Are photo assets that contain blurred out IP acceptable for inclusion with the Missions program?

[KDJ Imagery and Graphics]

Greetings,

I have recently been selected for inclusion into the "Missions" program. This is somewhat new to me but I have researched it and I want to submit too it but I have a question concerning intellectual property. This inquiry is for both the Missions as well as stock in general. That is, can I submit photos that contain IP if I blurr out the brand name/logos with a Gausian filter? Many thanks for any help!

Cheers,

Keith J. 

[daniellei4510]

If it looks natural, yes. But Gausian blur usually looks too obvious. You might try instead the Remove tool or Gen Fill.

[Jill_C · Accepted solution]

Read the Mission Brief very carefully; it should state whether IP protected assets will be accepted. The assets will not end up in your Contributor account to be licensed, so I think Missions sometimes allow assets containing IP to be submitted without releases or editing.

Regarding images you plan to upload to your Contributor account for review, removal of logos, brands, names, people, etc. must be done very carefully. Blurring usually looks quite clumsy and obvious. You want it to look like a logo or person was never there. My rule of thumb is that if it takes me more than ~5 minutes to remove any objects that will cause an IP rejection, I don't bother with it.

[KDJ Imagery and Graphics]

Thank you both for your valued help! In further research I found the briefing page with the technical specs. I found it too be very confusing. In the sense that the required specs indicate that you aren't supposed too have any IP in the photos yet I see images with computers and individuals talking on cell phones. 

One of the rules were that the model should not be looking directly into the camera and yet there's a photo of a woman in a public scene and although she is the focal point with other people in the background that are blurred via a shallow depth of field, the photo looks staged! She is looking directly into the camera, all of the people in the background (who are bunched up), look like extras in a video one would see on television. Her attire is questionable in that her raincoat (which is loosely tied and just looks sloppy) looks out of place given there's no evidence of rain anywhere in the shot!  With this amount of discrepancies, $200.00 just looks too me to be a waste of time! Thanks anyway for your valued help!

Cheers 

[Jill_C]

Indeed, the amount of editing needed, and the need to get model releases and property releases outweighs the meager compensation. This is why I've never participated in a Mission even though I've been invited to many.