Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

whughes98144 · Joined: 26 Apr 2010 Posts: 497 Location: Seattle, WA

Hi,

I'm sure this is discussed somewhere in the forums but SS's search really sucks (imo).

So, looking at this not really great shot I took, it was rejected for trademark. I could see maybe their wanting a property release, but that's not what the rejection says. It says trademark. And I remember someone saying that SS will reject most shots of kids toys, even without logos for trademark.

Are arts/crafts all out of bounds now too? These were some of our Xmas ornaments, twenty years old or more.

Thanks,

Will

P.S. Haven't they fixed the upload issue yet?

whughes98144 · Joined: 26 Apr 2010 Posts: 497 Location: Seattle, WA

I guess this is moot until I can show you the image.

apotterdd · Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 12:37 am

Do they look like they were hand painted? Describe them the best you can.

whughes98144 · Joined: 26 Apr 2010 Posts: 497 Location: Seattle, WA

No, they're the standard central american hand-stitched dolls. Lemme see if I can find them online:

http://www.discoveringchristmas.com/images/Countries/Guatemalan%20dolls.jpg

That's them almost exactly. Real simple. And trademark? Cmon.

apotterdd · Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 12:50 am

Hmmm not sure what to tell you about that. They're dolls. Did a quick site search on Guatemalan dolls and nothing came up then I searched for guatemala dolls and only one image came up with a very early image ID. So unless they've gotten strict on hand sewn dolls of any kind.

Maybe ask support about the rejection reason and for them to elaborate on it and if it is in fact that the doll ornaments are handmade which caused the rejection.

hhltdave5 · Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:22 am

It's almost impossible to give a definitive answer when it comes to what will and will not be rejected for copyright/trademark reasons simply because there are so many variations.

The article on this rejection says in part...

"When you take pictures that you intend to sell as stock, you absolutely must not include any distinguishing visual clues that relate to an already-existing brand, corporation, company, etc."

http://buzz.shutterstock.com/rejection-reasons/why-was-my-image-rejected-for-trademark

This too is somewhat vague because it does not give more detailed information on what a "visual clue" is. Again, this is pretty much impossible to do.

The way I go at it is to look at the object and if in its entirety it LOOKS very generic and/or something that is massed produced it usually will be ok.

However if something looks as if it were hand painted, hand made or done in a limited edition and not pumped out of a factory that could be a visual clue of who the maker or company is and that they would recognize it as theirs.

When I look at the shot of the dolls that are similar to the one you photographed they do look to be more than simply massed produced.

This is all pretty much suggestive and open to interpretation by the reviewer but that unfortunately is the nature of the beast.

whughes98144 · Joined: 26 Apr 2010 Posts: 497 Location: Seattle, WA

Okay, thanks Dave. That's not a bad criterion. I wasn't certain where to even imagine the line.

But it's kinda weird, right? If I own some pieces of art, I've got some Chinese stuff, all I have to do there is fill out a property release saying I own it. Evidently, owning it gives me the rights to its image.

But owning a craft piece of limited edition doesn't?

I mean, if I own a Picasso (I do not, alas), then I *do* own reproduction rights, correct? If I own a print of a limited edition (so there are others) then I'm not sure. Hmmm, the more I think on it the harder it becomes to figure where a line would be on image rights.

Well, thanks!

Will

hhltdave5 · Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:13 am

whughes98144 · Joined: 26 Apr 2010 Posts: 497 Location: Seattle, WA

Is that right? I think that if I buy a Picasso piece, I own the rights to images of that Picasso piece, don't I?

Unless rights were retain explicitly? Is this not right?

hhltdave5 · Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 3:18 pm

veinglory · Joined: 23 Feb 2005 Posts: 1243

Indeed. Copyright remains with the artist. You can't license the work, reproduce it or create derivative works.

ffranny · Joined: 21 Jun 2005 Posts: 215

Also, if you're photographing someone else's creative work -- hand-sewing, graffiti, cake decoration, whatever -- you're using *their* intellectual property for your own profit.

Even if Shutterstock were to let you get away with it, you're cheating another artist.

So I say don't do it.

semmickphoto · Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 9:25 am

semmickphoto · Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 9:30 am

Photo number starts with 98 so its new. Release information: N/A

suwanneeredhead · Joined: 28 Jul 2005 Posts: 1140 Location: Dante's Peak

I believe that particular image is okay because the graffiti is not the total and central focus of the image, its just part of the wall there... and frankly its not really artwork, its just somebody's name. It's a fine line with graffiti... some of it is simple and just mischief while some of it is beautiful and complex.

So if you take an up-close shot of a beautiful spraypaint rendering of a woman's face (or whatever), you may get a rejection for copyright on it (or be asked to submit an artist's release). There ARE released graffiti images on here, by the way. Personally I wouldn't sign a release on my own criminal mischief, but some do.