Author Topic: Best match woes... (Read 27159 times)

digiology · « **Reply #75 on:** March 04, 2008, 11:31 »

Quote from: Seren on March 04, 2008, 04:39

Mind you, I guess in the USA legal system anything could happen. McDonalds coffee anyone?

Not to say there isn't frivolous lawsuits out there but IMO McDonalds coffee was waaaaay too hot!!!! I mean scorching! It was ridiculous. Your only saving grace was your mouth was too burnt to taste how bad the coffee actually was.

Seren · « **Reply #76 on:** March 04, 2008, 12:56 »

How can you sell coffee that is too hot? Surely the nature of black coffee is that it should be made with boiling water! If people are too idiotic to wait till it cools down to drink it then they deserve to be burnt. These people must make coffee at home, in which case they wouldn't sue themselves if they threw it down themselves or drunk it and burnt themselves... They'd just think about what an idiot they'd been. Or shout at their spouse for making it too hot.

zorki · « **Reply #77 on:** March 04, 2008, 14:35 »

If you don't know that case, an elderly woman ordered coffee at a McDonald's here in the USA somewhere. Spilled her coffee on her lap and caused 3rd degree burns on her privates as the coffee was something like 190F. There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides... don't order coffee and try to drive and drink it at the same time and then also don't make coffee so hot that it's near the boiling point for people to pick up at a drive through widow at a fast food restaurant...

Seren · « **Reply #78 on:** March 04, 2008, 14:41 »

Quote from: zorki on March 04, 2008, 14:35

If you don't know that case, an elderly woman ordered coffee at a McDonald's here in the USA somewhere. Spilled her coffee on her lap and caused 3rd degree burns on her privates as the coffee was something like 190F. There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides... don't order coffee and try to drive and drink it at the same time and then also don't make coffee so hot that it's near the boiling point for people to pick up at a drive through widow at a fast food restaurant...

Or just don't put hot coffee between your legs while you try to drive... seems pretty simple.

I've been there, had third degree burns on my upper thighs, but that time a colleague tipped hot drink into my lap straight out the kettle. It just didn't even cross my mind to sue my colleague or my workplace (who supplied the drink).

Anyway, I guess the point is that just because America has idiotic magistrates or whatever they're called that allow ridiculous cases to go through, iStock should see sense and realize that they're not in the wrong. I'd happily be a test case, because I believe I could argue my case in court. I just think that they're being blinkered when they ban some pictures and not others. A designer of a designer sofa could just as easily sue iStock as a car manufacturer.

What's even worse is that they're only banning "luxury" cars. I mean, that's like saying that designers that are paid more have more rights! Although they did could a Volvo as a luxury car, I'm not sure where that came from!

vonkara · « **Reply #79 on:** March 04, 2008, 15:27 »

I already have a Teddy bear rejected for copyright...also multiple sets of playing cards even whit the white face showing (not different than any other playing cards)

And the list is long. In a way everything is copyrighted and each time that I take pictures of an object I'm always afraid to have them rejected for copyright reason.

It's a part of the reason that I buy myself a macro lens after 3 or 4 like that. That way the magnification allow in some case to take only one part of the object. So you still know that it's a DVD player but it's more difficult to be recognised

Seren · « **Reply #80 on:** March 04, 2008, 15:31 »

But the point is, everything is copyrighted, even the macro shots of the DVD player - I'm sure the designer could identify their own design.

It's just such double standards. And it really bothers me that iStock feels that designer A has more rights than designer B just because they worked for a bigger company.

madelaide · « **Reply #81 on:** March 04, 2008, 16:17 »

SP removed all Harley Davidson images from their site, even if sold as editorial. Apparently HD has a very restrictive policy and may have threatened to sue the use of their image. I guess if you want to write an article about HD you have to ask them for their own images.

On the other hand, there are lots of images that would require a release and they have not (even nudes), all sold as editorial. But the risk of damage in a lawsuit from a girl whose ex-boyfriend puts her private photos for sale is certainly smaller.

Regards,
Adelaide

yingyang0 · « **Reply #82 on:** March 04, 2008, 19:40 »

Quote from: madelaide on March 04, 2008, 16:17

On the other hand, there are lots of images that would require a release and they have not (even nudes), all sold as editorial.

I'm curious what kind of editorial usage nudes could be used for?

madelaide · « **Reply #83 on:** March 04, 2008, 21:58 »

Quote from: yingyang0 on March 04, 2008, 19:40

I'm curious what kind of editorial usage nudes could be used for?

None, unless it's Playboy.

But people use that to be "able" to sell without a release. In theory a buyer can use it for editorial purposes, but it's more likely he will use it for personal pleasure only. "Editorial" is a term that has been abused for "I don't have a release but I want to sell it anyway".

These are mostly snapshootish nudes. More artistic ones almost always have a model release.

Regards,
Adelaide

vonkara · « **Reply #84 on:** March 05, 2008, 16:33 »

There's a very interesting tread on DT about all copyrights and trademarks situation. I don't read it completely because there is a lot of pages. But I will do. Here's the link

http://www.dreamstime.com/forumm_148_pg1

cwwmbm · « **Reply #85 on:** March 06, 2008, 14:07 »

Quote from: hatman12 on March 02, 2008, 16:57

Also last week the 'newness' element of the best match equation was changed to give newer files a higher placement in search results.

This 'newness' component changes four or five times each year, which is why you'll see remarks like "Oh, it's nice to see some of my old files selling again" or "Why do my new files not get any views or sales?".

How do you know that?

thesentinel · « **Reply #86 on:** March 06, 2008, 16:05 »

Quote from: cwwmbm on March 06, 2008, 14:07

Quote from: hatman12 on March 02, 2008, 16:57
Also last week the 'newness' element of the best match equation was changed to give newer files a higher placement in search results.

This 'newness' component changes four or five times each year, which is why you'll see remarks like "Oh, it's nice to see some of my old files selling again" or "Why do my new files not get any views or sales?".
How do you know that?

Sort your own portfolio by Best Match and you can see the changes in the Force