Author Topic: Why are microstocks so scared of Apple? (Read 8209 times)

danhowl · « **on:** June 15, 2010, 10:07 »

It seems like there is an unequal standard of what is trademark infringement when in comes to electronic products as props in photos when it comes to Apple as opposed to other brands. Have anyone else experienced this? I have been getting rejections from images with iPod, iPhone, iPads used as props when similarly trademarked electronic items used as props sail thru. I have shot each Apple product in other brand's protective cases and removed logos and in some case buttons or distinct features. Do microstocks believe that some trademarks carry more weight than others? I'd like to see statute that backs up this concept.

pancaketom · « **Reply #1 on:** June 15, 2010, 10:11 »

Apple is more likely to sue or threaten to sue

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #2 on:** June 15, 2010, 10:20 »

Apple is easily recognised by everyone - including reviewers - as they put a strong accent on design.

Objects by other brands are often similar and therefore considered "generic" - although I am pretty sure at least its designer will always recognise its own product.

My personal view is that objects should *never* be accepted in stock if they are the main subject of a picture - despite removing logos. And should always be accepted as part of a scene. But this is not an official policy, just my wish if I were to rewrite copyright laws.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #3 on:** June 15, 2010, 12:29 »

Quote from: danhowl on June 15, 2010, 10:07

It seems like there is an unequal standard of what is trademark infringement when in comes to electronic products as props in photos when it comes to Apple as opposed to other brands. Have anyone else experienced this? I have been getting rejections from images with iPod, iPhone, iPads used as props when similarly trademarked electronic items used as props sail thru. I have shot each Apple product in other brand's protective cases and removed logos and in some case buttons or distinct features. Do microstocks believe that some trademarks carry more weight than others? I'd like to see statute that backs up this concept.

iPods et al are actually trademarked. Other electronics just tend to have design patents on them.

danhowl · « **Reply #4 on:** June 15, 2010, 12:46 »

Understanding that iPods/Pad/Phones are trademarked, numerous other electronics that frequently appear as props in microstock are as well. Palms and Blackberry's are no LESS trademarked. I've even had a shot of an iPad that is completely encases in a other-branded case so that the iPad itself is not visable subject to rejection. The shot could have just as easily been completed (and might be in the future) done w/ a piece of cardboard inside the case. The amount that microstocks, especially IS, are gunshy about trademarks seems over-zealous to me.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #5 on:** June 15, 2010, 12:49 »

Read what I wrote again.

PixelBitch · « **Reply #6 on:** June 15, 2010, 13:14 »

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but Apple products as props in macro shoots are considered OK, have never had an image rejected for that reason...apparently some time back Apple eased off and the reasoning as I understand it is they gain free promotion from their goodies being in images. Maybe the micros are being a little anal on this matter.

danhowl · « **Reply #7 on:** June 15, 2010, 13:25 »

Quote from: sjlocke on June 15, 2010, 12:49

Read what I wrote again.

Read the topic of the thread again.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #8 on:** June 15, 2010, 13:41 »

Ok, since you missed the point, I'll elaborate. Apple, Palm and Blackberry (the words and associated marks) may be trademarks. You cannot show the word Apple, with the bite missing logo, for example. The products they make (the Pre) may not be trademarked, but may be protected by a design patent, which stops others from copying the design and is not as robust a form of protection as the trademark. The iPod, and probably the others, are trademarked ( what they look like ) themselves. This allows Apple to control their use so there is no confusion in the marketplace. While it is up to the end user to work legally, micros tend to try and protect buyers by keeping the collection out if danger ( ie. Avoiding images where trademarked content might not be considered fair use).

danhowl · « **Reply #9 on:** June 15, 2010, 14:22 »

no, I got the point of your post. The point I am making in this thread which you side-step is that other products with trade mark protection seem to pass inspection with microstock more easily than Apple products do.

from the Palm web site:
"Palm owns rights in the distinctive “look and feel” of its product configurations and packaging. This “trade dress” includes the unique style of Palm's phones, handhelds and other products, their packaging, and the layout of their web properties. Palm considers its trade dress to be among its most valuable assets and prohibits others from using it except under express license."

from trademarks.org:
"Trade Dress: Describes a product’s distinctive design, packaging, color or other appearance which makes it unique from other products or goods. Trade dress of a particular product or good is protected under trademark law."

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #10 on:** June 15, 2010, 14:32 »

" To be protectable, trade dress must be inherently distinctive or possess "secondary meaning" (the public associates the packaging with a single source). Further, the trade dress must be non-functional.

As a rule, for trade dress to be protected, it must be instantaneously identifiable in the mind of the purchaser. This is usually the function of strong sales over a long period, supported by consistent advertising, promotion and publicity. "

I couldn't pick out a Palm from any stack of electronics, but I'll bet you can't find a person who can't identify an i-whatever. Anyhoo, the actual design of the i-Things are recorded in the trademark database for research. I don't know of any such catalog of "trade dress". I would imagine it's a harder thing to protect.