Here we go again - Photo rejected for infringement of Interllectual Property

[vinodk28939938]

This photo mine was not accepted beacuse of infringment of Interlectual property. I fail to see how this photo of a landscape of a lake and mountains infringes intelectual property.

Def: "intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions; literary and artistic works; designs; and symbols, names and images used in commerce." 

[Moderator moved the thread to the correct forum]

[daniellei4510]

Maybe the moderator clicked the wrong rejection reason? There's a significant blue cast in the elements that might need to be corrected.

[Jill_C]

The image should have been rejected based on quality issues. The white balance is much too blue, it's blurry, and there's a ghostly image of a child.

[vinodk28939938]

That was not the reason that it was not accepted. I don't agree with the of quality either because it was accepted in other sites

Sent from Outlook for Android<>

[daniellei4510]

Having assets accepted on other sites does not guarantee having those images accepted on Adobe Stock. We hear this all the time. And some stock sites use AI to review assets. The quality issues as noted are correct. You can take the advice as given or not. That is entirely up to you.

[Jill_C · Accepted solution]

This image does NOT meet Adobe's quality standards, and that fact is indisputable.

[vinodk28939938]

That was not the issue. The reason for not accepting the photo was interlectual property infingment, explain what was the infringment.
Even on the quality issue the is a image of a child in a long expusure photo which was out of focus. That child was not the subject of the photo. Please address the issue raised and dont jusify it with lame excuses.

[daniellei4510]

Moderators make mistakes and sometimes click the wrong reason for rejection. We're trying to help here. There have not been any lame excuses. This image was rejected for quality issues, whether the boy or the boat were main subjects or not.

[vinodk28939938]

.I am glad that you finally agreed that the reviewer has made an error. This is not the first time either. The folowing two were also rejected. So was a photo of an Australian Pelican.  Intellectual property defination is "

What is Intellectual Property?

Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions; literary and artistic works; designs; and symbols, names and images used in commerce.

IP is protected in law by, for example, patents, copyright and trademarks, which enable people to earn recognition or financial benefit from what they invent or create. By striking the right balance between the interests of innovators and the wider public interest, the IP system aims to foster an environment in which creativity and innovation can flourish.

[daniellei4510]

Not sure about the pelican, but these two would require property releases since they are the main subject of interest.

[Abambo]

Not sure about the pelican, but these two would require property releases since they are the main subject of interest.

By @daniellei4510

The refusal for missing property releases is IP violation. The signs on the first builing are clear IP violations. 

[Jill_C · Accepted solution]

The 1st  image is a commercial building with signs that need to be removed or obscured. The second image appears to be private homes for which you would need the owners' permission to use.

[vinodk28939938]

The second half of your statement is insane. That is a picture of several houses in a public street, are you implying that I should have got the permission of the owners. All buildings are either privately or government owned yet Adobe stock has many building eg THE TAJ MAHAL. Did the photographer of these building get the permission of the government of India.

[daniellei4510]

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/property-release.html#:~:text=What's%20a%20property%2...

Of special note: "Identifiable exteriors or interiors of private homes and buildings"

[Jill_C]

Actually, what is "insane" is that you haven't read, or comprehended, the intellectual property guidelines:

Property releases

Property releases Find out about the permissions you need to depict property in your stock assets.

[Abambo]

The second half of your statement is insane. That is a picture of several houses in a public street, are you implying that I should have got the permission of the owners. All buildings are either privately or government owned yet Adobe stock has many building eg THE TAJ MAHAL. Did the photographer of these building get the permission of the government of India.

By @vinodk28939938

Those houses are not stanard houses that could be located anywhere, but highly recognizable houses. Even if located and photographed from the public street, the owners of those houses have proerty rights that they control. Seeing their house on a billboard may make them angry and the agency and Adobe (and at the end you) will have to pay a huge amount of money for misuse of their property. Privacy matters. 

The Taj Mahal is a different case and some buildings of that kind are protected by IP. 

(But as said above: you can discuss about the sense and nonsense of the rules, but Adobe refusals connot be appealed).

Besides this: at least the second picture also exposes chromatic aberration.

[vinodk28939938]

Yes it is the double standards that is adopted by Adobe that I question. 

This picture 0f a tudor building is acceptable and is up for sale on adobe stock. Yet thispicture of mine was not acepted for reasons of intelectual Property infringment. This is a public cricket stadiums

[daniellei4510]

The top image is a very well done AI image. If the person who submitted it did not mark it as so, they are in the wrong and the asset shouldn't have been accepted.

[Jill_C]

The first image is Generative AI, and requires no Property Release,  because it's imagined, not real and not photographed. The cricket stadium probably does require a property release. There is no inconsistency by Adobe here,

[daniellei4510]

I don't know what stadium this is, but in check other football and baseball stadiums, they all require a property release for commercial use. They may be opened to the public, but they are still privately owned.

[vinodk28939938]

The inference from your last statment is that all privately owned properties require a property release from the owner. If I were to take a photograpgh of of a citycape eg New York a large number of the building in the scape are privately owned and therfore not city scape photograpghs should be accepted.

By the way the stadium in question is "Adelaide Oval itself is owned by the people of South Australia. We operate the venue on an 80-year lease from the Government of South Australia and are responsible for running, maintaining and developing Adelaide Oval along with our obligations to pay annual rent and sinking fund contributions"  i.e owned by me as a  person of South Australia.

Again on the double standards you have pictures of the Taj Hotel in Mumbai up for sale. It is owned by the TATA group. Did you get their release

[daniellei4510]

Yes, cityscape photos are accepted, provide no one home or building in the center of attention as the main subject. There would still be some possible exceptions: for example, the Eiffel Tower can be photographed and used commercially if taken in the day time, but not at night when it is lit up.

Google search: Does the Adelaide Oval require a property release for commercial use:
"Yes, a permit is required to film or photograph for commercial use at Adelaide Oval."

It's not MY double standard, even if there is one. I don't work for Adobe. I am a volunteer on this forum and a contributor.

[Abambo]

The inference from your last statment is that all privately owned properties require a property release from the owner. If I were to take a photograpgh of of a citycape eg New York a large number of the building in the scape are privately owned and therfore not city scape photograpghs should be accepted.

By @vinodk28939938

Don't argue, read the documentation on IP. https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/ip-guidelines.html

Be sure to follow also the links. 

And as a side note: we all are contributors, and I claim that for most of the restrictions, I understand what is allowed and what is not. But when I have an IP refusal, I check if I can do something about, like logo removals. If not, I move on. That's it.

[Abambo]

Yet thispicture of mine was not acepted for reasons of intelectual Property infringment. This is a public cricket stadiums

By @vinodk28939938

The architect owns the IP. Sorry, you need to read the IP requirements.

[daniellei4510 · Accepted solution]

Long story short: A well-known photographer took a photo of a lighthouse and included it in a calendar of his images. The owner of the lighthouse came across the calendar and sued the photographer for a percentage of the royalties gained by its sales.