Author Topic: Images rejected - trademark / intellectual property, any1 knows why? (Read 10325 times)

nd3000 · « **on:** May 16, 2017, 14:53 »

Dear fellow microstockers,

I have a rather unique question. Many images from this set were rejected and to narrow down the reason i am posting the one that basically indicates what the intellectual /trademark rejection cause should be:

https://snag.gy/Adea3N.jpg

Is it the "fender guitar"?

As far as I know fender is not a trademark, not even the shape of it.

http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/fender-loses-guitar-copyright-case-201886

Appreciate any help,

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** May 16, 2017, 14:55 »

http://wiki.gettyimages.com/instruments-stringed-unique-designs/

cathyslife · « **Reply #2 on:** May 16, 2017, 14:59 »

I didnt see any visible logos, but maybe there is one somewhere? Basically, though, it doesnt matter what a court case says...if the agency doesnt want to worry about a hassle, they will reject the image. Also, bear in mind that a lot of reviewers have no idea about the "rules". You could email them and see if you can get a more definitive answer, but don't hold your breath.

nd3000 · « **Reply #3 on:** May 16, 2017, 15:01 »

I get it that getty has that policy but clearly there is evidence that fender is not a trademark. Oh how I wish contributors could go and open a discussion with reviewers and not have to wait for a month to get a reply and another one to get a replay to the answer...

dpimborough · « **Reply #4 on:** May 16, 2017, 16:23 »

Quote from: nd3000 on May 16, 2017, 14:53

Dear fellow microstockers,

I have a rather unique question. Many images from this set were rejected and to narrow down the reason i am posting the one that basically indicates what the intellectual /trademark rejection cause should be:

https://snag.gy/Adea3N.jpg

Is it the "fender guitar"?

As far as I know fender is not a trademark, not even the shape of it.

http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/fender-loses-guitar-copyright-case-201886

Appreciate any help,

Did you use the word "Fender" in your keywords or description?

If you did then that will be the problem as I doubt any reviewer could tell that was a fender

nd3000 · « **Reply #5 on:** May 16, 2017, 19:38 »

Nope, just the word guitar, didnt even specify electric to be honest. Istock did reject them, but that I sortof expected. What if I have proof that its not a real fender, it a Chinese copy, it turned out:)

Oh well, will give it a try and some may be lucky to pass...btw note to people around here who might care: fender did not manage to copyright its guitars and the shapes as whole but did succeed to copyright headstocks of its guitars. Its exactly that part that gave it away that this is not a real one.

Way too much time invested in studying guitars today:)

HAve a nice one everyone,

JetCityImage · « **Reply #6 on:** May 17, 2017, 07:09 »

I believe that it is solely because you can identify the guitar as a Fender Telecaster by the headstock.

Artist · « **Reply #7 on:** May 17, 2017, 07:21 »

Same case happened with one of my designs which was accepted in all agencies except for shutterstock. Rejection reason trademark / intellectual property

Same theme designs were already live in ss but they rejected mine. I have no time to do research asking them the reason, instead I moved forward in creating new ones.

unnonimus · « **Reply #8 on:** May 22, 2017, 09:23 »

copyrights protect artistic works (drawings, paintings, literature, photos, movies, etc). they do not protect anything that has utility (the shape of a guitar). guitars are not creative works. guitar shapes are NOT protected by copyright.

trademarks protect brand names and sources of manufacture or services. they do NOT protect guitar shapes.

the image should not have been rejected.

JetCityImage · « **Reply #9 on:** May 22, 2017, 09:52 »

"Fender protects headstock shapes, and especially those of the iconic STRATOCASTER and TELECASTER models."

cathyslife · « **Reply #10 on:** May 22, 2017, 10:39 »

Quote from: unnonimus on May 22, 2017, 09:23

copyrights protect artistic works (drawings, paintings, literature, photos, movies, etc). they do not protect anything that has utility (the shape of a guitar). guitars are not creative works. guitar shapes are NOT protected by copyright.

trademarks protect brand names and sources of manufacture or services. they do NOT protect guitar shapes.

the image should not have been rejected.

See post #2. What you think, I think, or anyone else thinks the copyright law is, is irrelevant.
If an agency doesn't want your image, it is their perogative.

Move on, it's not worth fretting over. Not for pennies, for sure.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #11 on:** May 22, 2017, 12:24 »

Quote from: unnonimus on May 22, 2017, 09:23

copyrights protect artistic works (drawings, paintings, literature, photos, movies, etc). they do not protect anything that has utility (the shape of a guitar). guitars are not creative works. guitar shapes are NOT protected by copyright.

trademarks protect brand names and sources of manufacture or services. they do NOT protect guitar shapes.

the image should not have been rejected.

Could you please quote the law or specific case that clarifies that guitars are not creative works? Or is this your own interpretation of the law?

DallasP · « **Reply #12 on:** May 22, 2017, 15:34 »

Quote from: unnonimus on May 22, 2017, 09:23

copyrights protect artistic works (drawings, paintings, literature, photos, movies, etc). they do not protect anything that has utility (the shape of a guitar). guitars are not creative works. guitar shapes are NOT protected by copyright.

trademarks protect brand names and sources of manufacture or services. they do NOT protect guitar shapes.

the image should not have been rejected.

uhm ... doesn't Coca Cola have a trademark/copyright on THE SHAPE OF THE EFFING BOTTLE?! Are you just going around arguing copyrights and trademarks with everyone? Are you a lawyer?

noodle · « **Reply #13 on:** May 22, 2017, 17:09 »

Quote from: DallasP on May 22, 2017, 15:34

Quote from: unnonimus on May 22, 2017, 09:23
copyrights protect artistic works (drawings, paintings, literature, photos, movies, etc). they do not protect anything that has utility (the shape of a guitar). guitars are not creative works. guitar shapes are NOT protected by copyright.

trademarks protect brand names and sources of manufacture or services. they do NOT protect guitar shapes.

the image should not have been rejected.
Are you a lawyer?

thats pretty funny

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #14 on:** May 22, 2017, 23:19 »

Quote from: DallasP on May 22, 2017, 15:34

Quote from: unnonimus on May 22, 2017, 09:23
copyrights protect artistic works (drawings, paintings, literature, photos, movies, etc). they do not protect anything that has utility (the shape of a guitar). guitars are not creative works. guitar shapes are NOT protected by copyright.

trademarks protect brand names and sources of manufacture or services. they do NOT protect guitar shapes.

the image should not have been rejected.

uhm ... doesn't Coca Cola have a trademark/copyright on THE SHAPE OF THE EFFING BOTTLE?! Are you just going around arguing copyrights and trademarks with everyone? Are you a lawyer?

He took a wrong turn somewhere, when looking for microlawyersgroup.com

trek · « **Reply #15 on:** May 23, 2017, 10:30 »

Study material:

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/contributor-resources/legal/stock-photo-restrictions/

JetCityImage · « **Reply #16 on:** May 23, 2017, 11:26 »

"Images of isolated Rickenbacker, Gibson, and Fender Guitars are unacceptable for commercial use."

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #17 on:** May 23, 2017, 20:52 »

Quote from: JetCityImage on May 22, 2017, 09:52

"Fender protects headstock shapes, and especially those of the iconic STRATOCASTER and TELECASTER models."

OP post is clearly a Strat, head shape, modern one with the dual string trees.

Why do forum lawyers, who work as art slaves, know the obvious and the agency is just a bunch of dumb professionals, with degrees, who don't understand the law?

unnonimus · « **Reply #18 on:** May 29, 2017, 06:04 »

copyrights do not protect the physical object (such as a book), they protect what is printed in the book. they do not protect guitars either.

trademarks only protect brand names. they do not protect the shape of a bottle or the shape of a guitar.

photorobot · « **Reply #19 on:** May 29, 2017, 06:12 »

What if the physical object is a car or a sculpture?

unnonimus · « **Reply #20 on:** May 29, 2017, 06:19 »

IP protection for cars fall under patent law.

scultptures are copyrightable because they are not produced for utilitarian reasons, people just look at sculptures.

guitars are produced for a utilitarian reason, to play music. the design can be patented but not copyrighted.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #21 on:** May 29, 2017, 06:28 »

http://www.trademarkandcopyrightlawblog.com/2016/03/the-coca-cola-bottle-in-europe-no-fluting-no-distinctiveness/ Well its a matter of legal opinion and is based on individual cases not sweeping generalisations.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #22 on:** May 29, 2017, 08:13 »

I believe fender's headstock is trademarked, though they have failed to trademark the fender bodyshape because there are too many similar guitars out there now.

In any case as said by everyone every time it comes up. Their house their rules, there's no point playing internet lawyer saying what the agency should have done, if it is against their policy they can reject as they see fit. It is only worth complaining if a reviewer has screwed up and rejected against the stated policy of the agency. The fender headstock thing has been a no no in stock forever.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #23 on:** May 29, 2017, 08:17 »

Quote from: unnonimus on May 29, 2017, 06:19

...scultptures are copyrightable because they are not produced for utilitarian reasons, people just look at sculptures

guitars are produced for a utilitarian reason, to play music. the design can be patented but not copyrighted.

A fender headstock has a utility value no different to any other shaped head stock. It is an artistic flourish. A statue in a fountain is still protected by copyright even though it is part of a utilitarian structure (assuming this fountain is there to provide water to people rather than one just for decoration). Not that this is relevant to getting the photo accepted, but as we are flapping our gums over here.

unnonimus · « **Reply #24 on:** June 01, 2017, 19:06 »

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about FENDER guitars that are trademarked. the Getty WIKI is 100% wrong.

The only source for valid trademark registrations is the US Patent and Trademark Office.

There are 80 results for Fender. About 5 of the "Fender" trademarks are for the Fender guitar company for audio equipment.

The trademarks that are registered are for the WORD MARK "Fender". NOT for the design or shape of the Guitar.

Word Mark FENDER
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Guitar cables. FIRST USE: 19650000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19650000
IC 015. US 002 021 036. G & S: Capos; Cases for musical instruments; Guitar accessories, namely, guitar slides; Guitar picks; Guitar straps; Guitar strings. FIRST USE: 19650000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19650000

Getty's Wiki is NOT a source for whether something is trademarked or not. They are completely wrong.

the case "U of Alabama vs Daniel Moore" has upheld that phtoographers can sell photos, for profit, that contain trademarks and copyrights.

stock agencies are wrong to rejected these images for alleged copyright or trademark violations.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Images rejected - trademark / intellectual property, any1 knows why? (Read 10325 times)

nd3000

Sean Locke Photography

cathyslife

nd3000

dpimborough

nd3000

JetCityImage

Artist

unnonimus

JetCityImage

cathyslife

SpaceStockFootage

DallasP

noodle

SpaceStockFootage

trek

JetCityImage

YadaYadaYada

unnonimus

photorobot

unnonimus

Pauws99

Justanotherphotographer

Justanotherphotographer

unnonimus

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors