Welcome Dialog

Welcome to the Community!

We have a brand new look! Take a tour with us and explore the latest updates on Adobe Support Community.


INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REFUSAL?

Community Beginner ,
Sep 07, 2021 Sep 07, 2021

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I would like to understand the reason for a refusal for intellectual property on a photo where, although a hotel appears (a complex of houses probably subject to protection, it's true) but the same is not the only main subject of the photo, because in the foreground there is also the sea, the waves, and then the sky with stormy clouds. It does not represent the center of the photo, but it is only a component and not even taken close up.
I had understood that this was a typical case of a discriminator in favor of accepted case of panorama photos and instead I am refused. Could someone explain me any other reason why?

thanks

 

TOPICS
Contributor critique

Views

98

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines

correct answers 2 Correct answers

LEGEND , Sep 07, 2021 Sep 07, 2021
I like this moody photograph. You are absolutely right that a lot of panoramas are not permitted. Such as Paris by night showing the Eiffel Tower, so Adobe must turn down all of the millions of excellent panoramas. Copyright is not convenient, but it exists, and creators expect protection for THEIR IP from the same law. https://helpx.adobe.com/uk/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restrictions.html is an interesting list of some of the more notable and surprising rules.

Likes

Translate

Translate
Adobe Community Professional , Sep 07, 2021 Sep 07, 2021
Hi @Default 45667 , From a personal standpoint I do agree with you. The fact is the property spans more than 3/4 the background and the buildings spans more than a half. The buildings seem to be unique and identifiable. The moderator will definitely not accept that. That is a fact no matter what you or I think. I took a mango tree spanning the entire frame towering over a 3 story house in the center of the frame. The house in reality was more than a mile from where I stood on a hill divided by...

Likes

Translate

Translate
Adobe Community Professional ,
Sep 07, 2021 Sep 07, 2021

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi @Default 45667 , 

Once the owner of the property can distinctively identify it I believe the moderator will consider it prudent to get an IP permit. In my opinion it has dominated majority of the background with no cut-off could suggest that was the focus of your shot. In addition this is a black and white photo of poor quality. It would not be accepted in any case.

Best wishes

JG

Photographer and Nutrition Author

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Beginner ,
Sep 07, 2021 Sep 07, 2021

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thank you for your answer. On the poor quality it's true, I accepted it. On the fact that it dominates.the frame I have more doubts because three quarters of the photo are represented by sea and sky... 

Thanks, good evening

 

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Adobe Community Professional ,
Sep 07, 2021 Sep 07, 2021

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi @Default 45667 ,

From a personal standpoint I do agree with you. The fact is the property spans more than 3/4 the background and the buildings spans more than a half. The buildings seem to be unique and identifiable. The moderator will definitely not accept that. That is a fact no matter what you or I think.

 

I took a mango tree spanning the entire frame towering over a 3 story house in the center of the frame. The house in reality was more than a mile from where I stood on a hill divided by a basin and it was rejected. In my opinion the owner could by no means identify that it's his house. To prove the distance of the house from the tree I did a 3 frame panorama including the tree at one end and the house at the other end. The panorama was accepted. Two of the frames were accepted, but the frame with the house was rejected. The house on both rejected photos was smaller than your hotel image. with more land space.  The landscape showing both tree and house is at https://stock.adobe.com/images/evening-sunlight-on-countryside/311275406

The tiny tree beside the palm tree on the left of the panorama is the mango tree. The house on the hill at the right is the other subject. The mango tree formed an arch. I stood at an angle and distance to allow the tree to span the from of the photo and the house fell in the centre of the frame beneath the tree. That was rejected for IP violation. I protested to no avail.

 

You would have to take in far more landscape to the left as I did in the above example for it to be probably accepted. If the building is unique you probably would need to crop it.

 

Best wishes

JG

Photographer and Nutrition Author

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Adobe Community Professional ,
Sep 07, 2021 Sep 07, 2021

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I'm surprised that the Moderator didn't immediately reject the image based on technical issues, which is what they usually do. It is underexposed, blurry and has sensor spots and artifacts. 

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Beginner ,
Sep 07, 2021 Sep 07, 2021

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thank you for your answer. I accepted more these technical failures issue than the first motivation. With that motivation then a lot of panorama photos cannot be accepted because there will always be some cultural, architectural element, subject to protection.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Sep 07, 2021 Sep 07, 2021

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I like this moody photograph. You are absolutely right that a lot of panoramas are not permitted. Such as Paris by night showing the Eiffel Tower, so Adobe must turn down all of the millions of excellent panoramas. Copyright is not convenient, but it exists, and creators expect protection for THEIR IP from the same law. https://helpx.adobe.com/uk/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restrictions.html is an interesting list of some of the more notable and surprising rules.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Adobe Community Professional ,
Sep 07, 2021 Sep 07, 2021

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

LATEST

The big question that always has to be answered is "would the photo have the same meaning if the object is removed?".  Here the answer is "no". The buildings are an important part of the composition.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines