We have a brand new look! Take a tour with us and explore the latest updates on Adobe Support Community.
The attached picture was rejected due IP reasons, It was taken on sand dunes (public land) where during the filming of Harry potter the elf Dobby was buried. Fans worked out the location and built this 'monument' cairn of stones with messages on. The stones were picked up from the beach, this is purely in essence a pile of stones on a beach. (the original images was bigger with no signature of course).
I fail to see how pebbles painted by fans piled on a public beach where a CGI elf was supposeldy buried in a film, constitutes an IP violation? please help
Assuming you submitted without the watermark, a reviewer is probably rejecting this because it was perceived as an art installation which requires IP release. Do you have any proof that this pile of stones, etc... is not officially owned by anyone?
No watermark, that is purelky for this page. Proof wise, no proof other than it is on a public beach/dune, the local council tried to get it removed but everytime they took the cain away fans rebuilt it. the stones came from the beach and individuals placed them there, i.e. they are not one person or groups work
Find some proof online or in print to support your claim. I don't know what more you can do. As I'm sure you know, Adobe Stock cannot sell any image for commercial use unless it is squeaky clean legally.
You might try submitting the image to other royalty-free image houses and see what they say.
if I find 'proof' how do I submit it?
Post it here. I'll ask an Adobe employee to chime in.
these websites show it is public domain...Apart from anything else, the location of the grave in the books was Cornwall, but as is often the case it was filmed on Freshwater Beach West in Wales (where the cairn is)
"these websites show it is public domain..." are you seriously expecting that Adobe's moderators will carefully research your picture, from its subject and keywords, will search in Google, will compare a number of websites, weigh up their reliability, and decide on the status of IP on a case by case basis? No, they apply their rules. They are not looking to accept the maximum images, but to accept those that are either clearly free of IP or certified by the submittor (who is therefore taking legal resonsibility)....
But in any case, not one of those three web sites mentions, asserts or claims that images of these objects are public domain. Are you trying to prove something is public domain because someone else used a picture? Just doesn't matter. Adobe apply their rules, they don't employ lawyers to vet your work.
No need to get 'heavy' I as said elsewhere appreciate that PD is very different in the US than in the UK...
"But in any case, not one of those three web sites mentions, asserts or claims that images of these objects are public domain" of course they don't ehy never will, what they do show is they are neither an art installation by a recignised artist not the property of an individual or group.
I doubt anyone who say take a phot of a tree in a field could find Proof that the tree in question was in the public domain, could they??
Also (1) mentioning Harry Potter in the keywords or title would be a no-no
(2) you would need a release from each of the artists who wrote on a stone.
Technically, the writing and drawings on the rocks could be perceived as art. Much like how you cannot submit images of street art, or even graffiti. You would need a property release for each, signed by the "artist". Adding additional risk, is the Harry Potter character references. This is more of an editorial style image and is not suitable for commercial stock.
Better luck next time,
I appreciate the name usage, but surely IF painiting a strpe on a stone that does not belong to you is classed as IP (I guess it could also be theft, of the stone by the painter??) does that also mean you cannot photograph a planeted garden without permission of the gardener? I am being a bit of a 'devils advocate' here, BUT a a Gardener or even bricklayer putting a patterns into a wall is beliberatley doing it and the 'installation' is ALL their own work. This is a random pile of painted stones each painted by a different person.
I fully appreciate the laws in the UK ans US are very different on use of images taken on public land.
Thanks for your advice
As I said earlier, feel free to submit your image to Getty / iStock, etc... and see what they say. It might be accepted or rejected for other than IP reasons. In any case, give it a shot and see what happens.