Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Would photos of a vintage sewing machine that show the name 'Singer' be rejected due to copyright? Ditto pics of pages in the manual.
You need to Photoshop "Singer" out!. As for the rest, get the colour right and beware of different other technical issues.
Regardless of the year of copywrght, the name is a registered trademark and must be removed.
You would need to remove 'Singer'. It won't pass otherwise!
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
You need to Photoshop "Singer" out!. As for the rest, get the colour right and beware of different other technical issues.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Most copyright lasts only 100 years (that machine looks 55-65 years old), but trademarks last until they are no longer used. So that's a definite no.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Singer is still in use, but also if not, I doubt that it would be accepted with a trademark on, even expired.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Regardless of the year of copywrght, the name is a registered trademark and must be removed.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
You would need to remove 'Singer'. It won't pass otherwise!
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
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?
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
"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.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
The colour of the tractor may also be a trademark on itself, e.g. the iconic John Deere tractors. Without seeing the image, however, I can't help more.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
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.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Nevermind my previous post.
I got snagged by a spammer. 🙄 🤖