Jump to content
Rayna Ramsay

Rejection reasons incorrect - Trademarks? What trademarks?

Recommended Posts

Hi, I have submitted lots of images and some are being rejected for "visible trademarks or logos" this one i really want to go WTF at because, these photos are taken from the road and do not have any visible l;ogos as far as i am aware. 

Most of these are abandoned buildings.   

 

Can someone please explain why these could be rejected for trademark? 

 

I also have panorama of the city and a portrait of the skytower in Auklcnad, New Zealand. The only trademark i could think of is the name of the building on the building i.e ANZ building or a resturant. 

 

Any advice will be good. 

 

FWH (12 of 12).jpg

FWH (11 of 12).jpg

FWH (7 of 12).jpg

Gisbourne (3 of 20).jpg

Okay - I could possibly see that this one could be the shoes?  

 

FWH (1 of 12).jpg

Edited by Rayna Ramsay
more information to add

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the buildings were designed by someone and unless you submit them as editorial, you're going to find you're rejected for not respecting the intellectual property rights. The hotel is a distinct private building which would require a property release. Getting buildings through SS without them being editorial or requiring releases is a fine art, but my port will show you it can be done. Focus on the details, not the wide angle shots.

the sign I'm not sure about and you're spot on about the shoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Grummitt said:

the buildings were designed by someone and unless you submit them as editorial, you're going to find you're rejected for not respecting the intellectual property rights. The hotel is a distinct private building which would require a property release. Getting buildings through SS without them being editorial or requiring releases is a fine art, but my port will show you it can be done. Focus on the details, not the wide angle shots.

 the sign I'm not sure about and you're spot on about the shoes.

Thanks for that but when i reaserching through, it said general buildings were fine, you could even shoot a house from the road as long as it wasnt an identifying house (i.e people knew it was at 12 Range Road, Cityland.

Also Where in the world would you get a release from am abandoned shop front that was built in the 1900's.  I am pretty sure the builder is dead and since it is abandoned?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Okay - I could possibly see that this one could be the shoes?  

I do not think it could be the shoes.

But you should look a bit upwards, the shoes are not alone.

You need a MR for this photo.

 

I do not know why everybody fears editorials. My Editorials sell as good (or as bad) as my commercials. 

Submit as editorials and everything is fine.

 

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Photodigital Al said try again. Be sure to check the box for the reviewers declaring the shots have been uploaded before. This should get human eyes on them. Some will get through the second time around if you do that. If that fails try another shot of the same subject from the same series from another angle that may not be as identifiable. If a shot is rejected a multiple times consider cropping the photo so that it is not remotely recognizable and has no text. I have concluded that commercial shots are initially scanned by software that very likely uses algorithms to help approve or reject a shot. Their software must look for any printed text, plus also check for issues such as focus and file size, to determine whether a shot is accepted. Ironically, Dreamstime and other competitors sometimes accept shots rejected by SS and vice versa. Go figure. SS seems to have higher standards. Sometimes after re-reviewing the enlarged photo I agree and sometimes not. I have learned to enlarge all shots in PS to check for the existence of text and good focus before uploading. Most get cropped as well. But get used to the rejection. The better eye you develop (pre and post shoot) the fewer rejections you will have. Hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The buildings are singled-out identifiable property, so it's property release or editorial.

The fisherman has a logo on his shoes, so PS the logo out or it's editorial.  Even then, the quayside is someone's property.  Marginal whether you'd need a model release.

The Auckland skyline is worth re-submitting, but I'd do editorial and move on.

The corrugated wall with the 30 sign seems harsh, worth trying again.  Maybe the 'DLC' threw it (Playstation game), or its the 30 sign that's the problem.

Trademarks rejection seems a little odd, but this includes company names, which you have in a couple, together with logos on road signs.

Good luck next time round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, John Grummitt said:

the buildings were designed by someone and unless you submit them as editorial, you're going to find you're rejected for not respecting the intellectual property rights. The hotel is a distinct private building which would require a property release. Getting buildings through SS without them being editorial or requiring releases is a fine art, but my port will show you it can be done. Focus on the details, not the wide angle shots.

the sign I'm not sure about and you're spot on about the shoes.

The sign has a perforated text on it. I have had many photos rejected because of trademark although it is just a series of letters. For example LPG (Liquified Petroleum Gas). Not a trademark just text. Clone out letters and try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, geogif said:

I do not think it could be the shoes.

But you should look a bit upwards, the shoes are not alone.

You need a MR for this photo.  

and when you get one of those your photo will be rejected because it's got a New Balance log on the side of the shoe. Good luck getting them to sign a property release for their IP!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need to remove all the signs, the inscriptions on the buildings. You have a name there. On the sneaker the Auger logo, you need to erase. Cars can be recognizable. The inscription on the DLC sign is also better to remove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2018 at 2:16 PM, geogif said:

I do not think it could be the shoes.

 

You think wrongly.

There is branding on the shoes visible you can't miss it.

Also in the first one - Whangamomona Hotel - DEFINITELY a brand/trademark!!! As big as an elephant! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, urbazon said:

There is branding on the shoes visible you can't miss it.

That is right.

On the image with the fisherman, the shoes are one of the problems, besides model release.

Three parallel stripes running down on the sides of sweatpants, sleeves of track jackets, windbreaker, sneakers, roller skates, ballet slippers are the Adidas logo

Although, Adidas has sued over clothing and shoes with two stripes or four stripes, patterns with different colors, and types of clothing it doesn’t regularly make.

SS never accepts these images as commercial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rule  of thumb for model releases: imagine showing the image to a person in the image and asking, "Are you in this photo?" If they say, "Yes. That's me there." then you need a model release. They'll be able to do this because they know they were in that place at that time, wearing such and such clothes and with so and so.

We are very adept at identifying ourselves even if, to others, there are no visible distinguishing features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At times (often) rejections do not make sense. I took some photos of the interior of an abandoned house that was trashed by whoever lived there before abandoning the place. Most of the photos were accepted, but there were a few that weren't.  One the accepted photos was of a half bath off the master bedroom. But the full bath off the living room was rejected  without a property release.  Why was one bath room okay, and the other not?? Doesn't make sense.  

@John Orsbun: The no car policy is only when the car is the main focus of the photo.  There is also an age factor, but don't recall exactly what it is.  i have many photos in my port that include cars. Just make sure they are no the subject and any license plate numbers are not visible.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2018 at 1:16 PM, geogif said:

 

I do not know why everybody fears editorials. My Editorials sell as good (or as bad) as my commercials. 

Submit as editorials and everything is fine.

 

 

  

This +100

I also don't understand the editoriaphobia around here 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×