Copy link to clipboard
Is it possible to ask the editor's about the decision on the rejected photograph and ask for a review of the decision or directly point on the mistake?
I double checked but did not found any Intellectual Property in the rejected pictures.
I will be grateful if somebody will give me the answer.
Thanks for giving us the chance to consider your image.
During our review, we found that it contains elements that appear to be protected by intellectual property laws, so we can't accept it into our collection. Please review the following intellectual property rights guidelines:
Protected elements can be certain objects depicted in an image as well as protected terms (like names or trademarks) in the image's description, title and/or keywords. Here are some examples of subjects protected by intellectual property laws:
Products and objects
Commercial products (e.g., toys, fashion items, electronic devices and designer furniture) should never be in focus and/or be the main subject of the content if they're identifiable and distinctive in visual appearance, like shape or color.
Trademark, trade dress and intellectual property
We can't accept any appearance of logos, trademarks, company or brand names (e.g., Apple, Nike, Gucci and BMW) in your images. This includes identifiable packaging or other product dress.
Locations, venues, monuments, landmarks
Ticketed locations with paid admission—like zoos, museums or amusement parks—very often have photography restrictions. Images require property releases when they depict unique locations with distinctive features in an identifiable manner, including but not limited to identifiable enclosures, installations and animals.
Some landmarks and monuments can't be accepted, depending on location, artist, age and all other relevant restrictions. It's your responsibility to find out if any photography restrictions apply.
Modern architecture with unique building structures requires a release when it's the main focus of the image. However, depending on the specific situation, city vistas, skylines or closeups may be fine.
Images depicting or originating from artworks, sculptures, street art, drawings, illustrations, literature, fonts and graphic elements are not acceptable if not originally created by you.
These measures are in place to protect you, our contributor, as well as our customers and Adobe Stock. Please feel free to submit images that adhere to these guidelines in the future.
Copy link to clipboard
I'll move your post to the correct forum, but the actual aircraft itself may be the intellectual property of the planes manufacturer!
Thanks for your answer and moving my post to the correct forum, but if common shape of airplane will be intellectual property nobody can publish the airplanes or part of it as it in my case.
I think that it something other.
By the way, today editor approved my other picture similar content: https://stock.adobe.com/search?load_type=search&native_visual_search=&similar_content_id=&k=18386908...
The main question, that photo contributer do not have a choice for appeal the rejected photo, or get a more intelligible answer than a reference to a set of standard general rules.
Do you think that it is smart?
I guess the colors on the plane in your picture could be the reason. These are found in airlines... In the assumed picture, the aircraft is kept neutral.
The text in the rejected image is only a neutral placeholder or some kind of a citation?
So the fact of the matter is that the color in my photo is fundamentally different from the original.
The pattern looks recognizable regardless of whether you changed the color or not. I would try cloning out all emblems and markings on the plane. To answer your specific question, no there is not an appeals process in place on rejected content.
Thanks for answer, Mat.
But I do not understad recognizable with what?
And what do you mean whan you say: I would try cloning out all emblems and markings on the plane.
Basically anything with color on it. The shapes appear to be designs unique to the plane. In the center of the engine there appears to be a logo as well.
Please review our legal guidelines linked here for detailed information on Intellectual Property: tagproducts_SG_STOCK-CONTRIBUTOR_i18nKeyHelppagetitle