Evolving Intellectual Property Standards

of 5Next page
Displaying 1 to 20 of 96 matches.
sylvanworksCLOSED
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember has had a File Of The WeekMember has been inducted into the iStockphoto Hall of Fame.
Posted Wed Mar 31, 2010 3:57PM
The Content Team is constantly going through the collection and removing content that is potentially high risk. This has been happening for years. When we deactivate content it is to protect the buyer, the photographer and iStock and we take no pleasure in removing files. These sorts of deactivations are done by a select and small team of content admins with a specific brief. Remember, as with all shots containing some type of manufactured product, the context is key.

As a general rule of thumb when creating new content for stock, use only very generic subject matter, do your research, and when possible secure a property release. The more a given shot resembles a "product shot" the higher the risk there could be a problem with it down the road. Keep this in mind as you choose subjects, plan, and produce new work.

It looks like it is time to have a refresher on the 3 part series of articles released on IP standards:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Also, keep this in the context of the Legal Guarantee.

If you receive a deactivation notice it will contain instructions for how you can get more information. Specific cases can not be discussed in the forums, so please do as requested and follow up with Contributor Relations.
shank_ali
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusiveMember has won a contest
Posted Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:03PM

Thanks.


You do get a surprise when you get these deactivation site mails,especially if those files have attracted some sales.


Please don't send any tomorrow !
JJRD
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer SpotlightMember has had a File Of The WeekMask of the Diablo Azul - Member has won between 1 and 3 Steel Cage matchesMember has been inducted into the iStockphoto Hall of Fame.
Posted Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:03PM
And no, don't worry ; there is nothing ''major'' in the works nor any ''secret agenda''... just a heads up in light of a recent move that we had to do; thanks.
Box5
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:12PM
Will the Technical Wiki be updated soon? I thought that was our (contributors) source for IP standards. It seams important policy changes like these should be documented in a single place.
slobo
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:15PM

both admin posts are in contradiction to what I am experiencing. There is a move to clean collection from guitar images in particular. It looks exactly the same as with cars and cruise ships for which we had announcements and explanations. In both of those cases there are rules and guidance as to what is "risky" and what is safe. Not in the latest case.


I did follow the suggested "artist" email after deactivation and got reworded deactivation email reason. That is not more information. More information is to tell me (us) criteria used to deactivate and reject guitar images. We may choose to deactivate ourselves and even more importantly to not upload more of those "risky" images.
JJRD
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer SpotlightMember has had a File Of The WeekMask of the Diablo Azul - Member has won between 1 and 3 Steel Cage matchesMember has been inducted into the iStockphoto Hall of Fame.
Posted Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:21PM

Posted By slobo:

both admin posts are in contradiction to what I am experiencing. There is a move to clean collection from guitar images in particular. It looks exactly the same as with cars and cruise ships for which we had announcements and explanations. In both of those cases there are rules and guidance as to what is "risky" and what is safe. Not in the latest case.


I did follow the suggested "artist" email after deactivation and got reworded deactivation email reason. That is not more information. More information is to tell me (us) criteria used to deactivate and reject guitar images. We may choose to deactivate ourselves and even more importantly to not upload more of those "risky" images.

There are things we can address in public, others we can't.

There are moments when things can wait, others in which things can't wait.

And apologies, really... but that's as clear as this one is going to get at this very moment.

Thanks.

(Edited on 2010-03-31 16:21:34 by JJRD)
slobo
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:28PM
Posted By JJRD:


And apologies, really... but that's as clear as this one is going to get at this very moment.

ok, but I am sure you expected people to raise questions?
sjlocke
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Flash downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Flash ArtistExclusive iStockphoto VideographerMember has had a File Of The Week
Posted Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:47PM
I'm not sure why expecting an announcement about certain issues is out of line. Just say 'We were contacted by X company with concerns about their trademarked design. Because of this...'. I don't know why that would be top secret. It's in our best interests to know what to avoid.
kelvinjay
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has won a contestForum Moderator
Posted Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:56PM

If there is a problem with some guitar manufacturers who have become more litigious, then is it not possible to simply tell us which ones, so we can avoid shooting and uploading images of any that use or look like they may use their designs? Other brands such as Harley and Apple are named in the wiki as ones to avoid, so could iStock not do the same thing here and name which one is causing problem? Surely not all shots of all kinds of guitar are now off limits, just because they look like product shots.


I don't see how legal toes can be stepped on by telling us which brand or brands we need to avoid. If this is just a swift reaction from iStock to a specific and immediate problem, can we at least expect some more specific info in the future about which guitars are not allowed?
pixhook
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsExclusiveAwarded to fabulous photographers with more than 100,000 downloads
Posted Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:39PM
My guitar images have been gutted, am I the only one????
Purdue9394
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Mar 31, 2010 6:43PM
Posted By pixhook:
My guitar images have been gutted, am I the only one????

Nope
hatman12
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsExclusiveRecognizing those who reach the 100,000 download mark
Posted Wed Mar 31, 2010 6:58PM
I'm not a lawyer, but I'll guess that no mention can be made of which manufacturers or even which type of products might be borderline or over the border for copyright infringement, because an acknowledgement of that fact might be construed as an admission of guilt and thus open the gates for a compensation claim.
kelvinjay
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has won a contestForum Moderator
Posted Wed Mar 31, 2010 7:02PM
Posted By hatman12:
I'm not a lawyer, but I'll guess that no mention can be made of which manufacturers or even which type of products might be borderline or over the border for copyright infringement, because an acknowledgement of that fact might be construed as an admission of guilt and thus open the gates for a compensation claim.



Sorry, I just don't see how that can be true. How could making a statement such as " We are not able to accept images that are of, or appear to be of XXXXX brand guitars" be taken as an admission of guilt? The wiki mentions loads of makes and marques that we cannot upload, what's the difference?

(Edited on 2010-03-31 19:04:22 by kelvinjay)
sylvanworksCLOSED
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember has had a File Of The WeekMember has been inducted into the iStockphoto Hall of Fame.
Posted Wed Mar 31, 2010 7:10PM
Right now, this is what we can tell you. We're really not trying to make this harder than it has to be. Sometimes things just are what they are.
Purdue9394
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Mar 31, 2010 7:15PM
iStock is always going to err on the side of being too cautious when it comes to liability. Any corporation does. Obviously, they feel there is enough potential risk that they have decided to make a move. There are tons of "product" shots of household appliances, tools, etc on here that the company that owns the design could one day decide to contact iStock to let them know their washing machine/toaster/LCD TV design is off limits. What do you think iStock would then?

It is an interesting contrast that we are a community of artists that would move to vigorously protect our IP rights when our images are being copied or used on a website with a watermark are all too willing to trample on the IP rights of a corporation.  Please note that I am not singling anyone out here and I also realize that some content in my own portfolio (like many others) has content that could be considered a "product" shot for a given subject.

(Edited on 2010-03-31 20:05:20 by Purdue9394)
kelvinjay
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has won a contestForum Moderator
Posted Wed Mar 31, 2010 7:29PM
Posted By sylvanworks:
Right now, this is what we can tell you. We're really not trying to make this harder than it has to be. Sometimes things just are what they are.


Cheers Rob. It still sound a bit ridiculous to me that we can't specifically be told which brands we're not allowed to upload, but I hope some guidance and detail will be made public as soon as they can be. I just feel sorry for the vast majority of contributors who likely won't see these threads and will continue to spend hours creating images to be sold here featuring guitars that iStock can't accept.

(Edited on 2010-03-31 19:30:29 by kelvinjay)
sylvanworksCLOSED
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember has had a File Of The WeekMember has been inducted into the iStockphoto Hall of Fame.
Posted Wed Mar 31, 2010 7:35PM
Understood. We're painfully aware of that reality too.
stacey_newman
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloads
Posted Wed Mar 31, 2010 7:46PM
why not at least post a public note about this on the upload page? I don't shoot guitars, but I know how long I spend processing. if I did that kind of work only to find the rules had quietly changed, how discouraging...
sylvanworksCLOSED
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember has had a File Of The WeekMember has been inducted into the iStockphoto Hall of Fame.
Posted Wed Mar 31, 2010 7:54PM
Done. Though I suspect this forum gets more eyeballs than the xnet blog.
stacey_newman
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloads
Posted Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:09PM
thanks for doing what you can do Rob...hopefully it helps someone. I often check the xnet blog before uploading...
This thread has been locked.
of 5Next page
Displaying 1 to 20 of 96 matches.
Not a member?Join
Cart (0)