INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REFUSAL public objects

[Alexphotos]

Hello,

Is there a chance to have feedback, why below photos were rejected due to Intelectuall property refusal? While the same topic, with same objects on other photos were approved? I really would like to understand the track of approvals, I would like to spare Your time for reviewing and load photos that are possible to be approved. It just doesn't seems for me clear. Thank you for answer in advance.

These photos were refused because of intellectual property

while these were approved:

[Alexphotos]

Forgot to add, that the are the permament objects in public panorama.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @Alexphotos ,

The moderators most likely not know if those rejected was public or private property. Those that were accepted apparently had clear indication that they were taken from public domain.

Best wishes

JG

[Alexphotos]

Thank You for the answer. It is also possible, but how I can inform them about that or contact directly with reviewer? I cannot see any option during applying procedure or after rejection. Once send an email, but never received answer.

Best wishes to You too,

Aleksandra

[Test Screen Name]

Intellectual property rights don't stop because something is public property. They often have specific,  complicated rights. For instance you can sell a photograph with the Eiffel Tower made during the day, but not a photo made at night. A starting rule is that ANYTHING made by a human under 100 years needs an IP release from the rights owner. 

[Alexphotos]

Taht is also true, but why then one photo with the same building is approved and other rejected?

Second thing is that polish law (photo from center of Warsaw) says that all permanent objects in public panorama might be photographed. Again I would like to have a chance to explain that to reviewer and don't know how to do that.

[Test Screen Name]

Adobe's reviewers aren't able to apply the laws of every country, so they have a simple, strict, set of rules which should keep them safe and legal in most countries. You do need to be familiar with this in detail, even if your laws are different. There doesn't seem to be a way to submit any extra legal with a picture. There are differences. For example, the blue building is the main subject in the rejected picture, but in the background of the accepted picture. Similarly, the lighted columns are the subject of the rejected picture, but part of the composition of the accepted picture. 

The idea that "something is visible from a public place makes it public property for photographic purposes" is a common one, but it seems very strange. Suppose there was an exhibition of your pictures in a public square. Would everyone have the right to photograph your exhibition photos, and sell their copies with no permission?

[Alexphotos]

If it would be an exhibition then no, but if it is permament part of public area then yes.

Thanks for wider answer, it is more understandable from reviewer point of view.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @Alexphotos ,

Photographers are not allowed to interact with moderators who reviews our files. I have had public photos rejected for IP, one was a generic photo, and the other was one of a three frame panorama. Panorama was accepted. Another panorama that was accepted, two of its frames were accepted the third rejected for similar. I was promptly advised that there is no appeal at Adobe. The link below is the Property guidelines. You may go through it and see what you can gather.

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

I did a series on a road construction. I used three houses and a tree as markers (depending on the angle I shoot from) since I was building a story. Those were used to make it clearly identifiable that it was the same place. The theme of my series was "Changing Landscape". One of the marker house gets through sometimes and other times rejected. That is just how it is. Adobe's agreement states that they are not obligated to take all our files. It is just, that for whatever reason we would like certain files to be on their platform. 

I have stated to resist that feeling and submit those files on other platforms. 

Best wishes

JG

https://incomepayout.blogspot.com/p/income-requirements-and-payout.html

[Alexphotos]

Hi @jacquelingphoto2017, I agree with you, just wanted to have feedback with arguments directly from reviewer. I think that sometimes it is only subjective rejection or approval, specially when you can see similar photos other contributors on sale. If there is no chance to take discussion with reviewer, than it only left to submit files on others stock banks.

Have a good day,

Aleksandra

[jacquelingphoto2017]

@Alexphotos ,

I have not come across any that the reviewers communicate with photographers. They do not have the time. However those that I interact with seem to be a little more flexible. One in particular accommodate appeals. There are still another that once one image is not suitable, then the whole batch is rejected no matter how many acceptable images are there. So it is a matter that each platform has its own set of policies. We'll like some and object to others. In any case, experience teaches me not to put all my eggs in one basket, and especially with customer services being outsourced, anything can go wrong, and the company do not find out fast enough to implement corrective measures.

Best wishes

JG

https://incomepayout.blogspot.com/p/income-requirements-and-payout.html

[Abambo]

Sometimes pictures are refused or accepted by error! Look at it as karma... and move on.

Just to say, this is not unique to Adobe, other stock providers have the same problem or "feature". I have a picture refused on a different site because it included "coke" in the title. The moderator assumed that Coke (like Coca Cola) was a protected trademark name and refused it. Well it was coke like this coke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coke_(fuel) and it is a good selling item here on Adobe stock. It took me a lot of ups and downs to get the provider to ask me to resubmit the picture. I didn't at the end, and effectively did not submit again to this provider: to much work, to less gain. Adobe stock is much more profitable... Better payouts, more sales.

By design, stock providers can't let you argue with the moderators, because

1. every one would do that and that would keep moderators busy. They would have no time time accept pictures.
2. moderators do not exist for your pleasure or mine, but to assure the quality and reliability of the stock assets for Adobe customers. So, if in doubt, they should refuse.
3. They are probably paid not very well, so they need to moderate a lot of pictures in a short time. If there is a picture refused by error, it does not harm the database. If there is a picture accepted by error, it does.

Sorry to say that, but you and I and all the other contributors are very unimportant. The Adobe customer is what counts. And as a customer, I expect to get reliable pictures that I can use without fear of legal hassles.

[Alexphotos]

@AbamboYou have touched the essential part. Honestly, I understand all of it, but want to sell my photos and trying all my best, the same as reviewers doing their job, the best they can.

Yes, maybe it is not for Adobe Stock. Their lost 😉

All the best 4U

[Abambo]

Well that's how it is. Moderators do not work for you but for the buyers of stock assets. And they are probably poor underpaid people. As soon as you understand that, you submit and when you get a refusal, you look at that and when you can fix it in a few minutes you do. If not, you move on. It's my luck that I do not do stock for a living. I would starve... 🙂

It's, however, always a success when a picture passes and sells. Especially, when it's one of those pictures where Adobe says that the criteria are very stringent (sunset, flowers, dogs and cats...).