Skip to main content
Jill_C
Brainiac
August 6, 2018
Answered

Inconsistent Image Review Process (IP)

  • August 6, 2018
  • 3 replies
  • 2987 views

A week or so ago, my image of the memorial monument (called Soul Consoling Tower) at Manzanar National Historic Site was accepted. Today, a similar image taken from a different perspective and in portrait rather than landscape orientation was rejected for "Intellectual Property Refusal". It's a cemetery monument at a public site, so I'm not sure why it is considered IP. Anyone have any idea why one image is accepted and another rejected?

This topic has been closed for replies.
Correct answer MatHayward

The watermark was on neither of the images submitted to Adobe. The monument/shrine is definitely not personal and private. It is located at the Manzanar National Historic Site in the Eastern Sierra (where Japanese prisoners were interred during WWII). Photography is allowed (and encouraged) everywhere throughout the site, even inside the museum. The characters translate to "soul consoling tower" which is how I titled the image.


Even if photography is encouraged, that does not mean that "commercial" photography is allowed. The moderation team is made up of many individuals. We cannot know the specific permissions allowed by all locations in the world therefor in many cases we are required to make a judgement call based on past experience with other images of a similar nature. In most cases, the moderators are told to err on the side of caution. I'm sure that is what happened here. My opinion is that both photos probably should have been rejected. This is clearly a structure designed and created by someone which makes it their intellectual property. It is clearly recognizable and does not appear to be more than 120 years old.

-Mat

3 replies

Ricky336
Brainiac
August 8, 2018

In my opinion, the only logical conclusion is the inscription. This makes the image identifiable - therefore you would need a release for the image. So, it was probably an oversight by the moderator. Other structures like the Golden Gate Bridge probably come under a different category.

The whole topic of IP rights, I think is a can of worms!

🖖
Abambo
Adobe Expert
August 9, 2018

ricky336  wrote

The whole topic of IP rights, I think is a can of worms!

I think we can agree on that...

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer
joanH
Inspiring
August 10, 2018

Yes! JH

Abambo
Adobe Expert
August 7, 2018

JC926  wrote

Anyone have any idea why one image is accepted and another rejected?

A different reviewer with a different view on the subject.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer
Jill_C
Jill_CAuthor
Brainiac
August 7, 2018

That's my assumption, but there doesn't seem to be a way to question their decisions...

Jill C., Forum Volunteer
jacquelingphoto2017
Adobe Expert
August 7, 2018

Hi JC,

We probably be able to help you figure it out if we'd seen the images. However you might be able to do so after going through Property release and protection guidelines for Adobe Stock . Also look through Known image restrictions and tagproducts_SG_STOCK-CONTRIBUTOR_i18nKeyHelppagetitle . I hope this helps.

Best wishes

JG

Jill_C
Jill_CAuthor
Brainiac
August 7, 2018

First image was accepted; second image was refused as an IP violation.

Jill C., Forum Volunteer
jacquelingphoto2017
Adobe Expert
August 7, 2018

The watermark is not on the image uploaded to Adobe Stock. (I just verified that again.) I quickly exported the above images from Lightroom to create a small jpg to copy into this forum, and a watermark was applied at that time. So that's not the reason... But I will check other images I've uploaded to Adobe Stock recently to be sure they haven't accidentally acquired my watermark.


Therefore it has to do with the monument. It might be the fact that it is a monument, or the inscription, or both. In any case the one approved is an oversight. Monuments/landmarks are not really accepted without Intellectual Property Release -  Property release and protection guidelines for Adobe Stock .