The following photo's were rejected due to an intellectual property violation. Can anyone tell me what intellectual property is shown in the following images? The only possible violation I can think of is the last photo, where the guy on the left has some text on his shirt which is probably a logo?
The logo is definitely a reason for refusal, but did you also have a model release for the people? If not, that is another reason. You most definitely need a model release for images 1,2,4!
Thank you for your reply. I understand that photo's 1, 2 and 4 need a model release but I still don't understand why images 1 and 2 contain 'intellectual property'. Image 3 has no identifiable people or logo's at all and also got refused due to intellectual property violation.
Item 3 looks like a theatrical performance, with designed staging. It may not be but checkers have to assume it. As such it would be IP and need a release from the producer.
Thank you, that makes sense. However, the photo is of a religious ritual and not a staged production. So getting a release from the producer is impossible since there is none. Is there any way I could get this photo reevaluated by Adobe?
So far as I can see, the Adobe systems are set up to manage huge amounts of photos (I believe I saw the figure of 100,000 a day). That will mean rejecting a lot of stuff which could be great, or accepted with a little work. There is no method of appealing, presumably because it may take 10-20 times as long to manage an appeal as process new images. Sad, but I hope you find other outlets for this fine work.
Is there any way I could get this photo reevaluated by Adobe?
There is no way to send some comment in with the submission. There is only a way to contact Contributor Support: Need help? (Stock Contributor Support)
Don't be too optimistic. I would refuse on the model release quest...
You can submit these pictures probably on other sites as editorial ones. But that is not possible here on Adobe stock.
You most definitely need a model release for images 1,2,4!
The model release is also needed for 3 as you can definitely recognize faces...
For images 1&2, have you considered their clothing? For #2 the man is wearing clothing of religious significance is he not? Sadhu?
Adobe is rather particular about IP rights, so they may consider this to be possible Property Rights violation, as well as your other images.
Thanks for your reply, I hadn't considered clothing to have IP rights. The man in #2 is indeed a Sadhu! Thanks for your input and I will keep it in mind for my next shots!
Just to clarify, the model release is not the issue. All of these images got refused due to intellectual property violation and I am trying to find out why Adobe gave IP as a reason. This way I can either reupload these images or keep the intellectual property rules in mind for my future uploads.
Clothing would come under IP!!!
The second picture definitively needs a model release and does not contain IP related items. But you may look also into your keywords and title for IP related things. A title "This is not a coke" would get a clear IP related refusal, even when on the picture nothing in relation with IP would be pictured.
Thank you for your reply. I will look into that and mark your post as the correct answer!
I'm not saying that is a reason, although it could be possible given the fact that the images were rejected under IP and not a model release, and if a model release was necessary and not given then the images would go under the Reminder section and would not be rejected under IP. For this reason, as there does not seem to be a lot of other reasons, (for this photo, apart from the obvious of a model release which is already mentioned) so logically the conclusion is that it is to do with the type of clothing (the process of elimination) - if not having a model release- so the question being why was it rejected under IP. A person who is well versed in IP would be able to answer this question.
The clothing style is not generic and can only be worn by a Sadhu - as far as I know. The colouring of the robe has significance. Therefore the logical conclusion is that it just may well be with the style of clothing.
Clothing styles do not need to have a logo in order to have IP rights.
But, it could also be that the moderator just chose IP rejection for all the images even though not all the images fit into this category. Which would then make this whole thing redundant! 😁
The keywording if wrong would come under 'Non-compliant' rejection reason - usually.
I'm just saying...
There are people on it. Pictures of people are authorright protected.