Unfortunately no professional experience with photography rights and in the respective countries.

ok, How can I delete this tread?

First of all, Adobe stock is Adobe's turf and so Adobe's rules.

But you err in different assumptions: 

1) IP refusals are IP refusals and not refusals due to missing model releases. Indeed you would probably need a property release. But if recognizable people are in the picture, you need a model release, regardless of your current legal assumptions. As Adobe does not control the use of the pictures, Adobe needs to make sure that the use is legal in all circumstances. Or if you take a picture of me on a bridge, and I am accessory to the bridge, I still could require damages, if the picture is used in a sense that I do not authorize, except if I specially offered you my authorization (model release). It is true, I can't object to use the picture for an exhibition or an editorial use. I can object using it in advertisement or any other commercial use.

The same is true for the achitectual pictures and IP concerns. The (c) belongs to the architect and there are restrictions on the use of pictures, which cannot be accepted for stock. Also, please check for any logo, as that also triggers IP violations.

2. Indoor shoots: you need the authorization of the building owner. If he did authorize you to take pictures, he normally did not authorize you to use that picture commercially, except if you have a property release. If you got hired for taking the pictures, the situation is even more complicated. Our contracts state the you transfer the (c) to us or that you restrain to use the pictures without our authorization. 

If your contract states a property release, you may try to submit that one as a property release, but I'm sure that only the standard forms get accepted as I can imagine that Adobe does not check all individual contracts submitted for their legal value. I suggest you include in the future the property release into your contracts as an addendum.

BTW and as a 'clin d'oeil', American law seams to be applicable everywhere in the world...

To be serious: Adobe needs not only to follow American law, but also all local laws where they operate and sell the stock images. That is a quite complicated process and it's the reason why they have restrictive rules. Example: The Eifel tower cannot be pictured for commercial use in France during the nighttime, but that law is only enforcable in France. You can't add such pictures to the stock library. The same is true for the Atomium in Brussels. Local not-American laws...

"Dear Adobe Stock Photo Team,"

Please understand that this is a community forum. WE ARE NOT ADOBE STAFF, just people with some experience and opinions. You are free to agree or disagree.

"Some photos were rejected for two reasons:

1. REFUSAL TO PROTECT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Yes, people are in these photos"

(a) intellectual property has NO CONNECTION TO PEOPLE. [Different rules apply to people] You must read Adobe's guidelines and follow them exactly. Any photograph of a made object, from a shoe to a skyscraper, may need consent from the rights holder, including very common items like cars.

" Yes, people are in these photos", but they are in public space and therefore no consent is required!"

Adobe do not care what your interpreation is of the laws in your country. They sell in many countries, with different laws, and they MAKE THEIR OWN RULES which may go further than the law. As a supplier you have only one choice: follow Adobe's rules. There is no appeal, and they will not enter into legal arguments with you.

"2. INDOOR SHOT. I already have the authorization and this is already available in the form of the order confirmation from my client. No further consent is required. "

Again, you are looking at this from a legal position rather than from the point of view of following all of Adobe's rules exactly.