Can 'Non-Compliant Image' mean = we just don't want your photo?

[3Days2Go]

Some photo submissions are rejected due to Model/Property Release issues or Intellectual Property issues.  These are -for the most part- understood and make sense...  But, then there are photo submissions rejected due to "Non-Compliant Image".  These rejections seem a lot less clear to me.  I've read the Contributor Guide, and per its guidance it seems that a "Non-Compliant Image" can be the result of something as innocuous as a keyword the moderator did not like, but it apparently could also mean 'we just don't want your photo'.  Am I correct? 

If so, those are BIG differences.  A keyword problem is worthy of trying to correct and re-submit.  A 'we just don't want your photo' problem isn't worthy of further pursuit.  But how is a contributor to know whether it's one or the other (or even something else), from the vague form-letter 'Non-Compliant Image' response provided by the moderation team?

Please advise.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi Joan,

What you describe falls under the definition of "Technical Issue". Quality and technical issues rejected at Adobe Stock .

[joanH]

Just adding my personal view of the art in general. JH

[MatHayward]

When you originally submitted this file, the moderation team kicked it back to you with a reminder that the model release was not valid. You then re-submitted the file with the same invalid release. At that time, the moderators noted that you did not comply with the request to update the release therefore, the rejection reason was non-compliant.

The issue with the release is in the name and signature of the photographer line. You had someone sign it on your behalf. This is not allowed. You must sign your own releases. If the release was accepted on other images, it was done so in error.

More details about our release requirements can be read here: Model release and protection guidelines for Adobe Stock

Kind regards,

Mat Hayward

[3Days2Go]

MatHayward Addendum to my previous reply.

I went back and re-read the section of the Adobe Stock Contributor User's Guide that I had followed when I set up my release form.  It's the same section that you provided a link to in your message.  Please note the pertinent verbiage from it here:

Adobe Stock Contributor User's Guide:

Legal Guidelines:

Model Release and Protection:

Be Aware of the Following Requirements:

• The name of the photographer must be the same as the Adobe Stock account holder name.
• Companies and agencies have the right to use different photographers/filmmakers. If you are submitting content as a company, your company name must appear next to the photographer or filmmaker’s name.

This is how I have the information documented on the Model Releases that I have provided.  The photographer signed as "artist", my name appears next to his + "dba 3Days2Go" (the company name).  This adheres faithfully to the above quoted guidelines; therefore, the release is compliant.  Yes?

[3Days2Go]

MatHayward​ Thank you for the explanation; however, I remain confused for the following reasons: I work with a photographer who does the shooting.  So he signed as the artist.  I add my name next to his in the “printed name“ area, since the contributor account owner’s name (me) needs to also appear on the form.   Which part of this is not correct?  That the photographer signed it?

Please advise how the release form should appear when the photographer is a hired hand.

Patrick

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi 3Days2Go,

The files would thus belong to the photographer and therefore be protected by copyright. I believe in this case you'd need a property release for those photos if they were to be used. However, I'm not sure that would be acceptable since Account Creation and Regulation says "You must own or control all the rights to files you submit to Adobe Stock. Don’t submit files that don’t belong to you (for example, photos that your spouse took) or that incorporate items that are not yours, such as content found on the internet." Account and submission guidelines at Adobe Stock . I am not sure if that would be applicable in this case. Therefore to be on the side of caution, I believe submitting photos you take is the better way.

Photography is fun, and it helps you to see your surroundings in various interesting perspectives. Being able to take your own photos helps you to be in a position to capture many opportunities, true life activities that you might otherwise would have missed.

[3Days2Go]

Thank you jacquelingphoto2017.  If the photographer wasn't working for me, then your suggestion would be applicable.  However, I have hired the photographer to shoot the session, so I own and control the rights to the material.  And I am asserting that on the release that I provide with each photo.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi 3Days2Go,

How I understand the quote you referred to in response to Mat, you would have had to signed up with Adobe as being a company. Am I correct to conclude that this is the case? In the case of signing up with Adobe as a company, then the photographer(s) you hire would sign as describe in the guideline. Otherwise Adobe would not know the difference, hence according to the guideline, the files would be considered not yours. That is how I understand it.

[3Days2Go]

Hi Jacquelingphoto2017,

The Adobe ID sign up requires a first and last name; so that is registered in my name.  In the area to provide company name I have done so.  And also the W-9 tax form provided is my company W-9 (sole proprietorship).  If you know of any other way to make it clearer to Adobe please advise.  Thank you!

[MatHayward]

This is correct. You would have needed to set up your account as a company. We do this for larger agencies as an exception but in the vast majority of accounts including yours contributor accounts are for individuals. You would need to either have your photographer create his or her own account and submit their work to that account or have the releases made out to you.

The name of the photographer on the release must match the name of the photographer in the account.

-Mat

[3Days2Go]

MatHayward​ If this is truly the case, then it is woefully underdocumented in any of the resources readily available to the Stock Contributor community.  I don't see how any small media business (like mine) would have proceeded in any way differently than I have done here --and then all of us eventually reach this same impasse --unless, independently they came up with the same idea you mention of having the business owner, instead of the actual photographer, sign as the photographer on the releases.  I wouldn't have thought of this, because to me it seems disingenuous to sign as the photographer.  And besides, I had found instructions in the Contributor's Guide on how to sign as a company next to the photographer's name.  There was no way for me to know that those instructions weren't intended for my company.

Since you make it sound like my business cannot be afforded the opportunity to register as a company account, I will take your word that Adobe expects --and will consider compliant --company owners to sign as the photographer on release forms, and I will update all of my releases accordingly.  Can you give a "Fast-Pass" to my images still in review that have the "co-signed" release forms?

Thank you

P.S. The tone of this reply is not intended to sound angry; it's more exasperation.

[3Days2Go]

After much back and forth discussion with input from many individuals (Thanks everyone!  Particularly Abambo), I am going to summarize the answer to this question myself, as follows: Though the "non-compliant image" rejection can mean a variety of different things, one of the possible meanings is not "We just don't want your photo."  If that is the sentiment of the Adobe Stock moderator reviewing your image, the proper rejection notice you should receive in that instance is "Lacks Aesthetic or Commercial Appeal".

That being said, there do appear to be black hole regions within Adobe's definition of 'image compliance', where your image or its supporting documentation could get trapped, and you won't know why, even though you've followed Adobe's guidelines to the letter (as I had done).  A more thoroughly documented explanation by Adobe as to what constitutes image compliance (or non-compliance) would be helpful in reducing this kind of chaos in the future.

[Abambo]

This is a really interesting aspect of the discussion and effectively needed some insight from Adobe. I have to say that I have learned a lot on model release with this thread. This gave me some thoughts for different scenarios.

• succession rights
• a collective of photographers. It's more interesting, when you are a collective, to submit your pictures together in one account as this will help to grow your stock faster and accelerate to built your reputation.

I understand however also Adobe to prefer to deal with  the individual photographers because any break-up etc would involve costly interventions for Adobe.

You need to clear now this with your photographers and contractually bind the photographer to you filing the pictures as photographer. I as a photographer would not like this. (In Europe, even if you have done work for hire, you retain certain rights to your work)

[joanH]

Good to have a summary, almost too many participants and opinions bunched together - this forum was getting confused. I believe there should be a specific number of replies to each question and once it has a correct answer, it should close. Well, lots to think about here. Thanks. Regards to all. JH

[Abambo]

As a moderator, if you are one, you could lock it. I won't. Somebody may still have a question or addition.

The most pertinent answers are from MatHayward​ as he could look into the rejection history. Next time we should ask him to jump in at an earlier stage. There was a lot of speculation, thus interesting, but not conclusive. This is, however a very interesting thread.

I would have added a link to Mat's conclusive answer Re: Can 'Non-Compliant Image' mean = we just don't want your photo? . Because for me, that's the correct answer... 🙂

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi Abambo, I agree with you. My impression of the summary is it points to Adobe at fault, even though in my opinion the information is right there in the guidlines as per quotation "You must own or control all the rights to files you submit to Adobe Stock. Don’t submit files that don’t belong to you (for example, photos that your spouse took) or that incorporate items that are not yours, such as content found on the internet", and "The name of the photographer must be the same as the Adobe Stock account holder name". Following the latter quotation by 3Days2Go, is a reference about companies, meaning if the contributor did not sign up with Adobe as a Company, (an option presented during registration) then he/she should make enquiry before proceeding as 3Days2Go did. As you said Matt did the research and clarified the issue, and confirmed my understanding. He should have been credited.

Regards

JG

[3Days2Go]

Abambo said >The most pertinent answers are from MatHayward as he could look into the rejection history. Next time we should ask him to jump in at an earlier stage.

Keep in mind that the original question asked was, "Can 'non-compliant image' mean = we just don't want your photo?"  Mat's input didn't really address this broader question, but he did let us know, specifically, that Adobe hadn't rejected my image for that reason.  It was actually you who were the first to state that Adobe does not, in a general sense, use the 'non-compliant image' objection to reject a photo for what are really commercial value reasons.  So, as to the original question, your answer was the most direct. 

Don't be so humble, Abambo​!

[MatHayward · Accepted solution]

To answer the question about "non compliant" meaning we just don't want your picture. It's theoretically possible but that isn't the intent of the rejection reason. There is a "lack of aesthetic appeal" rejection reason that would more likely result from the shots that simply aren't up to the standards we have in place.

Non compliant rejections are most often the result of an image being submitted with either an incorrect release or missing a release entirely then being resubmitted without the necessary change.

Non-compliant can also be used if an image is submitted with a watermark or time stamp on the image. Same for borders or excessive post processing special effects. I'm sure there are other examples when it's used but those are the most common that I have seen.

-Mat

[Ricky336]

I think this clears things up a lot! It does for me anyhow - takes the 'mystery' out of this rejection reason. (Not that there is any mystery, just not so clear as the other rejection reasons.) Perhaps the wording in the non-compliant reason could be made a bit clearer, so as to avoid such confusion as this thread has demonstrated. (It's not the first time.) I understand more now how this actually works, as I haven't had this reason before.

[Abambo]

We simply can’t look into the true reasons for rejections so we are always doing some type of guessworking. With time passing, the guesses will get really good and Mat will need to step in less.

[MatHayward]

I'm always happy to chime in and offer any insight I can. It's very helpful when you tag me as I get an email notification that way. I do my best to answer every thread but it can take some time when I don't get that notification.

Cheers!

Mat

[Abambo]

You asked for it... don't complain later.

I'm always looking for your qualified answers right to the point. Especially when there is insight knowledge needed to answer.