Non Compliant Content rejection issue

[Omar-07]

Hello!

I have 2 videos rejected for "Non Compliant Content". I don't understand what is the problem with them!
Videos' IDs: 241921753, 241918585
The videos are CG shots of space flights towards a black hole.
Here is a screenshot for one of them, the other one is just a different version of colors and movement.

[Abambo]

Did you add a property release? You probably need to assert that the work is your own.

This is what Adobe means with non compliant file. Bold is mine...

Non-compliant file

This reason means that your content doesn’t comply with our Contributor Agreement. Content may be non-compliant due to watermarks, inappropriate or irrelevant keywords or image titles, or questionable, or defamatory content. Your file is also rejected as non-compliant if you receive a reminder to submit a model or property release, or resolve a problem with a release, and you resubmit the file without addressing the issue.

We can't look at refused assets, so there is no need to post asset ids.

BTW: Nice image. I would love to see the video. 🙂

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Non-compliant would not be for releases. If moderators require releases, they place the work in reminder and request the release in the rejection notice sent out. It would become non-compliant if Omara resubmit the work without the requested release(s). If that was not the case, then it had nothing to do with release, except of course it's a habit and the moderator decide to issue a non-compliant this time around. Omara might be able to figure it out after reading the definition quoted and the Contributor Agreement. Many times the clue what the issue is, is in the rejected notice in the form of the referred link(s).

Regards

JG

[Omar-07]

Abambo​
jacquelingphoto2017​
Thanks for your help!

As for the property release I didn't add one. I don't think I need any. The video was not placed in reminder and I didn't get any notice about a release. Also, I uploaded similar videos (via BlackBox) without a release and they went online with no problem.

Also, the video doesn't have any watermarks, inappropriate or irrelevant keywords, and I think the content has no problem.
As I mentioned I uploaded similar videos through BlackBox and I decided to upload here myself. Here is a link for one

Stock Video of 4k Space flight into a star field. Basic 3D rendering of a space flight into a star f...

The accepted and rejected videos are similar in keywords and in content, the only big difference is the black hole.
I'm wondering if the moderator didn't get that the video is about a black hole and considered the hole a defect or something!

Sorry for the late reply!

[Abambo]

May be MatHayward​ could give a smart tip, as he has insight information.

My guess is that the linked file should also be refused because of the keywords. By using "NASA" as a keyword you are endorsing NASA and that is only allowed if you have permission. I've looked into the NASA terms and I did not find a clear denial nor did I find a clear permission to refer NASA.

Only for the logo is a clear denial.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi omara,

If after reading the information Abambo quoted, and that of the link you still do not understand the reason for the non-compliant rejection, please let us know.

Best wishes

JG

[MatHayward · Accepted solution]

The problem was with your title and the keyword NASA.

You listed the title as "A space flight towards a black hole. CGI based on real public-domain images taken by NASA, ESA, ESO or other space agencies."

We can accept content that incorporates NASA public domain imagery if it does not depict any NASA trademark or likeness of astronaut or other NASA personnel. We won't accept unmodified public domain content from NASA but can accept modified work.

I have removed the keyword NASA and have changed the title to "CGI Depiction of Space Flight Towards a Black Hole"

The file is now online.

-Mat Hayward

[Abambo]

MatHayward  wrote

We can accept content that incorporates NASA public domain imagery if it does not depict any NASA trademark or likeness of astronaut or other NASA personnel. We won't accept unmodified public domain content from NASA but can accept modified work.

It would be strange to accept public domain work of anybody from a different poster.

Great to have this clarified now.

[Omar-07]

MatHayward​
Thank you so much for your help and clarification!

As for the second video that I mentioned above (ID 241918585) that has same title an keywords, do I have to re-upload it or there is a way to change the title and keywords?

[Abambo]

You can edit title and keywords in your contributor account. Click the asset and hover over the different parts and an edit icon will appear.

[Omar-07]

It's a rejected video, I can't find what you are referring to!

[Abambo]

rejected assets are not accepted and so are not in your portfolio and need to be resubmitted after addressing the problem.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

This rejection reason says it "doesn't meet our needs". That does not sound like a video that should be re-submitted. The one Mat corrected, you said was non-compliant. That is different. In that case the non-compliant reason could be correct. If a rejection doesn't meet Adobe needs, it means most likely it will not sell. Re-submitting a file with such a rejection could earn you another non-compliant. With enough of these, your account could be at risk of suspension or cancelation.

Regard

JG

[Abambo]

jacquelingphoto2017 : Rejection reason is non-compliant. Title contains NASA, ESA, ESO... The other one just slipped through the moderation ... and Mat corrected the title and keywords...and put it on-line.

Because of NASA, I expected IP refusal. But I suppose the problem here was also the public domain part. The moderator has problems understanding the extend of the modifications, so either it passes because the moderator is a nice guy or he refuses because he is doing what he is supposed to do.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Abambo​ I'm not sure we're understanding each other. In post 12, I made reference to the rejection reason as per screenshot at post 10 of this tread. The screenshot said "Thanks for giving us the chance to consider your video. Unfortunately, we found that it doesn't meet our needs so we can't accept it into our collection." In my opinion to re-submit a work with such wording rejection, would be after consultation, to ascertain the reason for such rejection, or confirm it's the same reason as the one that was corrected that prompt that wording rejection, and thus given permission to resubmit. I could be wrong, but that is my thinking.

Regards

JG

[Abambo]

Both files were refused with the same refusal reason. Either Mat put one or both on-line. That I cannot see. But Mat confirmed the cause that triggered the rejection reason was NASA and may be “public domain”. So after addressing those issues, the OP can resubmit. I have pictures I resubmitted 3 times because I got them through, each time modifying what I thought the issue would be (it was finally the round iPhone button...).

OP should have gotten a confirmation of what he got through. The other one needs to be resubmitted with modified info.