Modern architecture with unique building structures requires a release

I have now had quite a number of photos rejected because in Adobe Stock's misguided interpretation of the copyright act, I have violated intellectual property when I have not. The following image is one that has been rejected! So the London skyline is now an intellectual property? Since when? Go figure!

I have had a lengthy discussion with contributor support who doesn't understand basic copyright law and is saying because Adobe is a private company, it can accept reject what it likes. Huh? What has latter to do with former?

However, the rejections I object to specifically state I have violated intellectual property when I have done no such thing. He's also conflating taking images of copyrighted buildings in a panorama with Freedom of Panorama (i.e., in his view, if a building is the subject, you cannot exploit it but the FOP exists precisely for that purpose--not all countries support it but that's another subject altogether). Furthermore, he has the gall to say I of all people should know and respect intelectual proprety when he doesn't understand the law as it stands.

For the record, the FOP clause for architectural works allows a photographer to take a photo of any permanent object in public view and to exploit it. Both the UK and the US, currently, support FOP but both the Adobe Stock lawyers, who must surely have overseen the language used on the Adobe Stock Contributor site, and its employees don't understand the law as it stands in their own country, let alone in the UK (same, as it happens where FOP is concerned).