[Locked] Tech issues

[Guest]

How bad is it?

[Nancy OShea]

Apart from the obvious IP & copyright violation, the symbol backgrounds are not sufficiently masked/cropped.

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/terminology-and-importance-of-copyright.html

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/property-release.html

[Guest]

I meant to offset the symbols, so do Adobe's customers expect artistic illustrations to be mathematically equal?

As for IP & copyright violation, did Abobe confirm this?

[Nancy OShea]

This is a user-to-user community.  Adobe Stock employees do not spend much time here.  But the Stock Contributor User Guide contains all the submission requirements.  Read it. It's important information to know.

Speaking as a Stock Customer, I expect to find technically perfect and legally cleared images for use in my own commercial projects.  Otherwise, I cannot buy the images.

[Guest]

I do understand, which is why my replys were if you believe Adobe believes that.  "Technically perfect" is a tough customer guideline for artists to follow.  Doesn't feel like an "artistic" attribute, or a "hoop" easily jumped through, but again I understand.

It took me over a month to get each branch of the US Military's approval with my design, including the Pentagon.  I guess I was too optimistic that Adobe would have checked.  Amazon Merch had no issues.

Helpful guidance, but no official Adobe response
I guess I should post elsewhere 

[Nancy OShea]

U.S.A of M.O.D. is an album by an American Thrash band M.O.D.   The album was released in 1987 by Megaforce Records.  I may be wrong of course but I'm pretty sure you would need a signed release from BOTH artist and record label.

[Guest]

Clearly the images are meant to represent the US Military, as well as their M.O.D. = "Methods of Destruction".

My decision was M.O.D. = "Merchants Of Death".

Even the 3rd or original usage is not a violation of IP.  " a term that originated in 1932, as the title of an article about an arms dealer named Basil Zaharoff.  It was then borrowed for the title of the book Merchants of Death (1934)."

[George_F]

What does the "M.O.D.". stand for?  I'm just curious.

If the A, M, AF, and N stand for Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines; those are registered trademarks and you need written permission to use them.  You can read all about US Air Force brand licensing here: https://www.trademark.af.mil/

But on to the rejection reason of technical issues.  I agree with Nancy's comments, the symbols appear to be accidentally cropped too tightly.  Even if this was on purpose, I suspect Adobe believes it gives the appearance of a mistake.  I also wonder if there is a resolution issue, the text looks a little blurry when zoomed in.  

I also wonder how this image would be used in a composite or commercial project?

Good luck 🙂

[Guest]

Yes, that is what they are meant to convey, yet I did my due diligence to get approval.  Why would Adobe not do theirs?

Illustrated art is all subjective, even if it is commissioned.

Photography less so.

[Nancy OShea]

Forgive me if I seem skeptical but exactly what approval do you have to use those US Military symbols commercially?

Adobe has no way of knowing what if any permission you have unless you submit signed property releases with your image.  Adobe Stock is a business, not an art gallery.

[Guest]

I received approval from each department, to use my design on a t-shirt, for sale.

I am not required to submit a property release, because the images are not the exact images, that are copyrighted.

See the attached file, that would require a property release, after approval from the U S Military, which is a rare occurrence.  

[George_F]

The use of the trade mark of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines that also needs a release along with any copyrighted images.

Posting the image for others to use those brands for any commercial purpose is what I believe the release would be required for.

Good luck though.  I hope it gets approved 🙂

[Guest]

I revised my design to remove words, and tweak images to get their approval, without asking for a license. 
It might appear one is needed, but that is Adobe's onus to at least check.
I feel that there are just way too many of these knee-jerk denial responses, both here and other such sites.

"Our office does not object to your design now that the term “D.O.D.” has been removed."
Public Affairs Mass Communication NCO
PA Policy/DoD Branding and Trademark Licensing Program NCO
Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs
Policy & Executive Services Directorate

[Abambo]

It might appear one is needed, but that is Adobe's onus to at least check.

By @Deleted User

I suppose that when there is an IP refusal, you will need to prove that there is no IP release needed. Adobe's policy is to stay on the safe ground, so if in doubt they refuse. This is done to protect the stock customers, as they will need to be sure that the asset can be used in any way they want for a commercial project.

[George_F]

If your statement is correct about this being a technical rejection, I do not believe Adobe considered the IP portion either way.  They would rely on the releases you submit to them.

I tend to include the ip information to make sure someone isn't wasting their time fixing technical errors only to get rejected for an IP violation.

Good luck 🙂

[Guest]

"Military Service marks commonly found on the Internet are not legally authorized for use by NFEs without prior written permission from the appropriate Military Service Trademark Licensing Program Office."  "Consequently, when the DOD seal or Military Service insignia are used without permission, the Department(s) may take appropriate action upon notification."

According to all military branches, this work, "does not infringe, distances itself from, not in violation of", or "does not object to", my design.  No license was asked for, therefore no IP release required.

[Guest]

*update*

Adobe has not advised me of any appropriate reasons for what looks to be a great misunderstanding of IP violation.  I am not quibbling over any artistic error, but rather about their lack of following their own guidance and ignorance of the law.

I believe a solid answer would benefit many.

[George_F]

It's important to remember that we have no affiliation to Adobe on this peer to peer forum.  Any further input from us will most likely not be from an Adobe official.  Perhaps contacting them directly might be the best course of action.  They are under no obligation to answer back, but I received a timely reponse the one time I did need support.

The original reason you gave for rejection was technical issues, has this now been rejected for an IP violation?

I certainly understand that you believe this asset isn't infringing on any copyrights and I'm not here to debate that with you.  I still think there is a likeness to military branding though, and being in that grey area may be enough to still get a refusal.  I think risking a lawsuit for this asset doesn't make much business sense, and that makes me glad that I don't have to decide these sorts of things.

I hope I'm wrong and you are able to get this image approved, but I don't think it will.

Good luck!

[Guest]

Person # 1 = "Did you get military approval for this design from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines?
Me = "Yes I did."
Person # 1 = "Did you also ask the US Department of Defense?"
Me = "Yes I did."
Person # 1 = "Did they say you need a license?"
Me = "They ALL said I do NOT need a license, as my design did not enfringe on theirs."
Person # 1 = "Did you get Adobe approval?"
Me = "No I did. not"
Person # 1 = "Then i'm sorry but we can't approve it either."  

[Abambo]

Person # 1 = "Did you get Adobe approval?"
Me = "No I did. not"
Person # 1 = "Then i'm sorry but we can't approve it either."  

By @Deleted User

This is nonsense. Your file contains multiple technical errors, as has been shown here and here.

[Abambo]

*update*

Adobe has not advised me of any appropriate reasons for what looks to be a great misunderstanding of IP violation. 

By @Deleted User

Your design has been rejected because of "Technical Issues" not because of IP. Users in this forum (notably  @George_F and @Nancy OShea ) have brought  a second probable refusal reason. Adobe moderators refuse on the first error they encounter.

• You used a fancy filter for your skull.
• Your design includes multiple errors, @Nancy OShea showed you exemplary one, I have multiple others in a single icon:

  Even if you would argue now, that this is intentionally, it looks erroneous. And still, there are others.

Even if you would correct the design, I doubt that this is usable for a commercial stock provider.

So, at the end you will stick with a "Commercial appeal" refusal.

[Guest]

Let's just agree that everyone is allowed an objective opinion, which does not preclude one from being correct.
I saw more attitude than guidance.  Perhaps Adobe could better screen their moderators.

[Nancy OShea]

I saw more attitude than guidance.  Perhaps Adobe could better screen their moderators.

===========

The pot calling the kettle black. 

This discussion has devolved because the OP is unwilling or unable to accept constructive feedback from knowledgeable Stock experts. A moderator rightfully saw fit to lock this topic. So that's all folks. 

Goodbye @Deleted User and good luck with future Stock submissions.