If the application is rejected for infringement of intellectual property rights, it is not important whether it complies with the law or common sense.
It is most important to understand how Adobe's artificial intelligence algorithms are structured. The judging entity is Adobe artificial intelligence. It is not right to judge based on international law, domestic law, or common sense.
If you upload it to Shutterstock, it must follow Shutterstock's algorithm, and if you upload it to Adobe, it must follow Adobe's algorithm. There are countless sites for uploading pictures, and the laws on all of them are different.
It is meaningless to ask why the laws are different from those of other companies.
I looked at the status of car license plates from several countries, including the United States and Brazil, on Adobe.
What you need to think about with common sense is, if I were an Adobe administrator, how would I code an algorithm that determines the intellectual property rights of car license plates? And how did the Adobe administrator code it?
The Adobe administrator coded your picture to determine it to be a copyright infringement, and I would have also coded your picture to determine it to be a copyright infringement.
I don't know if the Adobe manager is American, but if he is, he knows American laws and would know how to avoid lawsuits regarding American license plates.
However, I am Korean and I know Korean law. Korean license plates cannot be uploaded to Adobe. If the numbers are the same, you will definitely be sued.
In that case, car license plates cannot be treated on the same level as billiard tables or national flags. Because you need to know the laws of every country.
There may be two reasons why it was rejected for infringement of intellectual property rights. One is to recognize it as an object with the right of portrait because Brazil's laws are unknown, and the other is to recognize it as a creative painting even though it does not have the right of portrait because it has the status of a popular and universal object such as a flag or a billiard table.

I don't know which of the two was recognized as the status, but Adobe's algorithm is legitimate, and I would have coded it that way too.
That is an infringement of intellectual property rights. Whether you consider it according to international law, domestic law, or common sense... there is a high probability that it will be an infringement of intellectual property rights, and more importantly, it is natural for sites that upload pictures to view them as dangerous pictures that will be subject to lawsuits.

It's important to understand and avoid it, but complaining about why Adobe made the algorithm that way is a waste of time.

If it is similar to your own portfolio work, it is natural that it will be rejected as a duplicate.
However, if it is similar to someone else's portfolio, it may be rejected as intellectual property rights.
There are too many pictures piled up, and the review mechanism inevitably becomes more complicated and changes every day.
Individual experiences can be gathered together to predict the overall review mechanism.
The experience itself is neither right nor wrong. It is just what it is.
It is not good for everyone to judge people based on old-fashioned, conventional methods.

"It's cheaper to have erronous refusals than erronous acceptances." I think that's the point.
Thanks friend!

By @roberto25924244x86i

You need to look at this in the correct context:

You publish something about an IP protected product. Nobody will take care, as you have not

• the reach, so the rights oner will never know about that.
• you have no money, so attaching you is really not a very profitable operation.

Adobe has the reach and the money, so they need to be more careful.

I would not know that, as I'm not located in Brasil. The moderator may not know that neither.