Known Participant

Question

intellectual property issues

Forum|Forum|1 year ago
February 18, 2025
5 replies
1312 views

There is an increasing problem with Adobe labeling various image as intellectual property. This is designed to protect Adobe and not us.

I have one image that has been rejected twice. Labeled as IP violation. I even communicated with the originator of the piece (stained-glass) and they assured me there is no copyright assertion or filing.

It is only one image. But an increasing problem as everyone claims copyright to everything today.

Contributors

O

oleschwander

Legend

Where did you shoot the image?

Abambo

Community Expert

Where did you shoot the image?

By @oleschwander

For the IP question is this irrelevant, but if you read the discussion flow, you will learn that too. https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-contributors-discussions/intellectual-property-issues/m-p/15162764#M98096

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

Nancy OShea

Community Expert

The Stock Reviewer is correct. This is an IP violation.

Objects of art require written permission from the artist(s) and/or entities that own the rights to it. It's one thing to snap a picture for personal use & hang it on your wall. It's quite another to use the artwork for commercial purposes. You can't do that without legal clarity.

If there was a main subject in the foreground and a small portion of this was in the background, you might get away with it. But that's not what you have here. Sorry.

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert

Jill_C

Community Expert

Read the U.S. copyright info here:

What is Copyright? | U.S. Copyright Office

Jill C., Forum Volunteer

B

bodywise02Author

Known Participant

Thank you for the citation. Unfortunately, you need to be an IP lawyer to really understand all the implications.

Abambo

Community Expert

Thank you for the citation. Unfortunately, you need to be an IP lawyer to really understand all the implications.

By @bodywise02

That's why Adobe is asking for a property release. And for your example, exactly for your example, how would Adobe know that the stained-glass is free of copyright claims.

Incidentally: I'm not a lawyer, English is not my first language, and even so, I do normally not have an issue with legal texts. This isn't even legal text, but a simple explanation of what copyright is. Get your release signed and they will accept your asset (on the IP basis).

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

Jill_C

Community Expert

Copyright does not have to be "claimed" to be in force. Everyone automatically owns copyright to the images they take with their camera, the artworks (such as stained glass) that they create, and other creative works. Even graffiti "artists" can claim copyright on their spray-painted "art". The only way for the Adobe Moderators to know that a copyright owner has approved your use of their work(s) commercially is for you to obtain a Product Release. Lacking that Release, all artistic works are going to be rejected.

Jill C., Forum Volunteer

daniellei4510

Community Expert

Exactly. Suppose I created a work of art and I gave a photographer the OK to use the image as they see fit. So the photographer uses it in a calendar that becomes a very popular seller. Since I automatically own the copyright to the work of art, and since I "forgot" that I gave the photographer the right to use the photograph any way they want, I now want a percentage of the profits. The OP needs a release.

Adobe Community Expert | If you can't fix it, hide it; if you can't hide it, delete it.

Abambo

Community Expert

I am reverting to my original contention. It is all out of control. Just wait until you get slammed by PicRights with lawyers contending you owe $2500 for a single image of public officials (politicians) used 15 years ago.

Meanwhile, once I get approval for my own creation on Adobe, the "purchaser" now creates a 300,000 public copy for a bond measure. What do I get? Peanuts. It's the old adage. Today, if you are thinking of it, it’s probably illegal. Images of Barns in Vermont? Used to be our secret finds. Today, everything is potentially litigious. I really don't see how you can take any images of a cityscape.

Images of graffiti art. Now just how are you going to find the “tagger?”

So all comments here are basically supporting Adobe’s own CYA. None of the comments here protect my own legitimate copyright protections.

I am reverting to my original contention. It is all out of control. Just wait until you get slammed by PicRights with lawyers contending you owe $2500 for a single image of public officials (politicians) used 15 years ago.

By @bodywise02

Did you use someone else's picture withoout a licence? People of public interest (like stars and politicians) do not need to give their permission to you to use a picture of them in an editorial sense, but the photographer still owns the copyright to that picture, even if you grab it from the internet.

Meanwhile, once I get approval for my own creation on Adobe, the "purchaser" now creates a 300,000 public copy for a bond measure. What do I get? Peanuts. It's the old adage. Today, if you are thinking of it, it’s probably illegal. Images of Barns in Vermont? Used to be our secret finds. Today, everything is potentially litigious. I really don't see how you can take any images of a cityscape.

By @bodywise02

That's nonsense.

Images of graffiti art. Now just how are you going to find the “tagger?”
By @bodywise02

Not knowing who the creator is does not mean that the creator does not own the copyright. The rule says that if an artist is anonymous, it's protected for 70 years after the time of the first public appearance. If you are the wall owner, you can destroy the artwork, but you cannot claim the copyright.

So all comments here are basically supporting Adobe’s own CYA. None of the comments here protect my own legitimate copyright protections.

By @bodywise02

What's CYA? Basically, I know the copyright law as good as a layman can. Let's take your picture:

The artists own the copyright on the artwork. The owner (buyer of the artwork) has the house right, i.e. can prohibit images from the non-public space, or restrict the publication of such images. The photographer (you) owns the copyright of the picture, and noone can use your picture without your authorization. But the artist can take an own picture, or ask a different photographer to do a picture of the artwork and publish that, and he (the artist or the owner) can forbid you to publish your picture.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

daniellei4510

Community Expert

If you are in contact with the artist of the stained-glass, I would think they would be willing to sign a property release.

Adobe Community Expert | If you can't fix it, hide it; if you can't hide it, delete it.

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded