Deactivation for logo on main focus

I had about 40 images of shops signs deactivated for this reason... I thought that it applies to isolated logos only, not to store signs.


One of them was even in Istock's front page and now it's deactivated?





 

I had 3 of these too.

There was an update in this month's contributor news . As always, the standards evolve constantly. We require logos in greater context and images that does not fall within this criteria will be deactivated.

Thanks Henk,


So this applies to all photos like these ones? (see examples below)














 


 

Yes, the examples you have is too close up, does not show the shops at all, just showing the logos. If you had more of the buildings/shops viewable, it will add more context and make the image not just about the logo but actually the shop and the location where this logo is.


 

Yes. Its a shame. I spent an afternoon a year or so ago driving around just shooting signs. LOL

The good part is that between then and now enough have sold to pay for my time and then some before the deactivation.

Nothing is static in this business, being so very fluid. Make that quick buck while it last.

Just got notice that three very useful logos were deactivated from the library.Will need to go back and see if i shot them wider.....

Me too, I just came here looking for a solution and found I am not the only one.  I had the close-up sign of The Cheesecake Facotry deactivated while the entire restaurant image was not.

Feel free to share your images. Will give us an idea what to look for to avoid in the future

(Edited on 2012-11-05 08:31:06 by subman)

Here is my image.


 


I have another for PF Chang I am sure will be deactivated soon.

Just had this one deactivated. Not thrilled, but based on the notes above, I guess I see why.





Gives me an opportunity to go back and get a better sky.

/
/I have had three images deactivated,


While I accept the rule, I am puzzled at the inconstancy of its implementation of the rule.





 

Posted By wcjohnston: 



I agree. I recently had some car logos deactivated for this reason, but when I look through the newly accepted editorail images, I see multiple car logo images still being accepted. That's including exclusive brands which are supposed to be more protective about their brand.


EDIT: To illustrate, this one was just deactivated


 


But when I look into the "Big Brands" lightbox promoted by iStock on the Editorial landing page I see a lot of similar images. I understand that it takes time to deactivte all the images that are affected by the new policy. But simultaneously deactivating one image and promoting another image for the same reason ("Big Brand" company logo) seems strange to me.

(Edited on 2013-04-03 06:42:41 by Sjo)

Please could we get some more clarity on this - the editorial rules are already pretty complex, it would be good to have a better idea of what's OK and what's not with brands and logos.


I've now had quite a few strong sellers deactivated for 'Logo (isolated/main focus)'.  Seems when it happens, lots of similar files are deactivated, and lots of similar files stay up.  I know there's the argument that people could have got a property release, but that seems unlikely in these cases.



16077486 - search for 'McDonalds sign blue sky'.  There are many images that (to my eyes) look at least as isolated as this.  If there's a legal risk here, should those contributors be warned?



16060213.  Searching for 'Starbucks cup', again I can't see how this is the main focus any more than dozens of the results of that search.


Finding it's difficult to learn what the standards are when I can't see what's making some files acceptable, and others not.


Thanks

Both examples, pretty much all examples here are isolated trademark or copyrighted items and needs to be shown in a greater context to be acceptable in the Editorial collection. We are continually going through the collection and apply the new standards.

OK, thanks subman.  Guess I need to update my idea of what isolated means.

Ahhh - sorry for being slow on the uptake, I get it now.

Just noticed a single inspector account with not only multiple isolated editorial images of McDonalds and Starbucks logos, but also dozens upon dozens of other individual, isolated logos (including Coca-Cola, Mercedes, Samsung, Apple, John Deere, Nikon... you name it).

So I was being naive - I think I now have a better understanding of what the deactivations are about.

/
/



Conspiracy theories aren't going to fly around here George. The process of logo's is an ongoing process, if you aren't sure about the guidelines of what is acceptable or not, please refer to the guidelines or pop me a sitemail.


As for content that does not fit the guidelines and are live, there are as  per usual channels to follow as how to report that like CR. Nothing wrong with being naive, but your understanding of deactivations is not correctly interpreted.

(Edited on 2013-04-30 03:55:19 by subman)

sorry subman, I gotta agree with george here.  I've just received deactivation notices for these three file...


  


 


 


Yet a search for "Google" turns up 25 pages of similar stuff, where the third top seller (just the Logo itself with a magnifying glass over it, no building at all) is owned by an inspector.  Something smells here.

Nothing smells, we are currently reviewing our content and removing files that no longer meet our guidelines