Redbuble vs. Instant film

So last night a friend received this email from Redbubble:

"Dear ****,
We have removed the following content from Redbubble as a result of having received a complaint from PLR IP Holdings, LLC (Polaroid), the claimed owner or licensee of related intellectual property, and in accordance with Redbubble's IP/Publicity Rights Policy:
smog: http://www.redbubble.com/people/*******
As you will be aware from our IP/Publicity Rights Policy, Redbubble requires a certain amount of information before it acts on such a complaint, including that:
the relevant content is specifically named;
the complaint came from the owner of the respective rights (or someone authorized to act on their behalf); and
they have a good faith belief that the use of the relevant content is not authorized by the content owner, its agent or the law.
If you believe that removal of the above content is the result of a mistake (for example, that you have authorization to use the relevant content from the content owner) or misidentification, you can send us a counter notice. Such counter notice must provide the following information:
an electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the relevant matter;
a description of the content which we have removed, including the URL on which the content was located on the Redbubble site;
your address, telephone number, and email address;
a statement by you that you consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court, San Francisco County, California, United States and that you will accept service of process from the person who provided notification described above or an agent of such person;
a statement by you that, under penalty of perjury, you have a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled;
If you would like to send a counter notice please email the required information above to dmca@[URL="http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fredbubble.com%2F&h=nAQGRjyHR&enc=AZO9p1BGCR7T9xjaFWALLd4CbbilOjts9USM1Y_FQ1riChfX7z_ZSyKH3lCca9hm3XC8zxljzMUXZ6hOFAkFYoYQQBSPDPJACmB7vF_JJweu4Fqw7cEKtjkYWhnsr-UOTovxy1T1O3xrm8MTN2fQxFtJLgMIKtgs8P6oC8ICF0UyPA&s=1"]redbubble.com.[/URL]
Please note that in some circumstances, if the work does not comply with our User Agreement and/or IP/Publicity Rights Policy, we may not be able to send your counter notice on to the complainant, rather we may inform you at the time of receipt that we cannot reinstate the work. We may also request further information from you in order to determine whether the work can be reinstated.
However, you should be aware that in most circumstances we will inform the complainant that you have provided a counter notice, as well as provide the complainant with a copy of your counter notice, which will include your personal contact information. The complainant will have 14 days to bring legal action against you in the United States. After 14 days, if they do not bring legal action and you would like your content restored to the Redbubble site, you may contact us to request that we reinstate your work. Redbubble may restore the content at that time if it otherwise complies with our User Agreement and IP/Publicity Rights Policy.
Further information regarding Redbubble's IP/Publicity Rights Policy and User Agreement can be found here:
https://help.redbubble.com/hc/en-us/articles/201579195
http://www.redbubble.com/agreement
Regards,
Redbubble Content Team"


So far 15 images of hers have been removed.
They are all shot with Polaroid cameras, using either expired Polaroid film or film from The Impossible Project.
ALL of the images are hers.
Shot on her cameras.
Shot by her. She has the original physical images.

Just updated:
The person who hosts the "Polaroid Lovers" group on Redbubble just started having his images removed as well.


So my question to you, dear forum... What the hell?!?!?!?!?!

And yes I realize that I misspelled Redbubble.

I suspect the issue may be the use of the trademarked term 'Polaroid' when describing the images.

Which is what I (and others) thought it might be.
But then how do you describe your photo? How do you differentiate your work where you use an actual camera and film vs. people that use their phone and add the "Polaroid" frame?

If this is the case it will be interesting to see how far this is taken. What about a website such as Imagekind that actually has a Polaroid category, will they be forced to remove or rename?

"But then how do you describe your photo?" Unique Analog Instant Prints.

As the OP used that P-word in his post, the "licence-holders" will also give fourteen days for the thread to be closed?

(cynicism)
It seems strange that the infringement was not actually specified, but I suppose a company or its legal representative can do anything they want and don't have to make things easy for evil-mastermind photographers.
(/cynicism)

Interestingly, there are currently 2086 P......d related items still listed on that site -- so perhaps it wasn't the simple use of the tradename alone, but the mixing of Impossible Project materials with "original" materials that was the supposed problem? As the complaint doesn't specify the infringement it is difficult to know.

It could well be that some legal person is seeking a response in order to gain sufficient personal details to start proceedings against the photographer, and the aim will be for those proceedings to be settled out of court in order to "save costs" - which still means that a large sum would be paid to the alleged licence-holder. A legal holdup, it's called isn't it?

Seems ridiculous....on that basis, we couldn't have a category for, say, photos taken with a Leica, photos taken on Ilford film, pictures developed in Rodinal, pictures of models wearing Lacoste clothes, or anything else you name which mentioned a trademark.

I can only think it might be different if the pictures used the trademark for advertising or commercial purposes.

I suspect the trademark holder is trying to keep the term 'Polaroid' from going into the public domain as a word used to describe instant prints.

A lot of companies word hard to protect their trademarked names.

Kimberly-Clark has worked hard to keep all paper tissues from being called 'kleenex'; Xerox has done the same trying to keep all xerographic copies from being called 'xerox copies'. If they don't do this, they can loose the right to the trademark.

I suspect that's what is going on here (and by the way, Impossible Project prints aren't really POLAROID prints).

I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect the approach to take is to include the trademark T symbol when using the word Polaroid and also include the disclaimer 'Polaroid is a registered trademark of PLR IP Holdings, LLC'.

I suspect that what's really going on is that the current Polaroid license holder (IP, trademarks, etc.) is trolling or worse, using a 'bot and doing blanket takedowns without verifying the veracity of their claim(s). If the photographer used Polaroid materials, then using the trademarked name to describe the materials as such should not be an infringement AFAIK. Redbubble has to take these notices seriously, however there should be some way to clarify the specifics of the takedown and also to argue that Polaroid's claim is without merit. (of course your mileage may vary, I am not a lawyer, etc.)

Ask RB to reveal the identity of the person or company that made the complaint.

Gadfly_71 said:

I suspect that what's really going on is that the current Polaroid license holder (IP, trademarks, etc.) is trolling or worse, using a 'bot and doing blanket takedowns without verifying the veracity of their claim(s).

Click to expand...

I suspect this, too.

What a bunch of BS. Remind me never to buy anything with the name Polaroid on it every again.

Not like they'd be getting any money from the used market anyway

So Polaroid responded (sorry I've been offline for a few days)

"...now that you have clarified that your pictures are reproductions of original Polaroid photos – which we did not previously understand – we have notified Redbubble that our concerns are alleviated and that your prints should be permitted back on the site. As a fan of Polaroid, we hope that you can appreciate the importance of preserving our iconic brands, including of course the Polaroid Classic Border that is instantly recognizable and associated with the Polaroid brand and contributes to our rich heritage of quality and innovation. We apologize for the misunderstanding on our part."

So if you use their iconic "Polaroid Classic Border" they can have your stuff taken off of websites?
I still don't get it.
But my friend had her images put back on redbubble so I guess that's cool.

jdanderso said:

So Polaroid responded (sorry I've been offline for a few days)

"...now that you have clarified that your pictures are reproductions of original Polaroid photos – which we did not previously understand – we have notified Redbubble that our concerns are alleviated and that your prints should be permitted back on the site. As a fan of Polaroid, we hope that you can appreciate the importance of preserving our iconic brands, including of course the Polaroid Classic Border that is instantly recognizable and associated with the Polaroid brand and contributes to our rich heritage of quality and innovation. We apologize for the misunderstanding on our part."

So if you use their iconic "Polaroid Classic Border" they can have your stuff taken off of websites?
I still don't get it.
But my friend had her images put back on redbubble so I guess that's cool.

Click to expand...

Best Possible Outcome. It tells me they want to discourage simulations, and encourage the real thing. Thanks for the update!

Bill Burk said:

Best Possible Outcome. It tells me they want to discourage simulations, and encourage the real thing. Thanks for the update!

Click to expand...

If they don't want to make the film, they need to STFU and let their "iconic look" go away because that's how much they really care about it. Polaroid, as company, pisses me off. (I love their Land Cameras through!)

OP:
Is "instant film" a trademark of the Big P?
If not, consider using that as the descriptor.

mweintraub said:

If they don't want to make the film, they need to STFU and let their "iconic look" go away because that's how much they really care about it. Polaroid, as company, pisses me off. (I love their Land Cameras through!)

Click to expand...

I had a similar reaction until my brain gears ground around a few times and I realised that it is Impossible who seem to be the holders of the rights to the name "Polaroid" , and it was Impossible ("IP") who were complaining. Unless I have grossly misunderstood, that is ...

pdeeh said:

I had a similar reaction until my brain gears ground around a few times and I realised that it is Impossible who seem to be the holders of the rights to the name "Polaroid" , and it was Impossible ("IP") who were complaining. Unless I have grossly misunderstood, that is ...

Click to expand...

For serious?!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well as I say I may be misunderstanding, but I'm perfectly serious

I know "Polaroid" is still around, as the company that owns "Polaroid" owns Wolf Camera stores now.

pdeeh said:

I had a similar reaction until my brain gears ground around a few times and I realised that it is Impossible who seem to be the holders of the rights to the name "Polaroid" , and it was Impossible ("IP") who were complaining. Unless I have grossly misunderstood, that is ...

Click to expand...

I see nothing to indicate that PLR IP Holdings, LLC has ANY connection with the Impossible Project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaroid_Corporation

Fair enough.
In which case Polaroid are truly being arses

The Polaroid trademark is what is being defended in this case. IIRC, the owners of that trademark don't make anything, they just license the trademark.