Would a photo of a vintage object showing maker label be rejected due to copyright?

Forum|Forum|4 years ago
April 8, 2022
5 replies
585 views

Would photos of a vintage sewing machine that show the name 'Singer' be rejected due to copyright? Ditto pics of pages in the manual.

Contributors

This topic has been closed for replies.

Correct answer Ricky336

You would need to remove 'Singer'. It won't pass otherwise!

Nancy OShea

Community Expert

My main problem with this photo is that it all hinges on name recognition. Without the Singer tradename, it's unclear what this is exactly. Taken out of context, the tension dial is meaningless except to someone like me who's familiar with old Singer sewing machines. It's fair to say, few people would buy this for commercial use purpose.

My advice is to increase your distance from subject so you can get a sharp, clear image of the overall machine. Shoot from different camera angles and ensure you have proper depth of field & focus. If a customer wants to add blur fx after purchase, they can. But it's very difficult to sharpen a blurry photo in post.

Just my 2 cents.

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert

Nancy OShea

Community Expert

Nevermind my previous post.

I got snagged by a spammer. 🙄 🤖

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert

Ricky336

Correct answer

Community Expert

You would need to remove 'Singer'. It won't pass otherwise!

S

steveb97722625

Participant

Actually I have a bunch of photos where the "copyrighted" object(a tractor) is in the distance and I have cloned the name out. They still fail to pass due to "intellectual copyrights". Are the reviewers just seeing the object and assuming something without really checking to see if a name is visible?

T

Test Screen Name

Legend

"Are the reviewers just seeing the object and assuming something without really checking to see if a name is visible?"

They are seeing the object. You are missing a great deal of what they are looking for. A John Deere 6R 185 with the John Deere logo fuzzed out is still a John Deere tractor; the colour scheme is very distinctive. A real enthusiast could tell you it was a 6R 185. If this were accepted for stock, it could be used to advertise rival tractors - you have said so, by stating you have all IP rights. Then, John Deere could sue the rival tractor maker, the rival tractor maker could sue Adobe - and Adobe would hold you in breach of your contract and subject to unlimited damages.

If the artifact could be identified by its maker, and is less than maybe 100 years old, you can't use it. It's that simple. Tractor, house, chair, hammer; if it isn't generic, then you can't make money from it.