Adobe really bugs me!

[DAStagg]

Especially when one considers the renumeration they pay, bearing in mind, I have sold/licensed one solitary image so far.

I have had a number of my images rejected by Adobe for one reason or another and again today I had a further two images rejected for legal issues. I did point out these images were for editorial purposes, even so they were rejected.

I find this strange because many images that are rejected by Adobe were accepted by Getty (I look on Getty as the benchmark für stock photos) and are on display/for sale/licensing with them. Is Adobe being too over cautious?

Perhaps it is me? I am a photojournalist, decided in 2016 to expand into creative photography as this is not dangerous like journalism.

Here are the 2 images (greatly reduced in resolution) in question today.

So where is the problem with these, bearing in mind they are for editorial purposes? I welcome your comments.

The final question that does arise, is it worth working with Adobe - why do I bother?

DAStagg

freelance photojournalist

[Ussnorway]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/DAS+Photography  wrote

I had a further two images rejected for legal issues.

[snip]

So where is the problem with these, bearing in mind they are for editorial purposes? I welcome your comments.

i would assume because you don't have their (the people in the images) permission to use it

[Szalam]

Yeah, Adobe is really strict about getting model releases.

And, not that it matters since they were rejected for legal reasons, but you also have areas that are a bit over-exposed in both images too.

[DAStagg]

For editorial purposes, ie the press, one doesn't need a release. Remember, I am a journalist.

[Szalam]

Adobe Stock is not aiming at journalists. That is one of the biggest difference between a stock repository like Getty and Adobe Stock. The market for whom they are aiming is entirely different.

[Ussnorway]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/DAS+Photography  wrote

For editorial purposes, ie the press, one doesn't need a release. Remember, I am a journalist.

Adobe stock is world wide... some countries don't allow journalist to ignore the law

[ricky336 · Accepted solution]

Adobe don't accept photos for journalism/editorial, only creative release (for the average contributor anyway). So in this case YOU would need a model release, and since (I guess) it would be rather impossible to get model releases for everyone, the photo wouldn't be accepted based on that alone!

So, as a rule of thumb, unless you can get model releases for people, don't bother submitting them. However, if the faces aren't shown, and you are showing part of a body, chest, hands, foot etc., then you would not need a release!

[DAStagg]

I am happy now. Thanks for the informative answer.