Skip to main content
lenao58654695
lenao58654695
Participant
November 10, 2018
Answered

Intellectual property violation ?????

  • November 10, 2018
  • 3 replies
  • 546 views

Part of a silo which there are millions of all over this country,,,,,,,

This topic has been closed for replies.
Correct answer joanH

If you read my message again without emotion you will see I simply stated Adobe's guideline regarding property images. The rejection was by Adobe reviewer who knows the regulations. Every contributor must assure the work they present is clear of any infractions of the law. Read about them here. With kind regards, JH

"An architecture/building would also fall in the "foggy" category also.  Property release and protection guidelines for Adobe Stock should give you a clearer understanding of what is required. Known image restrictions will give you a more comprehensive knowledge of what is not accepted, and with other's, what composition is accepted. To the extent of the strictness and tightness of the reviews, I do not think any get past the reviewers.

However, based on the phrase "for your own protection" used in other discussions I've read, it can be interpreted as the contributor would be included for litigation.  I hope your questions, and curiosity was satisfactorily addressed." Quote from forum discussion.

3 replies

Abambo
Community Expert
AbamboCommunity Expert
Community Expert
November 12, 2018

The silo does not contain any IP related elements, at least not something I see. At a first sight however, I took the plants as a sculpture. That may be the confusing part, I have however the feeling from my own experience that Adobe may have different approval levels. Some images stay longer in the queue than others. That may, however also be a different reason.

My best guess, however, is that the moderator used the wrong refusal reason. That rarely happens, but it happens. The barn and the silo miss some artistic value IMHO, but that does not mean anything, because I have tons of images without artistic value and some of them sell...

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer
    lenao58654695
    lenao58654695Author
    Participant
    November 10, 2018

    This one from the same place was approved

    joanH
    joanHCorrect answer
    Inspiring
    November 11, 2018

    If you read my message again without emotion you will see I simply stated Adobe's guideline regarding property images. The rejection was by Adobe reviewer who knows the regulations. Every contributor must assure the work they present is clear of any infractions of the law. Read about them here. With kind regards, JH

    "An architecture/building would also fall in the "foggy" category also.  Property release and protection guidelines for Adobe Stock should give you a clearer understanding of what is required. Known image restrictions will give you a more comprehensive knowledge of what is not accepted, and with other's, what composition is accepted. To the extent of the strictness and tightness of the reviews, I do not think any get past the reviewers.

    However, based on the phrase "for your own protection" used in other discussions I've read, it can be interpreted as the contributor would be included for litigation.  I hope your questions, and curiosity was satisfactorily addressed." Quote from forum discussion.

    joanH
    joanH
    Inspiring
    November 10, 2018

    Hello lenao58654695.

    If Adobe rejected this  - there is a good reason. This silo is private property and it has identifiable plants, certain gords, growing up the side. Everyone who works with this silo knows it. If you can just simply get a property release form signed by the owner, you can resubmit it. Better safe than ,,,, You are the photographer and are responsible for clearing the releases. Kind regards, JH

    lenao58654695
    lenao58654695Author
    Participant
    November 10, 2018

    Thank you for your reply. I sincerely doubt someone will recognize the gourds and  your wording could  be "less talking down to. Here  is an image that was accepted and sold. The likelihood that someone recognizes this is higher than someone recognizes a soon wilted and gone gourd wouldn't you say. No property release was needed for this image

    Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
    Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices