Skip to main content
This topic has been closed for replies.

8 replies

R
RayB94553
Participant
December 13, 2017

I'm confused too, I see no "Intellectual Property"  in the shot. it's absurd to deem a vehicle on a public roadway as somehow having intellectual property rights.    You see cars and trucks and even people on the 6 o'clock news and there is no release sought nor are there any lawsuits.   If an image is modified in any way, then the owner of any property or their person that is recognizable, could have claim.  

What I find even more confusing is that a well known Barcelona Spain church has several hundred images on AS and when I submit a photo I am rejected "IPR".   When I contacted the church they said they do not provide property releases.   So how can any of the images be posted if their are no releases?

Currently there are over 27,000 photos of the Vatican, did they all require a release?

I would also suggest looking at the image,  "Beautiful unique city of Barcelona in Spain" by danbert that clearly has recognizable cars and people in the shot.  

The same condition exists for images I have submitted the were rejected for having no commercial value.  The fishing boats on coastline of Buzios Brazil has no commercial  but a picture of clouds does?   go figure.

Clearly who ever is responsible for providing clear guideline enforcement is slightly short of the mark.   

S
sjlocke215
Inspiring
December 13, 2017

RayB94553  wrote

I'm confused too, I see no "Intellectual Property"  in the shot. it's absurd to deem a vehicle on a public roadway as somehow having intellectual property rights.    You see cars and trucks and even people on the 6 o'clock news and there is no release sought nor are there any lawsuits.   If an image is modified in any way, then the owner of any property or their person that is recognizable, could have claim. 

You seem to be confusing editorial usage and commercial usage.  The image is full of easily discernible vehicles which are a fairly major part of the image.  The risk for a buyer using this in commercial use is too high to be licensed.

Regarding the church, there is always going to be content like that.  It could have been submitted before standards changed.  There could be a new law for that country, etc.  It's best to just move on.

You can submit your boats to the critique forum.  It could be an over-saturated area of content, who knows?  If images are borderline, they may go either way for acceptance.

    S
    sjlocke215
    Inspiring
    December 18, 2017

    You need a better understanding of analogical discourse, and yes you.did.threaten.me.sir.

    If risk is just a legal fact, then why do you state that, "It's just a question of how much risk there is."  That statement leads to interpretation.  Legal facts don't exist only legal interpretations of the law.  And precedence, in the case of Andy Warhol, says that most corporations know when to "love the free publicity" and not sue.  Yes, if I had put an image of my neighbor riding one of the buffalo, then the risk might be beyond reasonableness. But automobiles on a road, and none of which individually are a "fairly major part of the image", now that's nonsense.  But it's Adobe Stock's nonsense and they can do as they please with it ... and so may you with yours.

    Relax. Just breathe.  It's okay to be wrong sometimes.


    Sigh.

    stephaniee85604894
    Community Manager
    stephaniee85604894Community Manager
    Community Manager
    September 29, 2017

    Hey,

    I checked it.

    It is not only the cars, which are identifiable, when I zoom in I can recognize people here. Recognizable people and property require a release.

    R
    rcblanchard55Author
    Known Participant
    September 29, 2017

    That's Nonsense!

      rahuld70876998
      rahuld70876998
      Participant
      September 23, 2017

      Acceptable Image.

      Modern vehicle in the background is a part of the image And not the main subject.

      Its a mistake done by image moderator.

      Try resubmitting this image again and again.

      Enio99
      Enio99
      Inspiring
      September 14, 2017

      My guess is that even with the logos taken out, you can still somehow guess what model and brand some of the cars are, but that's just a guess

      paulafrenchp
      paulafrenchp
      Participating Frequently
      September 14, 2017

      I did receive a reply, and it was in the title of the image, it was put back so I could amend the title of the place it was taken.

      Very impressed with the level of personal answers from AS - some other agencies don't bother answering, but AS do - which is very much appreciated.

      R
      rcblanchard55Author
      Known Participant
      September 14, 2017

      You're special.

      paulafrenchp
      paulafrenchp
      Participating Frequently
      September 4, 2017

      How can this be rejected for property release - it was taken in the wild with no trademarks - It was NOT on private property it was in Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe - I have many other images accepted from this location?

      I'm new to Adobe stock - but not to Microstock and have NEVER had this issue before.  Can someone advise please

      R
      rcblanchard55Author
      Known Participant
      September 5, 2017

      The reality is, you may never know why.  Adobe stock only gives broad answers and guidelines, but rarely, if ever, a direct response to a particular photo (unless you know someone to ask who works in the stock division).  They don't have to.  They have millions of photos and thousands pouring in daily.  Whatever it is in this photo that makes them think it needs a property release, it's their right to require it.  Their site, their rules, their way.  Just move on.  If they believed this photo could make them money, they would let you know how to fix it.

      E
      EleanorAb
      Inspiring
      July 30, 2017

      Was this taken in Yellowstone National Park or some other national park? If so, I bet that's the reason. You don't see buffalo everyday, let alone stopping a whole row of cars.

      P
      Pamela 28
      Inspiring
      July 30, 2017

      If you are someplace that it costs a fee to enter, you cannot post anything without a release from them. Awesome photo though

      S
      sjlocke215
      Inspiring
      July 30, 2017

      "someplace that it costs a fee to enter, you cannot post anything without a release"

      Not sure where this idea came from, but it isn't necessarily true.

      Szalam
      Community Expert
      SzalamCommunity Expert
      Community Expert
      June 22, 2017

      I would guess the visibility of some of the car logos.

      R
      rcblanchard55Author
      Known Participant
      June 22, 2017

      Well, we shall see. I have resubmitted it with all car logos taken out.  And even the phone the lady in the car is using has been made unidentifiable.  None of this is the subject of the photo.  Seems like a really trivial matter.  Do you know if there is any way to find from Adobe?

      Szalam
      Community Expert
      SzalamCommunity Expert
      Community Expert
      June 22, 2017

      You can post in the Adobe Stock Contributors​ forum and you might get a staff person to comment, but that's the only thing I know to do.

      Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
      Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices