Author Topic: Photos of electronic devices - copyright issues? (Read 7135 times)

packerguy · « **on:** January 26, 2009, 10:39 »

If one takes a picture of say a cell phone and removes the logos, can the image be used for microstock since some one with knowledge of cell phones could easily identify the phone as a model XYZ made by company ABC?

Danicek · « **Reply #1 on:** January 26, 2009, 10:58 »

I've seen it couple of times, in some cases the phone was actually the only present content (isolated on white) and on top of that, it was the Apple's phone. I wondered about the same thing. I thought it to be quite strange...

fljac · « **Reply #2 on:** January 26, 2009, 11:34 »

It seems that the different agencies have some very different opinnions about that. I have images of a Nokia E71 isolated on white approved several places after just removing the nokia name and model number. I have the same phone as a small object, being very secundary in images of office situation's, being rejected for copyright issues.

I have given up, trying to understand how they think, becourse it seems to be quite unlogical...

The images in question can be ssen here:

http://www.stockxpert.com/browse_image/view/29469641
http://www.stockxpert.com/browse_image/view/30266031

I try always to avoid / remove the names and specifiction's, in many cases, this is enough. In other cases, the reviewer seems to think that the phone itself, event without the name, can not be shown...

/Flemming

avava · « **Reply #3 on:** January 26, 2009, 12:37 »

Hi Packerguy,

I was told the other day that one of the new Micro agencies makes you personally responsible for all legal matters if they are sued or asked for a settlement of some kind. They are not going to protect you. I suggest all of you get to know all your contracts in detail. It is boring reading but it will help with a lot of these legal questions.
When the Iphone first came out Getty didn't take a photo of someone using it if it was at all identifiable. Same with their laptops. But after a period of time about 6 months to a year they back off their stance.
Shooting a product on just white seamless is the most flagrant approach and that will be spotted first. I don't know if Micro even thinks about this or is concerned. I have not had one photo rejected by Micro for electronic content so far.

Hope this helps,
AVAVA

yingyang0 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 26, 2009, 13:16 »

Quote from: avava on January 26, 2009, 12:37

Hi Packerguy,

I was told the other day that one of the new Micro agencies makes you personally responsible for all legal matters if they are sued or asked for a settlement of some kind. They are not going to protect you. I suggest all of you get to know all your contracts in detail.

All micro agencies have indemnity clauses in the contracts, not just new ones.

As for the original question, opinions very and the answers will very depending on jurisdiction. I'm cautious, so I wouldn't be photographing new electronic equipment, especially anything made by Apple (they're extremely litigious).

RT · « **Reply #5 on:** January 26, 2009, 13:58 »

Quote from: yingyang0 on January 26, 2009, 13:16

All micro agencies have indemnity clauses in the contracts, not just new ones.

100% true and it's what I've been banging on about for ages, people need to understand that they are resposible for what they upload, it shocks me when I see comments from people saying they rely on reviewers and agencies knowledge.
No reviewer on any microstock site undergoes any sort of legal training, and some of the people running the agencies are giving out misinformation, I've just been involved in a topic at Dreamstime and rather than admit that they're wrong one of the management chose to delete my post and ignore the issue.

As for the OP's question, my rule of thumb is that if you remove all the branding and it's obvious who it's made by then it's not worth doing.

avava · « **Reply #6 on:** January 26, 2009, 15:47 »

Hi Gang,

This new agency I am speaking of ( I will have to find the name ) have removed themselves from any responsability even if it might fall on their shoulders. Not even an indemnity clause everything is placed on the photographers shoulders.. That is what I found so peculiar. I am also surprised there have not been more cases of model release cases brought to court in Micro just because of the misunderstanding and the sure numbers of shooters and images moving around.
If you are going to have people or identifiable locations that are not public domain in your photos you better have your model releases and back them up. We keep two copies of digital and one original on paper in separate locations. Just like the hard drives of images.

Best,
AVAVA

RT · « **Reply #7 on:** January 26, 2009, 17:24 »

Jonathan,

As you brought up the subject of model releases a good tip I found somewhere ( it was another photographer but I can't remember who it was ) is to take a photo (RAW file obviously) of the model at the start of the session holding the release they have just signed, this serves two purposes, firstly it gives you a good visual reference for your filing system which is what my source used it for, but from my point of view if you save an unprocessed copy of the RAW file it could serve you as vital evidence should it ever be required.

eric.zx · « **Reply #8 on:** January 26, 2009, 19:44 »

I think as long as the device is not easily recognizable, it's ok to upload it. But if the design of the device is unique (such as an iphone or a blackberry), then that may spell trouble. I think Apple is very protective of their stuff because it's minimalistic clear white design of laptops and computers is their trademark. Whereas some older models of Toshiba/HP/Compaq are very similar to each other and at certain angles you can hardly tell them apart. Generic is the key.

avava · « **Reply #9 on:** January 26, 2009, 21:11 »

Hey RT,

That was me that might have told you. I mentioned it here on the board in another thread. I especially use it when we are on the road traveling and you have a lot of releases once your trip is over. Trying to match releases to faces can be extra tough and if we lose one we have the other. I'm the kind of guy who loses things that I am holding onto them, keep my car keys on a hook in the garage just so I can drive.

Best,
AVAVA

borg · « **Reply #10 on:** January 27, 2009, 04:50 »

What is about shooting old computers for example!?

I have old ZX Spectrum from my childhood...

A want to keep logo on picture,because "no concept" without name of computer...

Is it for editorial or something else!?

Perry · « **Reply #11 on:** January 27, 2009, 08:01 »

Quote from: borg on January 27, 2009, 04:50

I have old ZX Spectrum from my childhood...

A want to keep logo on picture,because "no concept" without name of computer...

Is it for editorial or something else!?

Editorial.

SoftDux · « **Reply #12 on:** January 30, 2009, 03:11 »

Ok, I have a question on this, where can one find out what the manufacturers have to say about such copyright, where the logos have been removed (via photoshop?)? And when do you know if it's sage to upload a photo of say a printer, for example?

Let's say I have a photo of an office, and there's a PC & printer on the desk (and some other stuff), but I remove the brands / logos from the items. When is it safe to upload such a photo?