rights around it including taking photographs and selling them. I mean if i buy something, does it not automatically make me the owner of that item and give me some rights around it (isn't the copyright on the item and manufacture of the same vs taking images and selling those by the person who has bought the item) ?
In such an instance can the property release not be signed by the person who has bought the item ? |
You are getting into an area that is loaded with different legal aspects, including different copyright laws which can be different from country to country.
This also goes into the area of if a piece of art was created by a person who was at the time working for a specific company then the copyright belongs to the employer and not the employee.
I could go into all the facets of the Copyright Act found in Title 17, of the U.S. Code but what it comes down to is not what the law says but what the stock site says. A stock site does not have to follow the law as it is written, it can make policy that is stricter than the protections listed. They are acting as an agent for the sale of images of which you are part (sort of like a contract employee) so they can do what they feel necessary to protect themselves from litigation.
Here are a couple of links that may help.
http://www.arsny.com/basics.html
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CHwQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.copyright.gov%2Fcircs%2Fcirc40.pdf&ei=XzZ3T6auDYbqgQeI0-DyDg&usg=AFQjCNHJKX20VbfjSRgXnftaNVOU1JaQ3A
To give you a very short answer to the law as it relates to the US is that the creator of the art work has and retains the rights to determine how the art work is sold, distributed and used.
Now, copyright laws are continually changing and tested in court. That is why stock sites usually will err on the side of caution.
|
|
| |
|
Log in
