Photos were rejected, although same photos are already portfolio

[ingmarGe]

Hello, here's my problem.

Photos were rejected by me. Reason: intellectual property Rights. Out of 150 identical photos 5 were accepted. 145 rejected. Same motive. Light and water features in a public park in Hamburg. I have had such photos in my portfolio since 2016. There is no logic. There are no intellectual property rights... The first photo from 2019 and the series were rejected. (5 photos accepted) The 2nd photo shows a photo from 2016. The series was accepted completely.... Can someone help me?

[Abambo]

ingmarGe  wrote

Reason: intellectual property Rights. Out of 150 identical photos 5 were accepted. 145 rejected. Same motive. Light and water features in a public park in Hamburg.

From your description I would simply assume that the moderator made an error and wanted to refuse as "similar image submitted".

Also the lights play could be considered as a performance with intellectual rights attached too, but that then the refusal should have been consistent.

[ingmarGe]

Thank you very much for your answer Abambo. No, I don't think the moderator is making a mistake. It clearly says that the pictures were rejected because of intellectual property. Now already 2 times. Unfortunately one cannot take up contact to the moderators. And the pictures are very different. Why should pictures from the year 2016 be taken perfectly and pictures from the year 2019 not? There must be a way to tell the viewer this. With Shutterstock this is also possible.

Why should 5 pictures be different from 145 others? They are all photos of the same light and water features. The logic is impossible. If a few pictures are not taken because they are similar, I can understand that. But they take 5 almost identical pictures. And not the rest? Where's the logic?

[joanH]

HelloingmarGe, Here are a few ideas about the rejections; I see you have a trade/copyright

symbol on the lower right of the photos. Surely you removed them before submitting these.

Light shows have been considered art and can require a release to sell photos of these events.

Sometimes an artist will want reassurance that you will not change their work - like playing with the lights, changing colors in these photos. What is different about these two photos? Carefully inspect them at 100% or greater. Is there something on the dark object in the center that could

cause a problem? Then, take what you find and review all of the copyright regulations again. You can find them here. Best regards, JH

For information, see

Model release and protection guidelines for Adobe Stock

[Abambo]

BTW: a moderator selects prewritten refusal reasons.

If the moderator “clearly says that it is an intellectual property refusal“ than the 5 accepted pictures should also be refused. However, the lightshow is clearly a piece of art that may require a property release.

The Eiffel tower lightning show is also protected. Also the wrapping of the Reichstag in Berlin is protected. There is enough precedent. Your 2016 picture is just red light. However, the refused picture shows some creative colour mixing. Like graffiti in the water. I would like to see the ids of the accepted 5 pictures.

IP refusal can also be based on keywords or the title. This is very often overseen.

My last: What may be acceptable with Shutterstock may be refused here (and vice versa) and what was acceptable 2016 may not be acceptable today.

[Ricky336]

It just may be that Adobe has tightened up on the Property Rights, so a lot tighter now than in 2016. Afterall that is now 3 years ago!

I think the lights could be an issue here - that seems to be the only logical conclusion.

So, this would probably mean you have to get a release signed from the park authorities.

We are all users like you here, so we can only give you our opinion based on what we have learnt and experienced.

This is a complicated topic.

[ingmarGe]

Addendum: It's confusing. Today again 3 photos have been accepted. No problems. I think it's the viewers. Not the photos. Same camera location, same perspective. It's not neutral, it depends on the viewers. Sorry, I find it wrong from Adobe

it is ridiculous and not objective

[Abambo]

Well, intellectual property rights in this case is probably not easy to judge. It's not ridiculous but for sure it's not objective, as there are no exact rules where you can read that the specific picture is violating IP. With the Eiffel Tower it would be clear as there are clearly defined rules of what is acceptable in France and what is not. All is a question of training and yes also personal assessment.

For me, a picture like the first one is violating the rights of the artist that set up the show. Your second image the red one would not for the lightning, because there is no artistic sense in putting a red light somewhere. The water jets could well be an IP violation. But also there for still images it's more the photographer deciding on the look than the choreograph. But if you would film it and there would be a timed water play, the situation would change again.

I think they are wrongly accepted not the other way around.

Here is my analyses for this:

To be copyright protected, the works need to be personal intellectual creations. They need to be creative and individual, but need not to be novel or unique.

The arrangement of the lights and color effects is creative.

What types of rights are covered by copyright? 

German copyright law grants the author exclusive rights to exploit his or her work which includes, in particular:

• (...)
• the right to broadcast; and
• the right to publish and exploit derivative works.

According to German (c) law these are the points that you (probably) infringe.

[ingmarGe]

I don't see it that way. Also I see in detail many photos from Las Vegas, which were all approved. In Germany we have panorama freedom at public buildings, parks and events. Without people.
I close the topic now that some photos have been taken. Others again not. That is not objective. It depends on the viewer. Also the difference between the providers is very different. Shutterstock takes all pictures. Adobe little. Other stock providers take again all. Does not matter now. Many thanks for the many helpful answers

[Abambo]

ingmarGe  wrote

I don't see it that way. Also I see in detail many photos from Las Vegas, which were all approved. In Germany we have panorama freedom at public buildings, parks and events.

Yes, panorama Freiheit exists, but still it's not a free ticket to publish what you want. The wrapping of the Reichstag can't be commercialised without Christo's OK.

ingmarGe  wrote

Also I see in detail many photos from Las Vegas, which were all approved.

Without seeing the pictures, I can't judge, but a single building should get refused, a panoramic view of the town not.

ingmarGe  wrote

I close the topic now that some photos have been taken. Others again not. That is not objective. It depends on the viewer.

Viewer=moderator! Yes, it depends on the moderator. That's the problem with human judgement. In my eyes, all pictures should be refused on ip basis as soon as there is more than basic lightning.

ingmarGe  wrote

Shutterstock takes all pictures.

That's not true. I had a picture refused because the title said "Hot coke...". They argued month-long with me that "Coke" is a trademark of Coca-Cola company. I couldn't believe it. The picture is selling good here in Adobe stock...

BTW: my killer argument was, that there were a lot of pictures showing apples...

(Edit)

But effectively, I had pictures submitted to both sites and Shutterstock accepted and Adobe refused. After a second look to the pictures, I withdraw the ones from Shutterstock again. Adobe's checking is more stringent.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi ingmarGe,

The image that you show that was accepted is just the lighting. This image you show has an item before the lights. In my opinion, even though the item is not clearly seen, as is, it could attract IP rejection. If that item is common with the rejected images and not with the accepted ones, that could be the cause for rejection.

Best wishes

JG