Interesting question – it could well be part of Apple’s marketing plan – who knows. Either way you do open yourself up to being sued – and this goes for any images where you don’t have a licence or written approval. Why don’t you email them and see? It would be useful to find out.
Unless you have a license for the Intellectual Property i.e. the photograph and clearance from Apple to sell your product using theirs…the answer is no.
Well, if you’re so sure why not set-up a library of your own and take the burden of worldwide laws upon yourself? Libraries act in the way they do because they usually have neither the time nor inclination to fight legal battles. And it is always in this business better to be safe than sorry unless you are exceptionally wealthy and have lots of time on your hands.
I agree with you in that not all subjects require releases…but one heck of a lot do (for commercial use). It’s a fine line and one the editors must be well versed in.
The burden really should be on the buyer to know the law especially when an image is sold for commercial use, but many are totally ignorant. Equally, it is the responsibility of an image library to make sure that images they are selling for commercial use can be used in that way without infringing IP, trademarks, property and copyrights so that the buyers can trust what they’re buying can be used for what they want.
There is more control having potential commercial use images as RM and it seems to these days RM pays an awful lot more (in my experience) and why I no longer submit RF.
Back to the subject matter. Does your statue need a release? For commercial use yes, for non-commercial – no. Many people are using RF for magazines and blogs so wouldn’t it be better to create an editorial-only RF license instead?
gcarpenter, take it from someone who knows the law..someone who has worked in this area for a looooong time and has an awful lot of experience.
Postcards are not a commercial in the same sense. Commercial work is there to promote a company/ buinsess/product. A postcard does not do this. Subtle difference.
Many stock companies don’t have the guts, money or will for a legal challenge. Most companies have good money to throw at legal cases which is why the law goes unchallenged and cases are settled outside in many cases.
What I said before is 100% accurate.
||+515536|gcarpenter said-|| property releases are not generally needed
You are very misinformed. The ASMP article you refer to is about photographing a building, not selling licenses of images of it. The photography here is being sold Royalty Free for commercial use. If the images were being sold RM they could be used for editorial use without releases however this is not the case. With commercial uses you have to be very careful about what is used in an RF library. Countless legal actions should show you that.
People and private properties can only be sold WITH releases. Trademarks, logos and copyrighted buildings cannot be sold.
Envato needs to specify what release/s the image has on Photodune. For example, one picture that I just saw of a private swimming pool cannot be sold RF without a release…does it have one? Who knows!
@davgothic – Glad it was of help. The photographer forums are filling up with threads about image infringements. Rather than chasing the infringements themselves they hand over to copyright lawyers who specialise in chasing image infringements. Needless to say, the costs are much higher for the infringers and some face prosecution.
What I’m struggling to understand (and this is a general note) is why some authors (I know most on TF are fine) believe it is OK to use other’s copyrighted Intellectual Property to sell their template…yet if their template gets copied onto a torrent site they complain bitterly. Is it simply that we are now in an age where the mantra “anything on the internet is free” is still pervasive and no-one had learned yet that, actually, more-or-less everything on the internet is subject to some copyright or other?
One of the issues is that metadata is routinely stripped out by many programs so that tracing the copyright owner is more difficult. But, as was pointed out earlier in this thread, ignorance of the law is no defence and simply because you cannot find the owner does not make it free. There is no such thing as “Fair Use” when selling a commercial product like templates on TF.
Could Envato be more pro-active in ensuring copyright infringement doesn’t happen with images? Yes…there are a number of themes that use Pixar, FLICKR images (that are part of the Getty collection) etc. Given that Envato is now selling stock image itself, you would have thought that a little more care and consideration would go into checking themes. While Envato is in a grey area with themes being hosted on other sites, all it would take is one lawsuit from Getty or a.n.other to sort that out…and all agencies are becoming more and more litigious. Why? It’s very profitable.
No they can’t. Your selling of a theme is most definitely a commercial activity and so CC non-commercial is out.
Just as a matter of interest, the launch of Google Image Search has now provided photographers with an easier means of catching infringers. As many are now finding to their cost…