Inspiring

Frage

Copyright/Intellectual Property Question

Forum|Forum|7 years ago
August 3, 2018
5 Antworten
3102 Ansichten

So, I know this seems to crop up once in a while, but there never seems to be a clear answer...

Quite often my and other's photos get rejected as Copyright Infringement or Intellectual Property Violations. Most of the time these are completely correct and justified. Fair enough right, we'd be angry if someone stole our photos too.

However, what confuses me (and I think other people) is that you can search for the same subject matter in Stock and find the same images listed, and not even as editorial use only. As an example, I found images of Singapore's paper currency (current paper currency) which is absolutely not permitted for commercial use, and probably very strict about what editorial use also. I haven't taken any currency shots ever, so its not like I'm jealous, but I'm curious about why some things like that are allowed, and some aren't? Is it just an error on the review process?

If you download these as a customer, there's no property/model release attached, but obviously it's not Adobe who would get the take-down notice and possible legal action. So how does that work?

My curiosity is also if one of my photos slips under the wire unnoticed as a copyrighted piece of material, then who is culpable for litigation? Adobe? The trained reviewer? The contributor?

I'm just curious is all.

Contributors

Dieses Thema wurde für Antworten geschlossen.

D

DrSniffyAutor

Inspiring

Just when I thought I understood it lol

I uploaded a whole set of images complete with property release.. rejected for intellectual property issue lol. No other logos in shot, just interior of a theatre space.

I'm convinced the reviewers need more training on the copyright and IP side, but with no way of contacting the Adobe staff about it, all I can do is resubmit the images and release again and hope a different person sees it.

jacquelingphoto2017

Community Expert

The releases should be on file. You can look by clicking on uploaded files, then release to view them. What is the procedure you use to submit the images?

D

DrSniffyAutor

Inspiring

Hey, when you click 'yes' to recognisable property or models, you have to upload or link to an existing release to proceed.

I'll check again, maybe the wording wasn't quite right on the release.

jacquelingphoto2017

Community Expert

Hi DrSniffy,

I went silent for a while to gather some information. Here is what I understand. Fotolia.com apparently was more interested in volume over quality which resulted in a gallery of a huge number of non-licensable image. On acquiring Fotolia.com portfolio, Adobe inherited all these images. It was after Acquiring Fotolia.com that Adobe introduced rules of their own, which varies slightly with some of the laws of some countries; a point that spark several debates. Based on my latest update, there is "a team in place that is going through the entire collection in an effort to remove contents that do not meet Adobe's current criteria". As you might appreciate this will take a very long time based on the volume. My understanding is, a lot of progress is made since, however because of the volume, there is still much more to go through. Therefore we will continue to see these images up until the evaluation process is complete.

As it is now, following the current guidelines as set out by Adobe is the way to go in order to have your images accepted.

I hope this helps.

Best wishes,

JG

D

DrSniffyAutor

Inspiring

Here's Taiwan's law on photos of Taipei 101:

The reproduction of this artistic, architectural, or applied artwork, is covered under Taiwan's "Copyright Act" (1992-2016-present), which allows reproduction of works in a public place if the author of the original work is attributed and the reproduction is not solely for the purpose of selling copies.

jacquelingphoto2017

Community Expert

I get your point.

Ricky336

Community Expert

I don't think there is any clear-cut answer- apart from you have to be aware that images sold here are for commercial purposes, so when issues of IP Rights come into effect it can be a minefield. I think Adobe has to be careful what they accept, and if any potential issues arise with IP rights, they er on the side of caution and reject. Better that, than have a lawsuit. One has to be careful of logos and trademarks. This is the main issue and if any image contains either or both of these things, you need a property release.

Abambo

Community Expert

There is also the possibility that pictures that got accepted beforehand will not anymore now.Rules may change and accepted pictures may stay.The one looking at your picture needs to decide in seconds if the picture is acceptable. Sometimes I have the impression that there is a kind of examination pyramid. The initial exterminator s not sure about what to decide, so he send the image to the second level, who can send to a third level. I would organize my submission process like that.

Also, if you have local buildings not in the list of buildings to be rejected, how could an exterminator know that? Later, it can be common to reject such pictures.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

D

DrSniffyAutor

Inspiring

Seems plausible it was there beforehand, though that wouldn't me a much if the photographer got hauled to court. "Ignorance of the law is no defence".

And sure, the reviewer may not know the building, but a general guideline for any photographer is that if the building is post-1990, it probably has a copyright. Though they don't display logos, they are still architectural designs (like our photos are copyright, even without a logo/watermark).

However, one interesting thing I found today was that publicly owned buildings aren't subject to this law. I have a feeling the supertrees are owned by the government, and therefore public property.

So that leads to another question.. if my image was wrongly identified as copyright, how do I explain to a reviewer it is public owned and not subject to copyright laws? It relies on the training again?

Actually Getty don't often outright reject images on copyright if they don't know, they ask for more info before making a decision.. maybe there could be an extra level of check in Adobe Stock if the reviewer doesn't know? E.g. I have a photo in Getty cropped so tight you can't tell what it is, they suspect it's copyright, but put it on hold and asked me to explain where/what it is etc.

Still, I just picked the Supertrees as an example. Taipei 101 Is clearly Taipei 101 and that photo even shows two logos, though you wouldn't know that if you didnt.. but its a shot from the street, not from a ticketed area. I'm sure I could do a search and find plenty of post 1990 architecture in the commercial image stock.

jacquelingphoto2017

Community Expert

Hi DrSniffy,

You've asked a very pertinent question. There are some images that would otherwise be rejected that are accepted under certain stipulated conditions. Using the currency as an example: "Every country has its own stipulations when depicting currency. Adobe rejects any images containing reproductions of currency where more than 75% of banknotes are visible in the image." Therefore, it's not a case that bank notes are not accepted, but the entire note must not be showing, and at least 25% must not be visible. Architecture/building would also 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 pass 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.

Best wishes

JG

D

DrSniffyAutor

Inspiring

Thanks for the reply!

So, this should or shouldn't exist? Money Asia - Buy this stock photo and explore similar images at Adobe Stock | Adobe Stock or any of that other photographer's currency images? Or as we can only see the front, that's 50%? Also this photographer (and many others) have numerous images of the Supertrees in Singapore, which are in a public park (no ticket required) but obviously they are recognisable landmarks. I also have images like this, albeit with different lights, so not identical, but rejected as intellectual property.

So I can only assume either every Supertree photographer got a release, in which case that release should surely be available to the stock purchaser? Or they somehow got under the wire/missed?

Here's another example. This is Taipei 101 (another similar but different 'lookup' I had rejected, which is listed in Adobe's "Known Restrictions" as only permissible in a cityscape. I wouldn't describe this as a cityscape.. Taipei 101 with white background - Buy this stock photo and explore similar images at Adobe Stock | Adobe Stock

As you say, I think it's the foggyness and inconsistency that can be frustrating. There's an element of "he's selling photos of X, so why can't I?".

Weirdly, I've had images get rejected at Getty for intellectual property, only to have them accepted at Adobe.. which is a good avenue haha.

jacquelingphoto2017

Community Expert

Looking at the building example you highlight, I think that will get through based on this quote from the Property release and protection guidelines for Adobe Stock, "Sometimes you get thrown a curve ball, like the case with the New York Stock Exchange. Only frontal depictions of the NYSE are trademarked, so if you photograph the building from the side, you won’t need a release". I do not identify a trademark on the tower in that link. I'll have to find out some more about those bank notes before I can comment further.

Regards

JG

Anmelden

Login über soziales Netzwerk

Willkommen

Login über soziales Netzwerk

Scanne Datei nach Viren

Diese Datei kann nicht heruntergeladen werden