Intellectual Property Refusal / Intellectual Property Violation

[rcblanchard55]

Can anyone help me understand why this photo was reject for Intellectual Property Refusal /  Intellectual Property Violation ?  Thanks!

[Szalam]

I would guess the visibility of some of the car logos.

[rcblanchard55]

Well, we shall see. I have resubmitted it with all car logos taken out.  And even the phone the lady in the car is using has been made unidentifiable.  None of this is the subject of the photo.  Seems like a really trivial matter.  Do you know if there is any way to find from Adobe?

[Szalam]

You can post in the Adobe Stock Contributors​ forum and you might get a staff person to comment, but that's the only thing I know to do.

[rcblanchard55]

Nope, even the manicured photo didn't take ... same rejection.  Make me think that something other than a legitimate rejection is going on.  There are plenty of photos on Adobe of automobiles.  Such a good shot with lots of potential, rejected with no real reason, hmm.

[Szalam]

I don't understand it either.

[victry1]

Was this taken in Yellowstone National Park or some other national park? If so, I bet that's the reason. You don't see buffalo everyday, let alone stopping a whole row of cars.

[Pamela 28]

If you are someplace that it costs a fee to enter, you cannot post anything without a release from them. Awesome photo though

[sjlocke215]

"someplace that it costs a fee to enter, you cannot post anything without a release"

Not sure where this idea came from, but it isn't necessarily true.

[Pamela 28]

Oh, I thought I read that here somewhere about when you need a release. Such as in zoo's and with landmarks you have to pay to get to where you can see them. maybe not just general landscape though? Sorry if I misunderstood.

[paulafrenchp]

How can this be rejected for property release - it was taken in the wild with no trademarks - It was NOT on private property it was in Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe - I have many other images accepted from this location?

I'm new to Adobe stock - but not to Microstock and have NEVER had this issue before.  Can someone advise please

[rcblanchard55]

The reality is, you may never know why.  Adobe stock only gives broad answers and guidelines, but rarely, if ever, a direct response to a particular photo (unless you know someone to ask who works in the stock division).  They don't have to.  They have millions of photos and thousands pouring in daily.  Whatever it is in this photo that makes them think it needs a property release, it's their right to require it.  Their site, their rules, their way.  Just move on.  If they believed this photo could make them money, they would let you know how to fix it.

[paulafrenchp]

I did receive a reply, and it was in the title of the image, it was put back so I could amend the title of the place it was taken.

Very impressed with the level of personal answers from AS - some other agencies don't bother answering, but AS do - which is very much appreciated.

[rcblanchard55]

You're special.

[Enio99]

My guess is that even with the logos taken out, you can still somehow guess what model and brand some of the cars are, but that's just a guess

[rahuld70876998]

Acceptable Image.

Modern vehicle in the background is a part of the image And not the main subject.

Its a mistake done by image moderator.

Try resubmitting this image again and again.

[stephaniee85604894]

Hey,

I checked it.

It is not only the cars, which are identifiable, when I zoom in I can recognize people here. Recognizable people and property require a release.

[rcblanchard55]

That's Nonsense!

[RayB94553]

I'm confused too, I see no "Intellectual Property"  in the shot. it's absurd to deem a vehicle on a public roadway as somehow having intellectual property rights.    You see cars and trucks and even people on the 6 o'clock news and there is no release sought nor are there any lawsuits.   If an image is modified in any way, then the owner of any property or their person that is recognizable, could have claim.  

What I find even more confusing is that a well known Barcelona Spain church has several hundred images on AS and when I submit a photo I am rejected "IPR".   When I contacted the church they said they do not provide property releases.   So how can any of the images be posted if their are no releases?

Currently there are over 27,000 photos of the Vatican, did they all require a release?

I would also suggest looking at the image,  "Beautiful unique city of Barcelona in Spain" by danbert that clearly has recognizable cars and people in the shot.  

The same condition exists for images I have submitted the were rejected for having no commercial value.  The fishing boats on coastline of Buzios Brazil has no commercial  but a picture of clouds does?   go figure.

Clearly who ever is responsible for providing clear guideline enforcement is slightly short of the mark.   

[sjlocke215]

RayB94553  wrote

I'm confused too, I see no "Intellectual Property"  in the shot. it's absurd to deem a vehicle on a public roadway as somehow having intellectual property rights.    You see cars and trucks and even people on the 6 o'clock news and there is no release sought nor are there any lawsuits.   If an image is modified in any way, then the owner of any property or their person that is recognizable, could have claim. 

You seem to be confusing editorial usage and commercial usage.  The image is full of easily discernible vehicles which are a fairly major part of the image.  The risk for a buyer using this in commercial use is too high to be licensed.

Regarding the church, there is always going to be content like that.  It could have been submitted before standards changed.  There could be a new law for that country, etc.  It's best to just move on.

You can submit your boats to the critique forum.  It could be an over-saturated area of content, who knows?  If images are borderline, they may go either way for acceptance.

[rcblanchard55]

I have looked at this issue from many different viewpoints.  It is NOT an issue of "easily discernible vehicles" or "fairly major" or "risk for a buyer".  There is not a vehicle manufacture in this picture who would spend the time suing over this photo.  In fact, they would love the free publicity.  (Everyone remembers what soup company Andy Warhol made famous.  They never sued.)  RayB94553 maybe confusing editorial or commercial usage, but he is dead on the mark about "providing clear guideline enforcement".  Adobe Stock does not do that well at all.  And alas, they don't have to.  As I stated above, "Their site, their rules, their way."  That is the issue!

[sjlocke215]

"they would love the free publicity."The fact is

It isn't your place to decide who would "love the free publicity".  I could use your photos for free, because you'd "love the free publicity".   The fact is that there is a risk to the buyer when you use recognizable objects.  It's just a question of how much risk there is.

[rcblanchard55]

You are making this personal. Threatening me by suggesting you are going to steal my photos, does not advance your argument.  If "just ... how much risk there is" is the question, then who are you to say how much risk there is to the buyer.  I have as much privilege to state who would "love the free publicity" as you do to say "how much risk" there is.  Don't make this personal ... stay with the facts and each person's right to interpret them as they see them.  I simply disagree with your assessment of what is "easily discernible" and the level of "risk to the buyer" in this particular photo, but I am not making this personal or leveling passive-aggressive attacks. Relax.

[sjlocke215]

I didn't threaten you.  It's called an "analogy", whereby I use a similar thing familiar to use and place it into the same context.

You can state whatever you like, however, you are incorrect in that you are able to assess what another party emotionally or financially would want ("love the free publicity") whereas the risk involved is just a matter of legal fact, that an IP holder can defend their rights at their choosing.

You're mistaking my reply for something more than it is.  Sorry.

[rcblanchard55]

You need a better understanding of analogical discourse, and yes you.did.threaten.me.sir.

If risk is just a legal fact, then why do you state that, "It's just a question of how much risk there is."  That statement leads to interpretation.  Legal facts don't exist only legal interpretations of the law.  And precedence, in the case of Andy Warhol, says that most corporations know when to "love the free publicity" and not sue.  Yes, if I had put an image of my neighbor riding one of the buffalo, then the risk might be beyond reasonableness. But automobiles on a road, and none of which individually are a "fairly major part of the image", now that's nonsense.  But it's Adobe Stock's nonsense and they can do as they please with it ... and so may you with yours.

Relax. Just breathe.  It's okay to be wrong sometimes.