Invalid IP Refusal

[scottbu]

I recently submitted 7 images of the Sundial Bridge in Redding California. (Two examples below.)  All were rejected for IP violations. However...

There are hundreds of files already on Adobe Stock of this bridge, by dozens of different contributors, day and night, stills and video. (https://stock.adobe.com/search/images?load_type=search&native_visual_search=&similar_content_id=&is_....  I did extensive research before submitting these files. There is nothing stating that the bridge is copyrighted on any website relating to the bridge, from the city of Redding, the designer, or the park in which the bridge is located.

In addition, Almay has several images of the bridge for license. All say that no release is required. Examples below: https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/sundial-bridge-redding.html

Shutterstock also has several images of this bridge for license. Example below: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/redding-california-july-28-sundial-bridge-712325461

And images of the bridge are clearly being used for commercial purposes without property release:
https://redding-real-estate.com/redding-places-of-interest/pictures-of-redding/

Anyone have any idea why my images were rejected for IP violations?

[scottbu]

I forgot to mention... I also checked that this bridge is not listed on Adobe's "Known Image Restrictions" site:

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restric...

[Abambo]

I forgot to mention... I also checked that this bridge is not listed on Adobe's "Known Image Restrictions" site:

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restric...

By @scottbu

As of the mention there:

The information presented here is updated periodically, not all-inclusive, and not intended to be a complete nor accurate understanding of all applicable IP issues (...)

Looking at your picture, I would guess that you would also get a "technical issues" refusal because of the white balance and may be also different other small issues.

The moderator took the most logical approach to refuse!

This said they are nice images!

[scottbu]

Thanks for the compliment, Abambo!

White balance is correct - that was the actual color of the bridge when I was there.

I have had images refused for obviously incorrect reasons before, but these 7 were singled out from about 30 others and it was several more days after the rest were accepted for the moderator to reject them.  I think the moderator probably used the correct refusal button,

[Abambo]

White balance is correct - that was the actual color of the bridge when I was there.

By @scottbu

The white balance and/or saturation is incorrect. Look at the sky. I have similar pictures (different building and different use, not open for stock). Cameras get fooled by those fancy LEDs.

Sometimes it takes more time to get a refusal/approval. I suspect that the moderator relegated the decision to a second level approver in those cases.

Sometimes approved assets get refused afterwards. I suppose that's also that higher instance kicking in and reversing the original decision.

And yes, the moderator did use the IP refusal because that is the strongest. You could wb-correct and resubmit just to get the IP refusal afterwards.

[scottbu]

White balance is incorrect, in your opinion.  But it's only that - your opinion.  Unless your interest is in documenting reality.  Then the white balance would be incorrect for you.  But that's not my goal.

My goal is to create compelling images that catch people's eye and make them want to linger with the image, rather than flipping the page or clicking the next link.  I believe that is what most purchasers of stock photography are after - something to make the viewer stop and be interested enough to get engaged with the advertiser's message.

So the white balance and saturation are correct - for my goal.  You may like it or not.  I do.  But in the end, it is nothing more than our two individual opinions.

[Nancy OShea]

Hi @scottbu,

We don't work for Adobe.  And there is no appeals process for rejected photos other than resubmitting them.

FYI, you can photograph the Eiffel Tower in Paris by day without restrictions.  However, nighttime shots are not allowed because the light installation is protected by IP. 

I don't know for sure, but the Sundial Bridge's light installation might be protected.  Did you investigate it before submitting your photos?

https://www.cityofredding.org/departments/parks-and-recreation/light-the-sundial

[scottbu]

Nancy,

I'm well aware of the Eiffel Tower lighting restrictions, as well as several other situational restrictions for image use.  There is no such restriction on this bridge.

The Sunidal Bridge Deck Lighting Policy makes no mention of copyright, and I highly doubt that the City of Redding would allow lighing of a public bridge to be privately copyrighted.

[Abambo]

The Sunidal Bridge Deck Lighting Policy makes no mention of copyright, and I highly doubt that the City of Redding would allow lighing of a public bridge to be privately copyrighted.

By @scottbu

Copyright is attributed per se by the creation. Architectural edifices are (c) and the (c)-holder is the architect. The lightning is part of the bridges signature and makes it therefore open to (c). If pictures of the bridge are free of (c) needs to be certified by the city. I doubt that they care or are attentive to this.

[Test Screen Name]

"The Sunidal Bridge Deck Lighting Policy makes no mention of copyright," It doesn't have to. I don't think you understand, or refuse to accept, that copyright is automatic. Nobody needs to send their bridge to the library of congress. Copyright is something you automatically get, and have to give up by declaring something is in the public domain (in countries where that is allowed).  The copyright expires after the term defined by law in the country where it is effective: 100 years is a good starting guess.

"However, if they are tightening restritions, the new restrictions should apply equally to files already accepted. "

Adobe aren't obliged to offer equal terms to their suppliers. Adobe set their rules for THEIR own convenience, to maximize returns and minimize costs as they are expected to do. They will be monitoring the costs of legal action against them (whether justified or not), versus loss of income. Changing rules is cheap, and may protect against future expense. Clearly visiting the whole photo library again would have a huge cost, and so there would have to be a huge cost justification.

[Test Screen Name]

Perhaps the hundreds of images you already see on Adobe Stock did include correct IP release. It's a normal part of commercial photography. It's a big thing, but it's still made and owned by somone, and it's clearly not over 100 years old.

[scottbu]

Looking at the quality of the majority of files already on Adobe Stock, there is no way that they were submitted by professional photographers who understand, much less would take the time and effort to obtain a property release before submitting them.

Besides, Adobe refused my files for IP violation.  They did not move the files to the "Pending" folder requesting a property release, as they have with others of my submissions.

[Abambo]

I never had pictures in the pending folder!

[Test Screen Name]

"There is nothing stating that the bridge is copyrighted " There doesn't need to be.Just like there's nothing on your photo saying the photo is copyright, but you are automatically protected.

[scottbu]

I'm well aware of copyright.  I've drafted dozens of legal agreements including software copyright and I copyright all of my images with the Library of Congress before submitting them to Adobe Stock.

[Abambo]

Well, then you know that architectural edifices are protected by (c), as are special light arrangements etc.

I do not say that all those (c) claims make sense in all circumstances. There is fair use, there is the public space etc. But the rules of stock are that if you get a refusal, you have a refusal. We know, by trial and error, that some pictures get more often refused on IP grounds than others. We contributors do not have any rights to get our pictures accepted. However, the buyer has all rights to assume a carefree use of the pictures in all circumstances.

There is no use in arguing this or that and the sense of all this. We are dependant of our provider: Shutterstock, Getty, Adobe Stock, Almay, you name it. Their interest is not to accept your picture, but to sell assets to the customers.

I take my pictures, I submit them. If they get refused, I analyse the reason and the possible rationale behind this, but I try not to send too much time on this. The next pictures are waiting...

[scottbu]

Abambo,

I completely agree.  As I said, it's Adobe's right to accept or refuse any submission for any reason, or no reason at all.  It's in Adobe's interest to accept images that will sell.  I would like to think  😉  that my images are saleable.

Early on (15+ years ago), I obsessed over rejections.  Now, after several thousand images accepted, I normally move on - as you said.  This one is just hard to swallow because I spent so much time and effort before submitting to be sure they would not be refused.  Oh well...  lesson learned.

~ Scott

[Abambo]

In addition, Almay has several images of the bridge for license. All say that no release is required. Examples below: https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/sundial-bridge-redding.html

Shutterstock also has several images of this bridge for license. Example below: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/redding-california-july-28-sundial-bridge-712325461

And images of the bridge are clearly being used for commercial purposes without property release:
https://redding-real-estate.com/redding-places-of-interest/pictures-of-redding/

Anyone have any idea why my images were rejected for IP violations?

By @scottbu

Almay accepts quite a lot that Adobe (and Shutterstock) refuses.

With Shutterstock, I had a dispute about coke (coal) that they refused based on IP violation. The moderator mistakenly confused coke with Coke from Coca-Cola. That's when moderation is done by humans, sometimes pictures pass, sometimes they get refused.

Commercial use may be acceptable for some, but not all cases. Adobe prefers to refuse pictures on IP basis, and it gets more and more stringent. Pictures that did pass yesterday may not pass any more today because of changed internal guidance.

[scottbu]

Abambo,

I certainly understand that it's Adobe's right to decide what to accept or reject, for any reason or no reason at all.  However, if they are tightening restritions, the new restrictions should apply equally to files already accepted.  There is no point in instituting a new criteria that they consider important enough to refuse new files, yet leave existing files which fail that criteria available for license.

All in all, it's just very frustrating to spend the time and effort to research and verify that there is no reason for Adobe to refuse the images, only to have Adobe refuse the images.

[Nancy OShea]

I don't know why it was rejected for IP reasons. 

Maybe we can get some clarification from Wendy on this. 

@WendellaBee 

[WendellaBee]

Sorry not my bailiwick.  @MatHayward may have an idea.