I have an image that was accepted over 4 months ago.� I recently received an email that they might remove it because of a copyright problem.

The image has had over 30 sales, and I was wondering if they remove the image, would they also remove the sales that I received???

Has anyone had something like this happen?� If so, I would appreciate if you would share your experience...

Yes - Had images removed due to copyright at DT after a period of time.  I dont think they would remove the earning though.  Can you see what the potential copyright issue is.

Mine was a memorial/art work but the way I photographed, it was more of an abstract.  Can remember if it had sales at DT

I had one removed at IS -- it was my daughter playing in the water and I suppose the reviewers, on second thought (a few weeks after they had accepted it) decided that her "look" was too appealing to pedophiles!  They didn't want to be responsible for some perv using the image on a child porn site so they took it down.  I appreciate their looking out for me... but the other sites that had accepted it have left it up... I'm actually thinking of removing it for that reason.

Here it is: 



What do y'all think, too appealing to perverts?

I have an image that was accepted over 4 months ago.  I recently received an email that they might remove it because of a copyright problem.

The image has had over 30 sales, and I was wondering if they remove the image, would they also remove the sales that I received???

I've never had a photo removed because I don't take any risks. I have reported a few copyright/trademark/design patent violations. For instance any blackberry, any photo I knew was taken at the San Diego Zoo, etc. The inspectors can't catch everything and it is better for the photographer if they don't have a photo up that violates someone else's IP. My favorite are all the people that upload photos of cell phones with the brand names taken off thinking it is ok.

EVERY MODERN CELLPHONE'S DESIGN IS BOTH TRADEMARKED AND DESIGN PATENTED.

and laptop,ipod or mp3, car. Where do you draw the line.

You draw the line where the the law does. Very few laptops could have trademarks or design patents because they aren't orignial designs. Same with cars, only very distinctive cars qualify (anything by ford wouldn't, the new VW mini would). You have to remember that you cannot tread stock photography as a hobby, because it is not. Stock photography is a business and you have to respect other businesses' property.

You also have to remember that just because a photo contains a trademarked, etc. item doesn't mean that you are doing anything wrong by selling it. It all depends on how the item is used in the final design. However, if the stock photography agency gets sued for selling an image as RF that wasn't, the photographer will have to pay the legal expenses for both the agency and himself (it's in the contracts you agreed to).

I wouldn't be complaining about it, I'd be thankful that they are spending the time to protect the photographers from having to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses.