Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

has anyone lately received similar e-mail notification about previously posted and approved content being removed from their PF? I am not debating it's justification, whatsoever,  just wondering how it came about now. Is it perhaps some wider action plan on SS' part now, going back on ports and weed out previously acceptable content which is problematic or outright against trademark regulations etc. now? So here is a quote from the e-mail I received yesterday:

"Please be advised that one or more of your images or clips have been removed due to an existing policy restriction. The Polaroid mark, camera, border logo (a.k.a. instant film frame) and color spectrum are all trademarks of the brand and cannot be accepted for commercial or editorial use. Please refrain from adding Polaroid-related metadata to content in your portfolio as well. For more information, please see Shutterstock’s Known Image Restriction list:...."

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Istvan Balogh said:

Is it perhaps some wider action plan on SS' part now, going back on ports and weed out previously acceptable content which is problematic or outright against trademark regulations etc. now?

I don't know if it has anything to do with the new rules but such actions have been taken in the past too.. The one I remember is when the Harley-Davidson images were taken down from many contributors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Whiteaster said:

I don't know if it has anything to do with the new rules but such actions have been taken in the past too.. The one I remember is when the Harley-Davidson images were taken down from many contributors.

I see. Tx.! Sounds like brand related then. Something must have triggered the "Polaroid" name and...

Actually I would have welcomed it if they were going back with a widely cast net on ports to remove things that don't comply with today's standards. I realise many here will hate me for saying this! But if it could streamline searches and user experience for buyers, why not. One can always hope : ).

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Richard Whitcombe said:

Its possible polaroid has a legal team that regularly searches for their keywords and trademarks.  Other companies do the same and report it.

The UK national trust gestapo did it a few years ago.

I think this is more likely than SS combing profiles randomly.

 

Very possible. Thank you Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW this approach isnt too bad.

Other companies see it as a means of getting cash and rather than doing the above look to send lawyer letters to the contributors.  Recent examples include the mouse based entertainment firm and an airline from a country north of Chicago.

The only issue is some are legit (trade marks etc) and some arent (national trust etc).  But SS takes a VERY conservative view and always sides on the side of the complainant regardless of actual rules and restrictions.

I see SS as too far gone and bloaty now for them to realistically review each portfolio individually no matter how much we'd like to see it cleaned up.  They just let in too much of low quality rubbish for any sensibly sized workforce to sort through.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Richard Whitcombe said:

Its possible polaroid has a legal team that regularly searches for their keywords and trademarks.  Other companies do the same and report it.

The UK national trust gestapo did it a few years ago.

I think this is more likely than SS combing profiles randomly.

 

it also possible that SS got contacted by Polaroid,  after using their trademark in the what to shoot, and got in trouble. i noticed my thread, which i didn't even do for the Polaroid,  got also deleted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, D O-P Photography said:

It's possibly come about because of the thread in this forum after Polaroid was included in the Shot List.  I suspect that highlighted the issue.

which wasn't even the reason i posted that (i assumed it was fine as editorials if SS put it up).  sorry SS for getting you in trouble 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We all participated in the topic. And I asked if someone already reported it... So I am sorry too.😞

But if you read the thread, you will realize that it was also for your better interest that SS took your images down. We discussed the fact that we, the  photographers,  could end up being sued by that company or any company if we use their trademarks in our images. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Evelyn de Waard said:

We all participated in the topic. And I asked if someone already reported it... So I am sorry too.😞

But if you read the thread, you will realize that it was also for your better interest that SS took your images down. We discussed the fact that we, the  photographers,  could end up being sued by that company or any company if we use their trademarks in our images. 

 

Do I understand that there was a thread about Polaroid (and perhaps some other brand(s)) that duscussed prohibited subjects and this thread got deleted for some reason or another and it also brought SS' attention to a potential risk of previously accepted photos with the Polaroid brand!? Not sure, just hard to follow not knowing the history. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, D O-P Photography said:

J-F posted a thread with the current Shot List in. The Shot List however said that Polaroid images are always popular which became a discussion about how they are not actually allowed. The Shot List was subsequently changed to exclude the word Polaroid and the thread was stolen by aliens.

Damn aliens (again!). No wonder that trump wants to set new 25 % tarrifs on all alien goods (rightly so, I might add : ))! The main source of all evil happening to the US rust belt voters! Thanks D O-P. Bottom line, no Polaroid. Who would have thought that a long gone technology can still stir confusion decades later. But when you can copyright a blue color or a phrase, nothing surprise me any more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Istvan Balogh said:

Who would have thought that a long gone technology can still stir confusion decades later. But when you can copyright a blue color or a phrase, nothing surprise me any more.

Shutterstock:

Known Image Restrictions - Brands and Trademarks

Polaroid

  • The Polaroid name, cameras, instant film, classic film border, and color spectrum logo are all trademarked

  • Unacceptable for commercial or editorial use

  • “Polaroid” cannot be used in the metadata for commercial or editorial content

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
×
×
  • Create New...