Adding city photos to Adobe Stock

[Aurelia30747490zdvc]

Hello, I would like to add photos to Adobe Stock that show recognizable places, but as far as I know, according to European Union law, I do not need consent because the object is e.g. historic (e.g. old town, town hall), it is a landscape. Do I have to create fictitious consents to add such a photo?

[Moderator moved the thread to the correct forum]

[Jill_C · Accepted solution]

Read here about when property releases are required:

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/property-release.html

You most certainly MUST NOT create "fictitious consents" for any buildings that may require a property release. That would be illegal, and grounds for Adobe to delete your Contributor account.

[Aurelia30747490zdvc]

Thank you for your answer,
I don't want to create false consents, the consent message simply appears in the panel even if it is not required. The question is whether there is a recognizable person or building in the image. Perhaps there is something not fully translated correctly and that is causing my problems. I have a language other than English set.

[Jill_C]

If there is a recognizable person in the image, I always click Yes and supply a model release. If the person is not recognizable, for instance, far away or not facing the camera, I click No. 

Regarding "property", specifically buildings, you have to do some more research before deciding to upload it without a Property Release. For instance, I have uploaded images of several U.S. State Capitol buildings, after having checked on their website that commercial use of images of their buildings is not prohibited. In that case, I check No in the "Recognizable people or property?" checkbox. Adobe Moderators are inconsistent in their acceptance. For instance, some images of California Missions have been accepted, others refused based on IP. My overall reject percentage is low, so I don't worry if some get refused...

[Aurelia30747490zdvc]

Thank you very much for your detailed answer. I think this pretty much answers my question. Regards

[Jill_C]

Glad to be of assistance. Good luck with your submissions !

[Abambo]

Adobe Moderators are inconsistent in their acceptance. For instance, some images of California Missions have been accepted, others refused based on IP. My overall reject percentage is low, so I don't worry if some get refused...

By @Jill_C

I think that for such matters, the quality, and training of the moderators differs a lot. If you are sure that no release is needed, you can simply resubmit half a year later. I wouldn't submit more than twice the same picture, however. It is highly improbable to get twice the same moderator, so the rejection may well be according to Adobe's internal instructions.

[Aurelia30747490zdvc]

Thank you for the information. As for moderators, I think it's similar in other companies. Not every employee has the same knowledge.

[Abambo]

Thank you for the information. As for moderators, I think it's similar in other companies. Not every employee has the same knowledge.

By @Aurelia30747490zdvc

Sure. And moderators moderate hundreds of assets in a day, so if you happen to hit the moderator at the end of the day, when they are tired, the decision may be different as when you hit the same moderator at the beginning of his shift.

[Jill_C]

I might take you advice regarding the resubmitting the rejected images, because I've found some instances where some images of the same property, just different angles and distances, were rejected and some accepted... 

[Abambo · Accepted solution]

You also need to conform with the Adobe rules. The EU law is in this sense irrelevant, as Adobe probably has more stringent rules, which is the right of Adobe. They need indeed to obey the rules in all countries, not a specific region only.

Example: A picture (for commercial use) of the Eiffel Tower at night would be legal in Germany, but not in France. So you can't add that one.

Generally city scapes are allowed and specific buildings that are obviously older, are not a problem, if there are no logos in view.

[Aurelia30747490zdvc]

Thank you for your answer. I know that I can't sell photos of all the buildings. I meant those permitted by law, e.g. a 17th century cathedral. When adding a new image/photo, there is an option "Recognizable people or objects?" the answer should be "YES" (because such an old object is recognizable) - the system automatically asks for permission / consent to disseminate the image, there is no "no permission required" option.
There is also an option that there is something wrongly translated in the panel.

[Abambo]

I meant those permitted by law, e.g. a 17th century cathedral. When adding a new image/photo, there is an option "Recognizable people or objects?" the answer should be "YES" (because such an old object is recognizable) - the system automatically asks for permission / consent to disseminate the image, there is no "no permission required" option.

By @Aurelia30747490zdvc

I know that the question is about “recognizable things”. The real question should be “is a property release required”. In most of the cases, the answer to this is the same, but many people would simply say no, I do not need a property release.

I have some historic buildings and yes, I answered no to that question, even that the buildings are highly recognizable. It's a question of interpretation…

Incidentally: permitted by law should read “permitted by law and accepted by the Adobe rules”. And in addition, some photographs of buildings are simply not permitted by law, but would be, without special exceptions in the law.

There is also an option that there is something wrongly translated in the panel.

By @Aurelia30747490zdvc

What is your language?

[Aurelia30747490zdvc]

Thank you for the information. All in all, I think I already know what I wanted to know.
As for the language, I have Polish set in the panel.

[RALPH_L · Accepted solution]

It is only considered landscape if the architecure is not the main subject of the photo. Usually it has to bve smaller than 1/3 of the photo.

There are many building, old and new that are protected. I.e. the European Central Bank, the Würzburg Residenz, the castle Neu Schwanstein and alot more. 

[Aurelia30747490zdvc]

Thank you for your answer. I realize that there are many buildings in Europe that should not be photographed commercially. However, I am interested in the case of the latter, those who are allowed to take photos. Both can be recognized by humans. When adding a photo, there is a question about the recognition of people or objects. If you click "yes", you automatically consent to sharing the image, even if it is not required.
There is also a possibility that something is translated incorrectly. It's hard for me to say.

[Abambo]

Check also here: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restrictions.html

[Aurelia30747490zdvc]

Thank you for the examples, maybe they will be useful in the future. There is only one object from this country that interests me - Książ Castle.