I submitted the image below a week or so ago.
The photo was initially moved to the 'Reminder' section and a Model Release was requested.
I completed a model release form and submitted it (my first ever model release form...).
The photo was rejected again due to a problem with the model release form. No information was provided as to why the form was rejected!!
On reading through the model release form that I had originally submitted, I noticed that I had made a mistake with one of the dates I had entered so I corrected this and re-submitted.
Today I received an email informing me that the photo has been rejected due to "Non Compliant Content ".
I would be very interested to know why the photo/model release has been rejected so that I don't make the same mistake again.
Can anybody advise please?
EDITED to add copy of the model release form with personal details removed
Hello Hobby-Snapper. I would like to have a satisfying informative answer for you but I do not. I do have my similar experiences and also those of many colleagues. We all have had quite a few of these experiences in the early days of our offerings to stock and the reviewers. Not Fun!
First of all, I personally recommend that you make the face of the model unrecognizable; show back of head, hair or cast a shadow over the face. Then resubmit it. Caution, if it is NOT accepted then, there might be other errors found. If it is a good clear picture with no person identified, you will not need the release form. Examine your work at 200% enlargement before sending it - this will reveal any other problems like noise and logos.
As for the release process, we have had good and not so good experiences using the offered process and system sent by Adobe. I avoid all model releases if I can. I am an illustrator and will rarely need one with my original artwork. However, funny thing, if my art is too realistic or too good, Adobe asks me if it is my own work by requesting a created original art release form.
No, this is not all there is to this but this is a fairly fast way to know why rejection happens and how to get your art accepted. More information for your benefit at this link. Let me know how this goes. Best regards, JH
Property release and protection guidelines for Adobe Stock is also an important document to read through. Property release guidelines will link you to "Known Image Restriction".
Property release and protection guidelines for Adobe Stock should give you a clearer understanding of what is required. Known image restrictions will give you a more comprehensive knowledge of what is not accepted, and with other's, what composition is accepted.
Thanks for the advice
I would be very interested to know why, after requesting a model release form and my submitting a signed release form, the photo was rejected? I would understand if the photo been rejected in the first instance for some technical/artistic reason but it wasn't.
Well, Hobby-Snapper- the first model release is something you as the creator must know about and faithfully supply. If you do not send one with the first offering all hope of stock acceptance is gone. If your release was improperly filled out, that is non-compliance - conformance with a legal regulation set by Adobe. Adobe is moving to protect us all from copyright infringements on the open world markets. These copyright regulations are only getting more complex and stringent. First things first. Get your releases early - copy the Adobe forms and carry them with you for shoots. Regards, JH
I hear what you are saying JH,
However, I still don't understand the process....
1) I submitted a photo. The 'model' - a relative of mine, was hardly recognizable so I did not believe any model release would be required.
2) Adobe moved the photo to the 'Reminder' section and requested a model release be provided.
3) I submitted a model release but I made a typo error with the date.
4) Adobe rejected the Model Release (not the photo) without any explanation and requested that I remedy the situation and re-submit the photo
5) I reviewed the model release form, noticed my error with the date and re-submitted the photo (as requested) with a corrected model release form
6) Adobe rejected the photo as being "Non Compliant" without any explanation as to why it is non compliant
How am I supposed to avoid this situation in the future when no one can give me a definitive answer to where I went wrong ????
A crazy situation, I would expect better from a major multinational company!!!
Hi Hobby-Snapper, You can take the few steps I suggested and resubmit the photo without a model release. Get that bit of information and then we can see if there is another reason causing a problem. I think the photo will be accepted. Then we can have a discussion about your double confusion with the rejection and compliance. Don't try to solve this all in this one exchange. Let me know if this picture gets accepted once you disguise the model's face.
Best regards, JH
Recently I uploaded the photo of a woman in the process of watering seedlings. Her back was turned towards me and her face was not visible.. I thought that would be enough to upload without a model release, so I did my corrections, tagged, select not recognizable, and upload. The moderator that reviewed that image requested a model release. I got a release signed and the photo was accepted.
What was significant about that image? Before arming myself with the document, I saw the lady on the road. I told her one of the photos I'm uploading had her image in it, and without looking at the photo she said, "the one that my back was turn to you". Therefore even if the persons back is turn, it is still important to upload with the photo a release. This is because the person can still be recognized. That is borne out in the second guideline I refer to at post 8 of this thread.
When we upload, we also tend to forget that users zoom in on images to see details. And even what is not so visible, or significant at normal size, zoom will see clearly. Therefore a release is the best way to go when people are present.
Suckle editing can be used sometime to obscure recognition, but care has to be taken to make sure it is not obvious. If when zoomed, it is recognized that editing was done, it will not go well for your image.
The process of moderation starts with checking for release if it is required. Therefore if after moderator's request, release is subsequently submitted, your image has equal chance of being accepted.
Copy link to clipboard
The issue is with the dates. The witness should be present witnessing the signing of the model and yours. All three should be done at the same place and time. That is how the legal system works. Therefore if the witness date is different, then this would make the release invalid. Hence you need to have all three dates as the same March 19, 2019. Correct that and resubmit your photo. If there's no other issue it will be accepted.
I take it that all the other information was correct. And also make sure a photo of the relevant model is attached at the top left of the form. If you want to make sure, do-up a fake form and upload here for us to check.
Thank you for the information, I think you have answered my question.
1) I completed the Model Release retrospectively, not on location
2) I was not aware of the requirement to provide a photo of the model with the form.
I just wish Adobe had provided me with their definitive reasoning for rejecting my submission at the point of the rejection!!
I think in future I will just steer clear of submitting anything that may remotely require a model release!!
Like any other organization, Adobe has their way of doing things. Handling millions of photos on a daily basis, reviewing promptly, and as accurate as it is done is not and easy task. So the forums are provided so that experienced volunteers like myself can assist to relieve the workload. In the mean time you are provided with minimal information, and directed to where you can get more detailed info, the forum. While we cannot answer all questions, we are able to answer most based on our experience, and seek answers for those questions we cannot.
Another thing, it is imperative that the correct answers of these forums be so correctly marked. The information here is left for the benefit of others who like yourself seek answers.
If you have not done so as yet, please read through all the information, and sub-info of the following links:
Very informative and helpful.
Thank you JG
A final question to test my understanding:
So, the photo that I attach to the release form is just a copy of the photo that I am submitting?
See Jacquelin's answer 2.
Hi Abambo, If I read clearly there are several questions in the original forum question. I would like you to tell me if the answers I posted are incorrect since the other answer was more specific to just the release issue. Love that you watch over these things. Off forum, answer via my Pvt email as listed. Best. JH
Your understanding is correct.
If you take another photo of the same person at another location, in another position, when you upload the new photo and complete the keywording, you click
Search for an existing release
Select the release and submit.
Based on the current policy, there is no need for more than one release per person.
Based on the current policy, there is no need for more than one release per person.
Strange policy, isn't it?
I could give you a model release for some shoots but not for all...
"I could give you a model release for some shoots but not for all..."
I'm not sure I understand that comment. However if you look at the main purpose of the photo on the release then you'll understand why only one release. The photo plus information serves as a form of identification. Once the subsequent models and photo on release match, then there's no need for a new. Some sites have age limits for renewed releases. That too serves its purpose for change in features. I imagine if there is such drastic change in feature of an uploaded image(s), then another release will be requested.
That's OK. But consider this:
I as a model (especially as a non-professional one) could be OK with a specific shoot or series of shoots. I give therefore my OK and sign the model release. With that release, all other pictures that were taken in the past or are taken in the future are automatically released for publishing on Adobe stock.
That for sure is not quite the aim of the release. I as a photographer would be well advised to ask the model release for each shoot you do (not each picture!) and keep that with my documents. I wouldn't upload pictures where I would not have some kind of release. We do that for employee shoots that we intend to use in our publications. With GPDR it's now even required to have that form by hand.
For professional models you will have a contract in which you will state the aim of the shooting, the scope of use etc. Therefore a model release is enough as long as you do a contract for each shoot.
If you are located in Europe at least, it is highly recommended to do good contracts and model releases.
In the case of contracted models, shoots would be in the scope of your personal contract with the model, however there's complexity with your explanation. We are supposed to be doing real life activity photography, not studio, a sequence of shoots can be at the same place but different locations, or the same location different days, or same day different places as in the case of road trips, or a photo that was taken last year, but choose to upload this year. For a remote institution to know the difference it would be difficult. That would be asking for a release for each image, and for the photographer asking permission to upload each images you take. So one release, one permit and that's sufficient.
I won't argue, because it helps to keep the paperwork down to a minimum with Adobe. I'm talking about the situation of the model (the model does not sign off a blank cheque, but the model release is used as that), the photographer and Adobe.
Those are distinct situations.
Just to say: you can also take pictures of models "in real life activities" and there is none of the rules excluding studio pictures.
When I'm taking pictures of people, they are rarely in real life situations. You set-up your scene and you make it look like real life. But it's for the picture. And each time you shoot, you need a model release not for Adobe but for you.
I rarely stage a photoshoot. I aim at real life activities, hence 99% of my photos are just that.
I only stage pictures, because the models need to know that I will use the pictures for whatever use I need them. However, all my staged pictures are not part of my portfolio, because the customer gets the exclusive rights on them and the release signed by the people is quite restrictive.
Many thanks JG
Just to close out on my problem.
I re-submitted the original photo that was rejected along with an online 'Adobe Signed' model release and the photo was accepted. I found the 'Adobe Signed' form very easy to process and no witness is required
I also submitted a different photo of the same model taken some months earlier and at an obviously different location and the that photo was also accepted using the same model release form.
The model in my photos is a family member so I have no worries about any future comeback from the mode l
Many thanks again for your help with this matter.
Best regards HS
Great. Still you should be sure that the "model" is comfortable with the pictures you upload.