| Author |
Message |
anibaltrejo
Joined: 14 Aug 2009
Posts: 377
Location: Barcelona
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:34 pm
|  |
Hi!
I have this image, that looks like its Copyrighted from now on...
 [/url]
Its already approved since years ago and its one of my best sellers... but for comercial use!
Is there a way to change the status of the image, avoiding to delete it and resubmit as editorial? It will go back to the botton of the pile if i resubmit it! and like ive just said, its one of my bestsellers!
Maybe i can ask somebody at SS via email to change it for me?
Help me please on this!
Thanks! |
|
hhltdave5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 24081
Location: Our Stock, Food & Portrait photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:02 pm
| |
I would just leave it alone for right now. If Shutterstock comes to the point where they want it deleted then they will do it. |
|
anibaltrejo
Joined: 14 Aug 2009
Posts: 377
Location: Barcelona
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:12 am
| |
But.. is SS responsible of doing this? cant i be sued or something for having this item for sale under this conditions? |
|
antoine2000
Joined: 17 Sep 2009
Posts: 225
Location: London
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:00 am
| |
Slightly off topic, but the statue is still under copyright which is owned by the Eriksen family. But the statue is close to 100 years old, surely any copyright would have expired by now?
How can someone retain the rights to an object created 4 generations back? |
|
Mike Price
Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Posts: 2919
Location: South Wales
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:10 am
| |
I dont know how the copyright is retained but there are other cases of famous old buildings that are still copyright, for example the architecture of Anton Gaudi. Also all national trust buildings in the UK, which include historic castles and stately homes, cannot be photographed commercially without a licence from the NT.
Mike |
|
antoine2000
Joined: 17 Sep 2009
Posts: 225
Location: London
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:24 am
| |
Soon I feel that the only commercial images allowed will be of food! Unless they gain rights obv |
|
hhltdave5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 24081
Location: Our Stock, Food & Portrait photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:58 am
| |
| anibaltrejo wrote: | | But.. is SS responsible of doing this? cant i be sued or something for having this item for sale under this conditions? |
Anyone can be sued for just about anything. I have checked the database and I am finding several images of the mermaid still there. Some editorial, some not. If it would make you feel comfortable then you can submit the shot as an editorial then when it is approved delete the current one. |
|
robhainer
Joined: 03 May 2010
Posts: 2744
Location: Dallas, GA, USA
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:05 am
| |
I would leave it alone. I think copyright and trademark has gone too far. Zoos being able to trademark their animals? Ridiculous. Gardens saying any photos taken can't be used for commercial purposes? Silly. How do you know this image is your meerkat or your flower? So many places have become unfriendly to photographers. |
|
anibaltrejo
Joined: 14 Aug 2009
Posts: 377
Location: Barcelona
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:26 pm
| |
Thanks everybody for the insights.
Today i've received an answer to this issue
Anibal Trejo,
We have removed the following images that you uploaded.
Little Mermaid statue located at Copenhagen, Denmark (63991087) deleted
because: Quality Control: Image Removed as per Legal - Little Mermaid
Trademark
Regards,
ShutterStock Support
Well... at least it looks like we can trust SS to check for this issues... but what we maybe will never know is if this would happened regardless i start asking about it or not.
Anyway... goodbye to one of my all time best seller image... :( but its better this than the possibility of being sued by the owners...
Thanks again everybody!
Anibal Trejo |
|
peteklinger
Joined: 01 Aug 2007
Posts: 1027
Location: Great Place By a Great Lake
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:41 pm
| |
| antoine2000 wrote: | Slightly off topic, but the statue is still under copyright which is owned by the Eriksen family. But the statue is close to 100 years old, surely any copyright would have expired by now?
How can someone retain the rights to an object created 4 generations back? |
Depends on where the artist lived and when he/she died. Picasso (easy example) lived in France, died in 1973. 2043 his estate will have his works go Public Domain.
If he had died at war, it would be 100 years. French law. Someone who died in WWII in 1942 would have their works protected until 2042. Obscure but possible.
Edvard Eriksen who created the statue "Little Mermaid" in question died in 1959, and +70 means (even though it was made in 1913) 2029 it goes public.
Hope that helped?
Hey that was entertaining research.
 |
|
chanevy
Joined: 13 Oct 2011
Posts: 87
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 3:39 pm
| |
| robhainer wrote: | | How do you know this image is your meerkat or your flower? So many places have become unfriendly to photographers. |
+1. I just double check to make sure there is nothing that can identify the locale if I submit a plant or animal I shot in a public place. |
|
| |
|
Log in
