Author Topic: Istock took away one of my Pics (Read 8299 times)

LSD72 · « **on:** January 28, 2010, 20:03 »

Warning: a little rant

They took this one down originally for being a Motorola Razr.

So I sent them a email back explaining it's a Sanyo Katana.

They reply:

"Thank you for the reply.

We have carefully reviewed the matter and understand this is not the RAZR, however after much consideration and as it is a product shot we feel at this time that we cannot accept it due to trademark concerns."

So I just ended it with:
"This is nice to know because just a quick review of keyword "cellphone" returned quite a few Motorola Phones along with other identifiable models. I know because I used to be Level 3 Cell Repair Tech."

So now what? Should I stop uploading cell phones due to this crap. That, to me, is F'ing stupid.

gostwyck · « **Reply #1 on:** January 28, 2010, 20:20 »

Quote from: LSD72 on January 28, 2010, 20:03

So now what? Should I stop uploading cell phones due to this crap. That, to me, is F'ing stupid.

Yes. Like they said, it's a 'product shot', pure & simple, and as such may have have copyright implications. Don't forget they are guaranteeing the buyer up to $250K damages in the event of a legal issue.

Would you be prepared to indemnify the buyer out of your own pocket for a similar amount for the sake of a few $ sales? You'd have to be "F'ing stupid" if you were.

LSD72 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 28, 2010, 20:25 »

Apparently they are prepared... They do have Motorolas left up. If they are that worried... then why. The Motorola V635 seems to be popular to upload there.

vonkara · « **Reply #3 on:** January 28, 2010, 20:30 »

I have medal images. One day the company or the design owner could see this. Then they may say, hey that's our products we don't want Istock to sell them. It could be the same for xmas decoration or even a specific brand of banana.

The diference between action taken and ignoring is how the companies are able to sue everyone for protecting their design/image/brand IMO.

If any of my medals are removed one day, I go clean the floor at Burger King

MichaelJay · « **Reply #4 on:** January 29, 2010, 02:57 »

Quote from: LSD72 on January 28, 2010, 20:25

Apparently they are prepared... They do have Motorolas left up. If they are that worried... then why. The Motorola V635 seems to be popular to upload there.

Images are being removed constantly. I had two shots with a Blackberry removed last year and they were not pure product shots, the Blackberries were prominently in the image, though. Product shot images have become a problem over the years, and images that look very similar to one specific product will not survive in the long term.

So what? As a contributor I only have two choices: Get angry about it, let it ruin my day, stop creating new images, stop uploading them? Or get over it quickly and change to topics that are no problem to upload, that sell and make more money for myself?

cathyslife · « **Reply #5 on:** January 29, 2010, 07:40 »

Quote

Or get over it quickly and change to topics that are no problem to upload, that sell and make more money for myself?

The problem is...it's fast becoming difficult to photograph any kind of topic because everything seems to be copyrighted. I had a shot rejected once...it was a young girl dancing, holding an mp3 player (couldn't see it, it was in her hand) with earbuds. Her hair covered most of the earbuds. The subject was the girl dancing. In relation to the overall size of the image, the earbuds were a drop in the bucket...and yet it was rejected because the earbuds were "identifiable". It was not a product shot.

I totally understand the OPs rant. And yes, he probably will get over it and find other things to shoot. I got over it and found other things to shoot...food. So far, that hasn't been copyrighted. Only a matter of time, I suppose...

donding · « **Reply #6 on:** January 29, 2010, 10:09 »

You know that is really a scary thought. The more they restrick the more concepts will be lost. How else can you convey communication but through phone...or computer. The laptop creator...not brand...could sue you for their "design" of the laptop. It really only opens the doors for more vector type images. What are the buyers to do if they don't like vectors....maybe I need to learn vectors.

LSD72 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 29, 2010, 11:43 »

Quote

I totally understand the OPs rant. And yes, he probably will get over it and find other things to shoot. I got over it and found other things to shoot...food. So far, that hasn't been copyrighted. Only a matter of time, I suppose...

That is until they pull them for the bowls or plates design.

My feeling I have on it was... I proved that their original reason for pulling my image was wrong but they wont put it back. I hated that in the Government Jobs I have had in different levels. Prove the Boss is wrong and their Boss just wont change whatever happened...because the Bosses think the lowly worker does not know what they are doing. I refuse do Government work at any level now.

As far as the choices laid out by MJ. I am not leaving what money I got there. I will still try to get things approved.. at least until I reach payout there. Then I will probably stop worrying about appeasing their process.

cathyslife · « **Reply #8 on:** January 29, 2010, 13:33 »

Quote

I proved that their original reason for pulling my image was wrong but they wont put it back.

I totally know what you mean. I do also know that most of the sites are trying to clean up their act, and with millions of photos, I am sure it is a monumental job that is going to take time.

donding · « **Reply #9 on:** January 29, 2010, 14:24 »

Wonder what happens to the images they feel are copyright infringement that have sold over and over again. I think I remember awhile back that someone here on the forum had Fotolia charging someone's account for having copyright images that had sold, then they removed the image....I am remembering right?

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #10 on:** January 29, 2010, 16:52 »

Quote from: LSD72 on January 29, 2010, 11:43

That is until they pull them for the bowls or plates design.
.

You're joking... however... another of Getty's children (StockXpert) just shot me down on a dining room table ... they wanted a property release.

=tom

cascoly · « **Reply #11 on:** January 31, 2010, 12:24 »

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on January 29, 2010, 16:52

Quote from: LSD72 on January 29, 2010, 11:43

That is until they pull them for the bowls or plates design.
.

You're joking... however... another of Getty's children (StockXpert) just shot me down on a dining room table ... they wanted a property release. =tom

no joke -- plate designs are copyrighted, that's why most sites urge sellers to use plain colored plates

usng designs on plates also reduces the range of uses if the main emphasis is the food

steve

donding · « **Reply #12 on:** January 31, 2010, 12:33 »

I think all the agencies are starting to get picker and picker about copyright designs. Some of it seems really absurd. I had a picture of a document from the 1800 hundreds. It was a close up shot of a will. It clearly showed the date on it but not visable names. One of the agencies...don't remember which one...rejected it for copyright infringment

stormchaser · « **Reply #13 on:** January 31, 2010, 20:19 »

Quote from: cascoly on January 31, 2010, 12:24

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on January 29, 2010, 16:52
Quote from: LSD72 on January 29, 2010, 11:43

That is until they pull them for the bowls or plates design.
.

You're joking... however... another of Getty's children (StockXpert) just shot me down on a dining room table ... they wanted a property release. =tom

no joke -- plate designs are copyrighted, that's why most sites urge sellers to use plain colored plates

usng designs on plates also reduces the range of uses if the main emphasis is the food

steve

This is true. I try and buy all plain jane stuff (dishers and glassware) at the dollar store.

On dining out - if you try and shoot food at the local TGI Friday's, you'll get bounced for the red and white stripes on the tables (Trade Dress). And it doesn't stop there. One cupcake baker (the name escapes me) claims trademark on their frosting and decorating. I think (not sure) they are a boutique baker perhaps in Texas. If you search the iStock wiki, it's in there somewhere. Signature dishes by renowned chefs may also be subject to design rights. And don't ever try and sell a pic of a Sylvia Weinstock wedding cake for stock. You're just asking for trouble there.

elvinstar · « **Reply #14 on:** January 31, 2010, 21:24 »

Quote

shot me down on a dining room table ... they wanted a property release.

I've had the same problem.

fadedbeauty · « **Reply #15 on:** February 01, 2010, 10:49 »

Enforcement of items being copyrighted seems to be very random on some of these sites. As an example, if you search "laptop" on iStock the first image that comes up clearly appears to be a macbook, yet it is on there and has been downloaded something like 12,000 times.

With my personal experience the item I have had rejected the most for copyright issues is cars. Even after all branding has been removed I think the only car shots I have ever had accepted were of a classic Mustang and one of a 60s Corvette. The rejection rate was so high and the amount of editing needed for isolating and removing branding took so long that I gave up on submitting that particular subject. Istock has never accepted a car shot from me.

jen · « **Reply #16 on:** February 08, 2010, 11:38 »

iStock rejected one of my photos with a yellow pillow in it because "Spongebob Squarepants is a trademarked character." I still laugh about that one, though I was pretty embarrassed that they thought I was dumb enough to upload a picture of Spongebob Squarepants.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Istock took away one of my Pics (Read 8299 times)

LSD72

gostwyck

LSD72

vonkara

MichaelJay

cathyslife

donding

LSD72

cathyslife

donding

a.k.a.-tom

cascoly

donding

stormchaser

elvinstar

fadedbeauty

jen

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors