9 Replies Latest reply on Oct 19, 2016 4:55 PM by chrisoz45

    More re non-compliant images

    Bobsacerdo Level 1

           Hello Friends.  I recently had a shot of a valley in the Canadian Rockies, with the town of Banff in the distance, shot from a mountain on a public trail in a Provincial Park, which was rejected as non-compliant.  It is file ID 121679058.  Add my voice to others who find rejection of images as "non-compliant" to be less than helpful or clear; At least SOME guidance would be appreciated so I don't submit unacceptable images in the future.

          In that regard, I notice other comments about images with "too much" processing and excessive "special effects."  So, should I not submit images shot intentionally with soft focus, or long exposure blurred waterfalls etc?  Can't get any clarity on such issues from the boilerplate "guidelines" etc.  With thanks for any and all help and advice.

        • 1. Re: More re non-compliant images
          MatHayward Adobe Employee

          Hi Robert,

           

          Thanks for writing. I checked out that image and found it was heavily processed in post. The contrast was far too intense and the image was over-sharp. Generally, when uploading images for stock you will find better success submitting the clean, color version of the image. Some minor sharpening, cropping, white balance adjustment, etc are fine but most designers prefer to add their own special effects to match their project exactly.

           

          Please be sure to post a copy of images you are requesting feedback on in the forum so other photographers can get an idea of what is and is not acceptable and to get feedback from other contributors on your content.

           

          Kind regards,

           

          Mat Hayward

          1 person found this helpful
          • 2. Re: More re non-compliant images
            Bobsacerdo Level 1

            Got it - Thanks.  Interesting as it has done pretty well in a local gallery, but I prepped it for printing on linen textured paper so what you say makes sense.

             

             

            Fr. Bob

            bobsacerdo@aol.com

            1 person found this helpful
            • 3. Re: More re non-compliant images
              MatHayward Adobe Employee

              I totally get that. A fine art gallery has a much different market than a stock agency however so this type of scenario is not unusual.

               

              -Mat

              • 4. Re: More re non-compliant images
                Whynot212 Level 1

                This image was declined so i was wondering what i could do differently next time! IMG_8363.jpg

                1 person found this helpful
                • 5. Re: More re non-compliant images
                  MatHayward Adobe Employee

                  Hi Wyatt,

                   

                  We cannot accept content with a watermark on it. Uploading content with a watermark will always result in an automatic rejection.

                   

                  Kind regards,

                   

                  Mat Hayward

                  2 people found this helpful
                  • 6. Re: More re non-compliant images
                    chrisoz45 Level 1

                    So then that leaves our work open to be used for free if not water marked. How does adobe stock protect the author from that happening?

                    • 7. Re: More re non-compliant images
                      Eulippia Prime Level 1

                      This exchange helps me.  All but three of the photos in my first submission were rejected.  They were all processed with final print appeal in mind. 

                       

                      Now that I realize that client licensing includes the right to edit to fit their project, I hope to have more of my work approved.  I am just getting started (signed up three days ago), so as of now I am 0 for 11 with three still pending from my first submission.  I submitted 62 more, but now that I have read more carefully, I will not do this again in the future.  I will be more judicious about my submissions.

                      • 8. Re: More re non-compliant images
                        Eulippia Prime Level 1

                        I am also a music composer. 

                         

                        If people want to steal, they will steal.  However, by accepting our work, Adobe makes itself liable for any use beyond the license we grant them at sign-up.  Just as with music when it is marketed digitally, the repository (Amazon, ITunes, etc.) takes responsibility for any unauthorized use of its catalog material.  Thus, when someone violates the law using their catalog they are no longer violating your rights, but the rights of the repository as well.

                         

                        To put it simply, who is better at detecting misuse of your work globally - you or Adobe?  When detected, who is better at ensuring that every legal remedy is thoroughly applied against a violator - you or Adobe?  Adobe and similar companies have no interest in becoming the target of what could become a huge (-ly embarrassing) class-action lawsuit over careless defense of our intellectual copy rights?  Can you imagine how this would play in the press?  Remember, this is both Federal and international law we are talking about, which means the FBI, Interpol and whatever your national investigative agency become involved.  Again, Adobe will work to ensure that they are working with and not against these agencies.,

                         

                        No, I am not an employee or beneficiary in any way of Adobe.  I am just like you, a contributing artist.  I have just observed this stuff long enough to know that we are better protected by our affiliation with large groups like Adobe than even the local gallery with our work.  Did I mention that if people want to steal, they will steal?

                        • 9. Re: More re non-compliant images
                          chrisoz45 Level 1

                          Well that explains it for me thanks!!