Inspiring

Question

Help understanding "Intellectual Property Refusal"

Forum|Forum|2 years ago
November 9, 2023
5 replies
1164 views

Help for a contributor newbie please! I have had two video clips that have been rejected "Intellectual Property Refusal".

1) Tower Bridge London by night:
My submission included the word "Shard" in both Title and Keywords. (The Shard is the new triangular skyscraper in the background). If I resubmitted and omitted "Shard" would it get accepted? There are dozens of clips in Adobe Stock of The Shard; I can't believe they all got Property Releases from the owners!

2) Early morning over River Thames:
I'm baffled. The keywords included such place-names as "st saviours dock, butlers wharf, concordia wharf, china wharf, tower bridge".Could that be the problem?

This topic has been closed for replies.

RALPH_L

Community Expert

Tower Bridge is situated just outside the City’s boundaries but it is privately owned by the City Corporation.

Further information may be found here:

Film and photography permissions - City of London

O

oleschwander

Legend

Interesting but totally crazy and completely incomprehensible ..! Anyway Tower Bridge is already over saturated ...

O

oleschwander

Legend

No, they should not have been rejected for Intellectual Property reasons - only regarding the lighting.

Abambo

Community Expert

No, they should not have been rejected for Intellectual Property reasons - only regarding the lighting.

By @oleschwander

Whatever you think, light works is a copyrightable artistic performance. In the same sense as architectural performance is. That's why old monuments are free of rights, but as the light show is a recent addition, you are in violation of the copyright, if you do not get the authorization for pictures at night. It's a copyright issue.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

O

oleschwander

Legend

I know. When it comes to artistic lighting. But general information about buildings should not fall under that category. Then you can also reject pictures with lit lampposts.

Ricky336

Community Expert

Hello,

I dare say, the bridge will need a release due to the lighting - rather like the Effiel Tower - when lighting is used, it needs a release.

As for the boats, probably because they are owned by someone, so you need a release from the owner to sell commercially!

The boats are rather dominant; even though it is part of a general scene, you have to be careful with things like this.

Nancy OShea

Community Expert

Whoever installed the bridge lights probably has a patent on the lighting. This is very common for landmarks.

IMO, the second image (boats) should have been refused for technical reasons, too. The lighting is poor (too dark) and there's not enough detail.

Stock reviewers don't list all the problems. They check a box for the first one they see and move on to other assets.

Keep in mind that personal property that you submit for commercial use, should have signed releases from the owners. This is to protect you as well as Adobe Stock customers from any legal disputes later. See below for more details.

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/property-release.html

Hope that helps.

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert

O

oleschwander

Legend

So all photos with illuminated buildings should be rejected? Or submitted as editorial?

Nancy OShea

Community Expert

Refer to Known Image Restrictions in Stock's Contributor User Guide.

It may not cover every landmark used as a subject but it will give you a good path to follow.

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restrictions.html

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert

daniellei4510

Community Expert

Not sure about the Thames and I didn't look through the complete list, but it does appear a release is required for the bridge.

https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-us/filming/film-photography-permissions

Adobe Community Expert | If you can't fix it, hide it; if you can't hide it, delete it.

D

DroneOnAuthor

Inspiring

Thank you daniellei4510, good link to the London Film info. I'm no lawyer, but the wording on that page suggests permission is only needed to film on the Tower Bridge, but a drone flying 100m away needs no paperwork.

I'm not the first person to think that Adobe's lack of explanation for rejection is deeply frustrating.

Windows 10, 32g ram, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Super 8GB GDDR6 Card.

Abambo

Community Expert

I'm not the first person to think that Adobe's lack of explanation for rejection is deeply frustrating.

By @DroneOn

As a contributor, you are supposed to know all and everything. I know that this is not the case, but yes, it can be expected that you have all necessary authorizations. The Adobe moderation is trimmed on efficiency, not to make you more knowledgable or a better photographer. Moderation is done to protect buyers from problems, nothing else.

As for your keywords and titles: google them to see if there are restriction on them. But it may also be that somewhere around (especially with ships) there is a small logo appearing.

For the bridge, naming the skyscraper may be a problem. As a skyline, it's permitted. But it should not be named and it should not be the main focus of the take. However, normally, if the problem is in the title or the keywords, the asset is put in the reminder tab and you can correct that. So I guess there is a different issue with your film.

As for the authorizations needed to film the tower bridge, I'm with you. The bridge itself is probably not protected, but the ground from where you film is. So the owner of that ground controls the access to the ground. The bridge can be filmed without a problem.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded