Confusion on intellectual property violation

[PHOTOSynthesis]

I have been contributing photos for about a year now and I seem to have figured out everything with regard to Adobe's acceptance except Intellectual Property Violation. I recently had two photos rejected for that reason. One was a closeup of a small fishing boat, bottom. I Photoshopped out the name of the boat but left the name of the town it was based in. I don't know whether they took the town name for the boat name, or not. In the title for the photo I stated the town the photo was taken in so I figured that would help. Maybe I should resubmit without the name of the town on the boat.

Another is in a small German town that I Photoshopped all the signage out of except one that said "Hotel." (First photo) That seemed ambiguous enough. No go.

They don't tell you what the issue is and you can't respond to a "No reply" email so I am at a loss. I have read the rules and have a link to a site that explains all the places that you can't sell photos of without a release.

It also seems odd to me that if I wanted to sell a photo of a town with signage visible I would have to get releases from all the shop owners, which if they don't speak my language, is a bit of a challenge to say the least. If you take a street photo how could you ever get releases from all the people who are visible and potentially recognizable?  Yet it seems I see photos like these published.

There are a few other rejections just as confusing to me so I am hoping for some insight.

Thank you in advance,

Don

[joanH]

Hello Dalila1999, Yes, this is a difficult and complicated thing we must all deal with. The Adobe company takes the greatest risk and responsibility for the copyright compliance of the stock posted on their sale site. They ask that all contributors do their part and assure that no infringement on model and owners rights are violated. Every detail is important. So, there is a posting on the Adobe site to clarify the standard compliances. It is then up to each artist and photographer to be sure their work complies with the general laws for all countries. Releases are not going away, they are more in demand by publishers and printers. Your photos as they are are fine for your private use. If you take your work commercial and print copies even on print post cards, you will need permission and releases. This is just a statement about overarching laws. I ask you to study the regulations found in places noted here. Your photos are quite appealing and would probably be accepted if they were in compliance.  Regards, JH

By @MatHayward

Mat sent this out some time back.. FYI. It is the beginning of the release information track.

"We do have an "owners manual" so to speak. Adobe learn and support pages have recently been updated and will provide you with a thorough range of information

An architecture/building would fall in the "foggy" category also.  Property release and protection guidelines for Adobe Stock should give you a clearer understanding of what is required. Known image restrictions will give you a more comprehensive knowledge of what is not accepted, and with other's, what composition is accepted. To the extent of the strictness and tightness of the reviews, I do not think any get past the reviewers.

However, based on the phrase "for your own protection" used in other discussions I've read, it can be interpreted as the contributor would be included for litigation.  I hope your questions, and curiosity was satisfactorily addressed." MH

[PHOTOSynthesis]

Thank you JH. You r comment are helpful.

[Abambo]

Photoshop also the name of the town. Don't expect the moderators to understand that the ship is not named after a town.

As for the architectural picture, you may find a lot of elements  that may fall under ip, like the clocks, the panels etc.

Also here, do not expect to have moderators knowing what is under ip and what is public domain.

[PHOTOSynthesis]

Good points. Thanks for your input.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi Dalila,

For the boat, I suggest you remove all the writing, both from the boat itself as well as from the balls. All artwork is protected, and the clock tower has, also the plaque under the window. I would suggest removing the word hotel. In general, closeup of a town is not accepted, however since this is just a little corner, I do not know if that would apply in this case.

Even though it is not said exactly what your property violation is, I believe the summary on the rejection notice give a fairly good ideas of what to look for. The details now can find from the links Joan highlights, and even then there will be the rare times you will find it difficult to figure out.

Regards

JG

[PHOTOSynthesis]

Good information. I appreciate your input. Guess I need more attention to details.

Thanks.