• Global community
    • Language:
      • Deutsch
      • English
      • Español
      • Français
      • Português
  • 日本語コミュニティ
    Dedicated community for Japanese speakers
  • 한국 커뮤니티
    Dedicated community for Korean speakers
Exit
Locked
1

Inconsistent refusal of my artwork alleging "IP Refusal"

Explorer ,
Mar 21, 2023 Mar 21, 2023

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I am an illustrator, I specialize in drawing vector versions of realistic automobiles, and recently I finally decided I would give Adobe Stock a try. 

 

And after several days of waiting for my collection to be reviewed, I've found irregularities regarding which ones get accepted and which ones do not. 

 

The following are some of the ones that have been accepted:

Automobillustration_0004_1970s-Side-Compact-Asian-Hatchback-1.ai.pngAutomobillustration_0011_1980s-Side-Compact-Japanese-Truck.ai.pngAutomobillustration_0018_1990s-Side-Japanese-Family-Sedan.ai.png

 

And the following ones are some of the ones that have been rejected, stating "INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REFUSAL" as the reason:

Automobillustration_0009_1970s-Side-Japanese-Compact-Sedan.ai.pngAutomobillustration_0010_1970s-Side-Japanese-Economy-Sedan.ai.pngAutomobillustration_0012_1980s-Side-German-Compact-Convertible.ai.png

 

My question is, who are the people in charge of approving or rejecting my hard work?

Because nowhere in any of the uploaded files have I included any sort of branding whatsoever.

 

Was it because whoever moderated my illustration felt they recognized my drawings as real cars?   

 

Because if this is the case, then why are there countless other vector drawings of vehicles that have also been inspired by real life versions which have been accepted and are available for sale on Adobe Stock?  

 

Because a simple search for "automobile vector" yields countless results of examples of unbranded, but definitely recognizable models from other artists, like these:

SergioVO_4-1679458887446.jpeg

 

SergioVO_2-1679458764416.jpeg

SergioVO_5-1679458925974.jpeg

SergioVO_6-1679458993210.jpeg

I am frustrated, because I adhered to the guidelines and have spent countless making them, and would like the opportunity to make a few dollars from my hard-earned work like any other CC-paying artist.

 

And it's not like cars are organic objects that grow on trees. Unless they are simple box drawings that can be easily made on Microsoft Paint, the good ones have all been inspired by real life versions of some manufacturer. 

 

TOPICS
Contributor critique

Views

339

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines

correct answers 1 Correct answer

Explorer , Mar 22, 2023 Mar 22, 2023

My question was if anybody in this community had a definitive idea as to which criteria or logic (if any) is used by the team behind approving or rejecting artwork, as it appears that they are doing an inconsistent and unfair job.

 

Just like countless other examples of identical situations on Adobe Stock that are not marked as Editorial Use that have not been rejected and were clearly inspired by a real model (I provided several examples), I create vector art that is inspired by real examples of

...

Votes

Translate

Translate
Community Expert ,
Mar 22, 2023 Mar 22, 2023

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Your artwork is of cars that are identifiable. Leaving off logos and names is not enough because they are the main subject of the image. You will not get them accepted. If you do, by some chance, you may have legal problems.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Mar 22, 2023 Mar 22, 2023

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

While I'm sure there are some inconsistencies in the Moderation process, I do know that the distinctive shape of some autos is trademarked and protected by IP. The VW bug is a prime example. I believe your 2nd yellow car (with the top down) would have fallen into this category. Not sure about the other 2. I think the problem is that any individual moderator cannot possibly know precisely which models are protected, so I suppose they err on the side of caution and just reject them if there is any doubt.

Jill C., Forum Volunteer

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Participant ,
Mar 22, 2023 Mar 22, 2023

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi! brown one is Datsun 210 of year 1980

first yellow - Datsun Honeybee 1976

third - VW Golf I converible 1978 I think.

Similarity almost 100%

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
Mar 22, 2023 Mar 22, 2023

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hello Ralph, Jill and Glum Person, thank you for your timely responses. I am aware of the fact that the cars are identifiable. This is because part of my vector illustrative ability and inspiration when creating these drawings of vehicles came from the cars that were around when I was growing up. 

 

My question lies in regard to the inconsistent criteria that was used when approving other automobile artwork. This includes both my own and other contributors' examples of subjects that are also identifiable cars. Referring to the examples I posted, we clearly see a red Mustang, a white Range Rover, a red Ferrari, a red Mercedes Benz.

SergioVO_0-1679509989106.jpegSergioVO_5-1679458925974.jpegSergioVO_6-1679458993210.jpegSergioVO_2-1679458764416.jpeg

 

How come "erring on the side of caution" wasn't exercised when approving these? By the logic of my cars having been identified as a Datsun or a Volkswagen, are those other examples at less of a risk of being identified as intellectual property as well?

AdobeStock_560686891_Preview.pngAdobeStock_446346936_Preview.pngAdobeStock_422106524_Preview.png

Continuing the search for "vector automobile" yields countless results of clearly identifiable intellectual property, a Chevy Camaro, a Dodge Challenger, a Mazda SUV, just more examples of vector artwork that has been previously approved and available for purchase on Adobe Stock.

 

Unless I am missing something, it seems extremely inconsistent and quite honestly, it feels wildly unfair.

 

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Mar 22, 2023 Mar 22, 2023

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Engineering & Design is protected by patent.  You can't steal an automaker's designs and sell them commercially without signed permission from the automaker which they're unlikely to give you.

 

Nancy O'Shea— Product User, Community Expert & Moderator
Alt-Web Design & Publishing ~ Web : Print : Graphics : Media

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
Mar 22, 2023 Mar 22, 2023

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

With all due respect Nancy, as the knowledgeable Community Expert that you undoubtedly are, I would expect you to re-read the thread to get a better understanding of my question before responding.

I would also expect some respect when addressing me, instead accusing me of "steeling" anyone's designs.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Mar 22, 2023 Mar 22, 2023

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

@SergioVO,

I meant no disrespect to you personally.  You asked a question, and I provided an honest, no BS answer.  You may read into it whatever you wish. However, you can't take other designer's work and sell it commercially. That could easily put you and anyone who uses those graphics in a legal quagmire of monumental proportion.

 

Property Releases:
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/property-release.html

 

Other images you saw may have a limited license for Editorial Use Only.  That means nobody can use them for commercial purposes.  Check the license.

 

Automakers are fiercely protective of their designs and brand recognition.  They have to be.  They also have very deep pockets to bring lawsuits.  Adobe Stock will have none of it for obvious legal & financial reasons. 

 

Move on to other things.  No sense ruminating about a dead issue. The Reviewers decisions are final.

 

Good luck with future submissions.

 

Nancy O'Shea— Product User, Community Expert & Moderator
Alt-Web Design & Publishing ~ Web : Print : Graphics : Media

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
Mar 22, 2023 Mar 22, 2023

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

My question was if anybody in this community had a definitive idea as to which criteria or logic (if any) is used by the team behind approving or rejecting artwork, as it appears that they are doing an inconsistent and unfair job.

 

Just like countless other examples of identical situations on Adobe Stock that are not marked as Editorial Use that have not been rejected and were clearly inspired by a real model (I provided several examples), I create vector art that is inspired by real examples of automobiles, point by point, curve, by curve on Adobe Illustrator, without recurring to artificial intelligence image tracing.

 

No badges, no logos, no branding whatsoever this time. Since the last time I came to this community asking why my artwork had been rejected, the unanimous consensus was that the issue that led to the rejection of my artwork was due to a badge on the grill of the design in question.

 

It's fine if you're not sure about the answer, and by your answers, that seems to be the case. It only demonstrates that even though there are established Adobe Stock guidelines, there are instances in which logic is not used in the decisions made by the team hired by the company to provide the service.

 

Good luck with future community contributions.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Mar 22, 2023 Mar 22, 2023

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

It's conceivable that some contributors went the full distance to obtain signed releases.  You don't know.  We don't know. All any of us KNOW is what's published in the Stock Contributor User Guide.  Did you read it?

 

When do you need a property release?

When your images depict recognizable places, buildings, artwork, cars, pets, or other property owned by someone else, you often need their permission before you submit the images to Adobe Stock. Property owners give you their permission by signing a property release.

 

A property release is a legal agreement between you and the property owner — or a corporate representative if the property is owned by a company. By signing a property release, that person gives you permission to use the image for commercial purposes.

 

Here are a few examples of submissions that need property releases: 

  • Physical or digital artwork depicting a fictitious person including painted, drawn, and generated illustrations
  • Famous landmarks, historic locations, and modern architecture 
  • Copyrighted works like art, books, maps, and fictional characters 
  • Identifiable exteriors or interiors of private homes and buildings 
  • Distinctive product shapes like toys, bottles, luxury furniture, vehicles, and airplanes 
  • Unique animals, such as race horses, famous pets, and certain zoo animals 
  • Properties with photography policies, which may include stadiums, museums, concert venues, and amusement parks.

 

If you're unhappy with Adobe Stock, maybe you should submit to other microstock agencies. Maybe you'll have better luck with them.

 

 

 

Nancy O'Shea— Product User, Community Expert & Moderator
Alt-Web Design & Publishing ~ Web : Print : Graphics : Media

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
Mar 22, 2023 Mar 22, 2023

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Conceivable, perhaps. But you and I both know it wasn't the case. 

 

I assure you none of the automakers represented in possibly 100% of approved Adobe Stock that is not marked as intended for Editorial Use, yet were inspired by real objects, signed any kind of release.

 

You can continue to respond indefinitely by copying and pasting your repetitive scripted response. Clearly, the lack of clarity in the answer to my question by "community experts" serves to prove my point.

 

Good day.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Mar 22, 2023 Mar 22, 2023

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

LATEST

No worry of that.  This discussion is locked.

 

Arguing with fellow users won't change Adobe's decision. End of story.

 

Nancy O'Shea— Product User, Community Expert & Moderator
Alt-Web Design & Publishing ~ Web : Print : Graphics : Media

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines