Intellectual Property Refusal?

[Sportress17]

I have read the Property Release requirements, and believe this image should be accepted since there are no identifiable features. It's a tent with bistro lights. Could be in the backyard of the bride's home. Am I missing something else that is identifiable that makes this image not acceptable?

[Ricky336]

You will (probably) need a model release because the people are recognisable (where the faces can clearly be seen) and/or a property release as it is a venue, with most likely property rights to it.

[Sportress17]

Model releases were uploaded, and if they weren't, the images are usually flagged as reminders to upload a release. This one was rejected for intellectual property

[Sportress17]

Both bride and groom releases were uploaded, and other images from this set were accepted with no problem. This specific image was rejected.

Thank you for your reply

[Ricky336]

Perhaps this particular image appears that a property release may be required. (Or so the moderator thought.)

[Ricky336]

Or perhaps actually it just could be the dress on that the woman is wearing. They have specific designs, so not the property/venue in fact but the dress. Have you considered that!

[Sportress17]

I have, but I have also shot hundreds of weddings and see so many dresses that in my opinion, there's no way a specific design of a dress would be recognized or need a release signed. But I could be wrong. I'm just going to mark it up as a loss.

[Abambo]

the bride and the groom are not the only recognizable persons on the picture.

IP means normally something recognizable like a logo, a Coca Cola bottle or a specific design of clothes. I did not see anything that alarmed me.

[MarcusCalidus · Accepted solution]

In my opinion it could either be the flower/butterfly decoration on the right hand side. It could be considered special artwork that someone holds IP on.

If you really look closely you'll see a yellow ribbon label on the beer bottle in the middle. Don't know whether you could recognize the brand from that. I definitely don't.

[Abambo]

The decoration may be IP, but that would be clearly an error. In this case all picture contains IP. The decoration is quite generic and not the point of interest.

The bottle too, There are quite a lot of those around, so that the color is not a distinct element.

I'm sticking with model releases and the wrong refusal reason:

I've identified at least one guy who definitely needs a model release and 3 others where I would argue that a model release would be necessary.

As of the information given, the groom and the bride signed of the model release.

[Abambo]

Did you enter a model release for each person recognizable on the picture? The property, including the decoration is so generic that I cannot imagine a problem with that. I don't see any logo that would trigger an IP problem.

Look here for guidance on property releases:

Property release and protection guidelines for Adobe Stock

You fall clearly in the "no property release" needed, but you should have a model release from each person in the picture, even if the face is blurred and difficult to recognize.

[fellowheir]

I would agree with the beer bottle theory. I had a photo refused because of a blury tennis shoe logo. it wasnt even legible. Just a blur on a shoe so they kicked it back.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

The bottle label is a trade mark. That is what the rejection is for. There are at least 4 recognizable faces in the group. The Bride and groom and about 3 guests are recognizable when the photo is zoomed. A model is considered recognizable if he/she can recognize his/her image in a photo, even if its out of focus or back is turned.

Best wishes

JG