|
|
Welcome, Anonymous (Profile, Private Messages)
Having trouble signing into the forums? Please [ logout ] and log back in.
 Log in
| Author |
Message |
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 32262
Location: Stock,food,portrait books www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:35 pm
|  |
Post something about what is acceptable nowdays as far as copyright,Trademark issues so folks don't waste so much time and reviewers time. The Paca site is 5 years old. what is it you want? what Don't you want More of?
How about a list somewhere or a Link that We can refer to or send newbies to That ask the same questions over and Over. Maybe there is already a List? If so, Where.
Set a Current Standard Please. Some are out here in the wasteland confused as to what works and what doesn't. help Us, Help you. |
|
ruxpriencdiam
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 16089
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:45 pm
| |
I will second that Laurin and i have been to the PACA website and cant find anything it sure would be helpful to everyone !Also need as many to post as can to get administration to weigh in on it! |
|
rudyumans
Joined: 19 Aug 2008
Posts: 7562
Location: South Florida
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:21 pm
| |
Absolutely agree!
just to illustrate how messed up the situation is, the following is from a document "Copyright Claims in Architectural Works" published by the US Copyright Office. The whole thing is here: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ41.pdf
After reading this, can somebody explain why the Crysler building for example is copyright protected? (and we are just taking a picture. We are not trying to copy the building for crying out loud) It could be me, I might be confused sometimes, but I could have sworn that the crysler building was there before 1990.
I think that the owners of these buildings and stuff just make their own rules and claims.
Eligible Building Designs
The following building designs can be considered for registration:
• Designs created on or after December 1, 1990.
• Designs that were created in unpublished plans or drawings but not constructed
as of December 1, 1990, but were constructed before January 1, 2003.
note: “Creation” is the first-ever tangible fixation or embodiment of a design,
whether in plans, drawings, models, or a constructed building. “Publication”
occurs when underlying plans, drawings, or other copies of the building design
are distributed or made available to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership
or by rental, lease, or lending. Construction of a building does not constitute
publication for purposes of registration, unless multiple copies are constructed.
Ineligible Building Designs
The following building designs cannot be registered:
• Designs that were constructed, or whose plans or drawings were published,
before December 1, 1990.
• Designs that were unconstructed and created in unpublished plans or drawings
on December 1, 1990, and were not constructed on or before December
31, 2002. |
|
hhltdave5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 19185
Location: Our Stock, Food & Portrait photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:09 pm
| |
| rudyumans wrote: | Absolutely agree!
just to illustrate how messed up the situation is, the following is from a document "Copyright Claims in Architectural Works" published by the US Copyright Office. The whole thing is here: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ41.pdf
After reading this, can somebody explain why the Crysler building for example is copyright protected? (and we are just taking a picture. We are not trying to copy the building for crying out loud) It could be me, I might be confused sometimes, but I could have sworn that the crysler building was there before 1990.
I think that the owners of these buildings and stuff just make their own rules and claims.
Eligible Building Designs
The following building designs can be considered for registration:
• Designs created on or after December 1, 1990.
• Designs that were created in unpublished plans or drawings but not constructed
as of December 1, 1990, but were constructed before January 1, 2003.
note: “Creation” is the first-ever tangible fixation or embodiment of a design,
whether in plans, drawings, models, or a constructed building. “Publication”
occurs when underlying plans, drawings, or other copies of the building design
are distributed or made available to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership
or by rental, lease, or lending. Construction of a building does not constitute
publication for purposes of registration, unless multiple copies are constructed.
Ineligible Building Designs
The following building designs cannot be registered:
• Designs that were constructed, or whose plans or drawings were published,
before December 1, 1990.
• Designs that were unconstructed and created in unpublished plans or drawings
on December 1, 1990, and were not constructed on or before December
31, 2002. |
There is more to trademark/copyright protection laws aside from the simple 1990 rule. That talks about generic buildings not those owned by companies whose name has protections. The different areas covered by these protections are massive and ever changing.
A company has a right to protect their name and investment from others making money from it. They want to control how and when images of their property is used. The laws allow you to take shots of these structures (as long as it is done legally) but a person is not allowed to USE those images for profit or compensation without approval.
Some of these companies are spending millions and millions of dollars to put their name on a building, a stadium or other structure and they are going to make sure they protect it.
We may not like it but that is the way it is. Sorry to say but the time is pretty much here when we cannot just take a shot of something and think it will be accepted. The stock companies are not going to take the chance of litigation costs. |
|
rudyumans
Joined: 19 Aug 2008
Posts: 7562
Location: South Florida
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:39 pm
| |
| hhltdave5 wrote: |
There is more to trademark/copyright protection laws aside from the simple 1990 rule. That talks about generic buildings not those owned by companies whose name has protections. The different areas covered by these protections are massive and ever changing.
A company has a right to protect their name and investment from others making money from it. They want to control how and when images of their property is used. The laws allow you to take shots of these structures (as long as it is done legally) but a person is not allowed to USE those images for profit or compensation without approval.
Some of these companies are spending millions and millions of dollars to put their name on a building, a stadium or other structure and they are going to make sure they protect it.
We may not like it but that is the way it is. Sorry to say but the time is pretty much here when we cannot just take a shot of something and think it will be accepted. The stock companies are not going to take the chance of litigation costs. |
I know there is more to it, but, as I said, I just quoted it to illustrate how messed up and complicated these issues can be. Where I live, there is virtually a whole town that cannot be photographed for commercial purposes without a permit. (Coral Gables) Do they have the right to that? Who knows? But we and our agents have to keep track of all that stuff. Can we? I don't think so. At least not without the help from our agents.
I don't blame Shutterstock for not walking on the wild side. Neither would I. I can think of a bunch of reason why SS (and others) do what they do. That's not the problem. However, I do agree with Laurin that the policies need to be more open in order to avoid a big waste of time for everybody. How hard can it be to post an update on a regular basis?
By the way, the circular is not about the right to claim, but about the right to register. 2 different things. The circular was revised in May 2009, which is fairly new for Federal standards and I do stick with my assessment though that the owners of these buildings are bullies that nobody wants to deal with. (In my day job, we deal a lot with commercial and residential property management/owners. These property owners are usually big and powerful, but not invincible. I fight them all the time for my clients) |
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 13738
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, slipping into darkness
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:54 pm
| |
| rinder99 wrote: | Post something about what is acceptable nowdays as far as copyright,Trademark issues so folks don't waste so much time and reviewers time. The Paca site is 5 years old. what is it you want? what Don't you want More of?
How about a list somewhere or a Link that We can refer to or send newbies to That ask the same questions over and Over. Maybe there is already a List? If so, Where.
Set a Current Standard Please. Some are out here in the wasteland confused as to what works and what doesn't. help Us, Help you. |
OK add me to the team L!
Enquiring minds want to know! :) |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 32262
Location: Stock,food,portrait books www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:18 pm
| |
Just a little updated sticky will do....Something that your telling the reviewers to look for. |
|
annabelle496
Joined: 26 May 2009
Posts: 67
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:45 pm
| |
| ruxpriencdiam wrote: | | I will second that Laurin and i have been to the PACA website and cant find anything it sure would be helpful to everyone !Also need as many to post as can to get administration to weigh in on it! |
I started another thread about 3 weeks ago on this concerning PACA.
I wanted more info about them as their site was not really helpful other than to buy their publications.
All I got here was the website for them. I had an image on another site that was accepted, than refuse. Yes, it was an old Nova SS.
I guess seeing whats going on has answered my question.
A. |
|
weberfoto
Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Posts: 480
Location: South Carolina
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:48 pm
| |
Great idea Laurin. I would like nothing better then to know exactly what the reviewers are told. But it's not gonna happen.
I've had a number of old car pictures removed and motorcycle shots with a release from the rider. But of course not a property release from Harley. Even some shots taken in a car museum that allows photography without any restrictions.
SS is not going to give us the guidelines the reviewers go by. It would create even more controversy and post upon post of how stupid the reviewers are because they can't follow the rules the way we (the submitters) interpret them. In our favor of course. And if a reviewer makes a mistake and applies a rule the wrong way (they're human and it's gonna happen), SS can't publicly chastise them every time they make a mistake.
But a little bit more definition of how things have changed from the original set of rules for submissions would be nice. Especially since most have not been updated from the originals and it's getting really confusing and turning into a crap shoot of what is acceptable and what not. And I might add, in my opinion this goes for all the MS sites, not just SS. |
|
kenk
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Posts: 2642
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:09 am
| |
Add Princeton University to the list
(which can be found at https://www.pacaoffice.org/resources/specialReleases.html).
They requested another site to remove photos of their buildings.
I'll be removing my Princeton images on this site as soon as I can. |
|
rixie
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 2245
Location: Hampshire, UK
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:14 pm
| |
Kenny has just put up a useful list, (thanks Kenny) but I have a couple of questions:
Kenny's list says that
'All Olympic Logos, Torch, and Athletes are trademarked designs and require a special property release to use in commercial photography'.
I recently uploaded an illustration and a vector depicting a runner carrying a torch in Rio. The vector was rejected but, before I had a chance to delete the .jpg version, it was accepted. I have been puzzled ever since!
Can I submit an illustration of a runner with a flaming torch, who happens to be in Rio, if I don't use the keywords 'Olympic', etc?
If someone uses my illustration, (it has sold a few times and has been accepted on other sites), and it is infringing copyright laws, can I be held responsible?
Should I just delete the images? (Admin probably will anyway at some point).
The keyword 'olympic' currently returns over 14,000 images. |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 32262
Location: Stock,food,portrait books www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:23 pm
| |
Like I said.. I would just like to know RF's criteria and especially SS because this is my Home site. If they came with a List of what they don't want. I would be happy to use that Info on all my RF sites. We can speculate till doomsday, I just want to save some time for myself and others.Thats about it.Heres a good list That Kenny put toghther.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1130755#1130755 |
|
karimala
Joined: 04 Sep 2005
Posts: 2218
Location: Sacramento, CA
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:57 pm
| |
Photos of buildings or logos or cars do have a legitimate place in news. How many times have we seen photos of the AIG headquarters or Bank of America's logo in the news since the economy went down, and how many are tagged with credit to Getty? Plenty.
If I shoot a questionable photo, I don't upload it to the micros. Instead I will submit it as editorial rights-managed to another agency, so I can track its usage and make sure it's not being used for commercial projects. In the past month, photos of Starbucks have been among their top sellers.
As for lists...many locations and buildings post information on their websites for photographers and the press. And SS's main competition has an evolving copyright/trademark wiki constantly updated with additional information. |
|
| |
|
  |
Page 1 of 1
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
|
Shutterstock Forum for Contributors
|
