Intellectual Property Violation

[petert89953458]

Can anyone explain to me why this image is in violation intellectual property rights - its a city/waterscape taken in a public place? I can't see any logos or other personal information.

[joanH]

Hello Petert89953458, Hopefully, you have read the guidelines and know all about copyright laws and model releases. If you do, you then should see that the woman on the left can be identified fairly easily and even the man on the far right might also be recognized if sharpened properly. You may block or darken the faces so you do not need a model release. However, if you know the woman you can ask for a model release. Here is information on the topic. Best, JH

"Whether you do a photo shoot with professional or non-professional models or you take snapshots of friends and family members, you must obtain their permission before you publish the photos for commercial purposes.

Ask yourself: Would the person recognize him/herself in my photo? If your answer is “Yes,” then you need to include a model release with your submission. Recognition can be based on external factors (for example, other recognizable people, unique clothing, equipment, or location) or personal factors (for example, tattoos or birthmarks). That’s why it’s always safer to get a model release, even for a close-up shot of a body part. If the model is nude or depicted in a sexual way but otherwise not recognizable, a model release is still required. The model release must include a copy of the model's photo ID to verify that the model is an adult.

The same rules apply for videos you upload that include actors, friends, family, or even random people. And if your video includes voices, you need a model release from the speaker.

You also need model releases for any illustrations or vector artwork based on real people or body parts. For example, you need a model release for a photograph that includes a face printed on a t-shirt or a photo portrait on a wall. 

Finally, don’t forget to include a model release for self-portraits. In this case, you must sign the model release as both the photographer and the model."

[petrak72325876]

You may also have look in here: Known image restrictions for property restrictions...

[Abambo]

There is graffiti on the left side, but I do not think that that counts for IP. The girl also holds a phone, but I do not recognise the model. There are no logos elsewhere available.

I think the problem is that the wrong reason has been selected for the refusal. There should be a required model release for the girl and the man and also for the woman.

But also with that you will get a refusal, because the image is very noisy.

[ricky336]

The image is indeed noisy, so no chance here I'm afraid. I also think that you will probably need a release for the runner. You can see her face.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi petert

The image is very noisy, hence I will assume you did absolutely no editing/correction; in which case, it is likely the telephone has identifiable marks. I tried to inspect the shoe but it was too noisy for me to see if there is identifiable mark on it. Therefore I believe it is the telephone that prompted that rejection reason.

After looking at your work, I think you will find Create better photos for Adobe Stock with 7 tips for success | very helpful.

Abambo​ that on the left behind the lady's flying hair that appears to be graffiti, is actually white buildings among vegetation.

Best wishes

JG

[Abambo]

jacquelingphoto2017  wrote

Abambo  that on the left behind the lady's flying hair that appears to be graffiti, is actually white buildings among vegetation.

This looks pretty much like graffiti and not vegetation:

And I do not believe that the phone triggers a rejection if it is not clearer than this.

This picture should be rejected on noise and missing model releases. That would be a understandable.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi Abambo

I did not see that. I don't think that is cause for rejection.

[Abambo]

That's what I said!

This was my initial analysis:

There is graffiti on the left side, but I do not think that that counts for IP. The girl also holds a phone, but I do not recognise the model. There are no logos elsewhere available.

[foxytoul]

Pourquoi violation du code de la propriété intellectuelle ?? c'est une vieille cuisinière à charbon.....

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi Foxyttoul

Between the stove top ant the top center knob, to the right and left of the knob, there are writings. You need to remove those. Inspect the entire image at 100% magnification for any other inscription, print, logo, trademark and remove them before resubmitting.

Regards

JG

[Abambo]

Jacquelin is right, Faure is the manufacturer's name and logo and Revin is the town they are from. It's IP.

It may well be that you also need a property release...because it's an interior shot!

[foxytoul]

jacquelingphoto2017 et Alambo

Merci pour votre avis

cordialement

[Abambo]

je vous en prie !

And you're welcome. I think, however, that Jacquelin, despite her French name with the missing e, is American! But may be she even speaks French? jacquelingphoto2017