Inspiring

Question

Invalid IP Refusal

Forum|Forum|5 years ago
April 7, 2021
6 replies
1434 views

I recently submitted 7 images of the Sundial Bridge in Redding California. (Two examples below.) All were rejected for IP violations. However...

There are hundreds of files already on Adobe Stock of this bridge, by dozens of different contributors, day and night, stills and video. (https://stock.adobe.com/search/images?load_type=search&native_visual_search=&similar_content_id=&is_recent_search=1&search_type=recentsearch&k=sundial+bridge). I did extensive research before submitting these files. There is nothing stating that the bridge is copyrighted on any website relating to the bridge, from the city of Redding, the designer, or the park in which the bridge is located.

In addition, Almay has several images of the bridge for license. All say that no release is required. Examples below: https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/sundial-bridge-redding.html

Shutterstock also has several images of this bridge for license. Example below: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/redding-california-july-28-sundial-bridge-712325461

And images of the bridge are clearly being used for commercial purposes without property release:
https://redding-real-estate.com/redding-places-of-interest/pictures-of-redding/

Anyone have any idea why my images were rejected for IP violations?

Contributors

This topic has been closed for replies.

Nancy OShea

Community Expert

I don't know why it was rejected for IP reasons.

Maybe we can get some clarification from Wendy on this.

@WendellaBee

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert

WendellaBee

Adobe Employee

Sorry not my bailiwick. @MatHayward may have an idea.

Abambo

Community Expert

In addition, Almay has several images of the bridge for license. All say that no release is required. Examples below: https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/sundial-bridge-redding.html

Shutterstock also has several images of this bridge for license. Example below: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/redding-california-july-28-sundial-bridge-712325461

And images of the bridge are clearly being used for commercial purposes without property release:
https://redding-real-estate.com/redding-places-of-interest/pictures-of-redding/

Anyone have any idea why my images were rejected for IP violations?

By @scottbu

Almay accepts quite a lot that Adobe (and Shutterstock) refuses.

With Shutterstock, I had a dispute about coke (coal) that they refused based on IP violation. The moderator mistakenly confused coke with Coke from Coca-Cola. That's when moderation is done by humans, sometimes pictures pass, sometimes they get refused.

Commercial use may be acceptable for some, but not all cases. Adobe prefers to refuse pictures on IP basis, and it gets more and more stringent. Pictures that did pass yesterday may not pass any more today because of changed internal guidance.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

scottbuAuthor

Inspiring

Abambo,

I certainly understand that it's Adobe's right to decide what to accept or reject, for any reason or no reason at all. However, if they are tightening restritions, the new restrictions should apply equally to files already accepted. There is no point in instituting a new criteria that they consider important enough to refuse new files, yet leave existing files which fail that criteria available for license.

All in all, it's just very frustrating to spend the time and effort to research and verify that there is no reason for Adobe to refuse the images, only to have Adobe refuse the images.

T

Test Screen Name

Legend

"There is nothing stating that the bridge is copyrighted " There doesn't need to be.Just like there's nothing on your photo saying the photo is copyright, but you are automatically protected.

scottbuAuthor

Inspiring

I'm well aware of copyright. I've drafted dozens of legal agreements including software copyright and I copyright all of my images with the Library of Congress before submitting them to Adobe Stock.

Abambo

Community Expert

Well, then you know that architectural edifices are protected by (c), as are special light arrangements etc.

I do not say that all those (c) claims make sense in all circumstances. There is fair use, there is the public space etc. But the rules of stock are that if you get a refusal, you have a refusal. We know, by trial and error, that some pictures get more often refused on IP grounds than others. We contributors do not have any rights to get our pictures accepted. However, the buyer has all rights to assume a carefree use of the pictures in all circumstances.

There is no use in arguing this or that and the sense of all this. We are dependant of our provider: Shutterstock, Getty, Adobe Stock, Almay, you name it. Their interest is not to accept your picture, but to sell assets to the customers.

I take my pictures, I submit them. If they get refused, I analyse the reason and the possible rationale behind this, but I try not to send too much time on this. The next pictures are waiting...

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

T

Test Screen Name

Legend

Perhaps the hundreds of images you already see on Adobe Stock did include correct IP release. It's a normal part of commercial photography. It's a big thing, but it's still made and owned by somone, and it's clearly not over 100 years old.

scottbuAuthor

Inspiring

Looking at the quality of the majority of files already on Adobe Stock, there is no way that they were submitted by professional photographers who understand, much less would take the time and effort to obtain a property release before submitting them.

Besides, Adobe refused my files for IP violation. They did not move the files to the "Pending" folder requesting a property release, as they have with others of my submissions.

Abambo

Community Expert

I never had pictures in the pending folder!

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

Nancy OShea

Community Expert

Hi @scottbu,

We don't work for Adobe. And there is no appeals process for rejected photos other than resubmitting them.

FYI, you can photograph the Eiffel Tower in Paris by day without restrictions. However, nighttime shots are not allowed because the light installation is protected by IP.

I don't know for sure, but the Sundial Bridge's light installation might be protected. Did you investigate it before submitting your photos?

https://www.cityofredding.org/departments/parks-and-recreation/light-the-sundial

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert

scottbuAuthor

Inspiring

Nancy,

I'm well aware of the Eiffel Tower lighting restrictions, as well as several other situational restrictions for image use. There is no such restriction on this bridge.

The Sunidal Bridge Deck Lighting Policy makes no mention of copyright, and I highly doubt that the City of Redding would allow lighing of a public bridge to be privately copyrighted.

Abambo

Community Expert

The Sunidal Bridge Deck Lighting Policy makes no mention of copyright, and I highly doubt that the City of Redding would allow lighing of a public bridge to be privately copyrighted.

By @scottbu

Copyright is attributed per se by the creation. Architectural edifices are (c) and the (c)-holder is the architect. The lightning is part of the bridges signature and makes it therefore open to (c). If pictures of the bridge are free of (c) needs to be certified by the city. I doubt that they care or are attentive to this.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

scottbuAuthor

Inspiring

I forgot to mention... I also checked that this bridge is not listed on Adobe's "Known Image Restrictions" site:

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

Abambo

Community Expert

I forgot to mention... I also checked that this bridge is not listed on Adobe's "Known Image Restrictions" site:

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

By @scottbu

As of the mention there:

The information presented here is updated periodically, not all-inclusive, and not intended to be a complete nor accurate understanding of all applicable IP issues (...)

Looking at your picture, I would guess that you would also get a "technical issues" refusal because of the white balance and may be also different other small issues.

The moderator took the most logical approach to refuse!

This said they are nice images!

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

scottbuAuthor

Inspiring

Thanks for the compliment, Abambo!

White balance is correct - that was the actual color of the bridge when I was there.

I have had images refused for obviously incorrect reasons before, but these 7 were singled out from about 30 others and it was several more days after the rest were accepted for the moderator to reject them. I think the moderator probably used the correct refusal button,

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