Introduction to Microstock Photography – Copyrights and Trademarks
Table of contents for Microstock Photography
In this post I will begin to discuss the types of things that will result in a rejection. There are a number of things that will result in a rejection that include
- Copyrights
- Noise
- Focus
- Framing
- Bad lighting
- Not stock worthy
- Similar images
- Releases
Over the next several posts I will discuss all of these in depth. At the end of this series I will include a number of sample images. Today, however, I will touch on the extremely lengthy subject of copyright protection. I will begin by saying that this is an extremely complicated subject that I know little about. For instance, I’m not exactly sure what the differences are between trademarks and copyrights. However, I suspect that most of us don’t really care. What we do care about is whether we can sell a given picture. Therefore I will simplify this discussion into what you can sell photographs of, and what you cannot.
To begin with, copyrights are a sure way to get a photo rejected. Most sites are very consistent and strict in this regard – so it is a good idea to learn something about it so you do not waste your time taking photographs that will never be accepted. So what can you not sell pictures of – in a simple word – something that someone else has put a decent amount of money into and considers to be their own.
A primary example of this is a logo. Logos are all around us and are an essential part of branding. Companies like Coca-Cola, Mercedes, and clothing companies put tremendous amounts of money into creating and protecting their logos. Any image that contains these logos cannot be sold – unless you sell it as editorial stock. Most photographers would not try to sell a photo of a coca cola bottle, but a street scene containing a store with a coca cola logo is a different matter. This must be constantly taken into account with street and city scenes. Logos are everywhere – over and on shops, imprinted on buildings (hotel logos) and on city buses. When taking these scenes, you should always keep this in mind. However, also learn that the clone tool in Photoshop is your best friend.
Another area that many beginning photographers miss is clothing. A picture of a model running through grass wearing an NFL sweatshirt is bound to be rejected. The same is true for any branded shirt. When photographing models, make sure they do not wear any clothing with obvious branding.
Other brands are less obvious. Most sites will not accept pictures of cars – because the contour of the cars themselves are copyrighted. This also follows for pictures of cruise ships. Cruise companies spend millions on the design and look of their cruise ships and experts can often determine the exact ship from a single picture of the boat.
Buildings are even more confusing. First, you must know that a number of buildings and parts of buildings are copyrighted – here is a list to start out with. Examples of copyrighted buildings include the following
- Chrysler Tower in New York
- Seattle Space Needle
- Sydney Opera House
- Eiffel Tower (but only at night)
- Many Museums (interiors and sometimes exteriors)
- Any Frank Lloyd Wright building
- Modern sculptures
This is just a small representation of what is copyrighted. However, if you photograph a copyrighted building, you cannot sell the picture. A major exception to this rule is city skylines. If the copyrighted building is not the main subject of the picture but is instead contained with other buildings, then you can sell the picture. I have noticed that some reviewers do not know this rule and I have occasionally resubmitted images with a note about this. Nowadays though reviewers are generally very well informed about copyrights. Note that sometimes copyrighted buildings may be sold as editorial stock, but you will receive far fewer sales.
While buildings are certainly the most confusing and logos are obvious, there are other things that are considered copyrighted that you may not sell pictures from.
Stamps for instance, are copyrighted if unused. If the stamp is used you may sell a picture of it.
Building interiors are often copyrighted by the owners. The general rule with houses (interior or exterior) is that if the picture makes the house identifiable, it cannot be sold without a property release. There seems to be a wide legal range with this rule and as a result most stock sites (with Shutterstock and IStockPhoto being notable exclusions) do not allow any pictures of interiors. Interestingly enough – they also do not have the ability to accept property releases.
Finally, some things are technically copyrighted but stock images are in wide supply. For instance, the Canadian government has copyrighted their currency – resulting in many very interesting court cases. However, stock images seem to be in large supply still of Canadian currency and thus no stock agencies respect this ruling. Another example is the pyramids of Egypt – which Egypt has supposedly copyrighted. However, the large number of stock images available of the pyramids leads me to suspect that it is not heeded.
This is just a tiny primer about copyrights. When you sign up for IStockPhoto, they have a good learning section on it that you must go through in order to join. For corner cases that are not obvious the reviewers at IStockPhoto will generally be nice and tell you exactly what about your picture is copyrighted.
No related posts.
Tags: copyright, microstock, photography, stock, trademark