Refusal related to intellectual property

Even if you only capture a "portion" of a building, a property release is required if that portion makes the building identifiable. Here is why that matters:

The Building as Intellectual Property

Architectural designs are considered a form of intellectual property. Just as a logo is protected by trademark, the unique "look and feel" of a building—its shapes, patterns, and structural details—can be protected by copyright.

• The "Unique Design" Rule: If a building has a distinctive architectural style (like a Frank Gehry building or a modern skyscraper), even a close-up of a specific corner or a unique window pattern can be enough for the owner to identify it.

• Public vs. Commercial: While you generally have the right to photograph a building from a public sidewalk for your own personal use, the rules change when you want to profit from that image commercially.

If you take photos inside a commercial facility, obtain permission from the business and submit a property release.
Taking photos and selling them without permission can cause trouble.
There may be cases where photos are sold without the reviewers understanding.
However, ultimately, the contributor may be held responsible, so please make sure you fully understand this before submitting.

Are the other photos like this on Stock limited to Editorial Use Only?

It's possible that other Contributors included a property release with their submissions. It's also possible that the Moderator just selected the wrong rejection reason code. It should have been rejected for quality issues - underexposed, noisy and blurry.