Every image I have submitted of military aircraft in flight has been rejected as an IP violation, with no other reason stated. This is despite the fact that I can search the site and find many similar images that are accepted using similar search terms. Trying to understand the disparity?
Attached is one of my images with its stock number that was stated to violate IP rules.
A-10 Warthog, F-35A Lightning II
Copy link to clipboard
The File ID: 409967839
Maybe the others had the necessary releases, and yours didn't...?
Seriously, please enlighten me what releases are needed for images like the above?
Property releases from the intellectual property owner. Fairchild-Republic for example. Unless the object is over 100 years old. (NOT the owner of the plane, the US government; in fact if the US federal government were the IP owner, special provisions would apply). This is a normal part of commercial photography, and the owner may not consent to their plane appearing in adverts; it's their choice. Without a release, it's only suitable for editorial use. No, you can't submit for editorial use, though some other Stock sites will.
Thanks for your reply. If this image were intended to be used for advertising a specific product, I would see your point being a still life advertisng photographer myself. In this case kinda negates the use of Stock Photography for images taken in the public domain for non product advertising purposes. I will follow your advice and pursue other stock sites. Thanks.
The technologies depicted in your photos are easily identifiable. If I purchased your image for use in a million dollar ad campaign, the designers could sue me for using it and sue you for making it available. An IP release helps protect everyone's interests.
Hi @Nikon__Shooter ,
There are identifiable marks on the folded wings. These must be removed. I suggest you remove the lines also and make it total blue.
In addition to the IP there are other issues. There is a lighted halo around the edges, especially those in the highlight, and a small amount of color fringing.
The technical issues are valid critiques are valid, I only questioned it because it was rejected as IP issue and as technical.
Can't edit to correct original reply for typo's so here is what I meant to type.
The technical issues are valid critiques, I only questioned it because it was rejected as an IP issue and not as rejected for technical. Stock images for military aircraft are not allowed on this site, I'm learning being new here, first time poster for stock. Thank you for your replies.
Hi @Nikon__Shooter ,
Sorry I do not see anything in the list that says Adobe does not accept military aircraft. See https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html/stock/contributor/help/property-release.ug...
If there is any such information I would appreciate someone to point it out for me.
I do see on the folded wings of the aircraft of your photo markings that will Identify the owner(s) of the airplanes. Those markings need to be edited out with Photoshop or any other photo editor of your choice. Please zoom in on the vertical segments of the front wings and you will see what appears to be initials (WI, or WJ). If you don't remove identifiable marks like those, you will get IP rejections.
" I do not see anything in the list that says Adobe does not accept military aircraft."
Equally, I don't see anything saying they are except from the release rules which apply to all other identifiable man-made objects.
Where and how "the release rules which apply to all other identifiable man-made objects." be applicable?
I do not see why no one can see or comment on the writing on the folded wings of the aircrats in the picture. Why is the emphasis on what is not in the guidelines and not what is in the image that the contributor is asking about?
There are over 29, 000 war aircrafts on the Adobe Platform, and at least some looking like this one. If the design rule applies here, why was it not applied over 29,000 times prior to now?
Ok, I think multiple points have been raised and crossed over... but here's my take on an analogy. I have a photo of my sister's Fiat car. Does she own it? Sure. Does she own the IP rights on it? Absolutely not. Fiat do.
Can I use the Fiat in an advert? Not without permission from the IP rights holder. Not my sister, but Fiat. Will they give it? Probably not. Where do Adobe say this?
"Property types that may require a property release:
... Distinctive product shapes like ... vehicles, airplanes"
Then we have another problem. Let's suppose I am a Photoshop wizard and I have removed the Fiat brand and messed with the car design so not even Mr. Fiat himself would recognise it. Can I submit it now? Well, wait. There's the number plate! Is that IP? Perhaps, though I'm not sure who owns it - presumably the vehicle registration department or the maker of the plate. I can't find the relevant stuff on Adobe's site, but it's certain they won't accept it with a readable number plate.
So, for Fiat car read military aircraft. Aircraft owner = govermnent. IP owner = plane maker, presumably. Will they allow it in an advert? Probably not.
Now, for number plate read military identification. Where are we now? Well, I would remove the ID.
TSN gave you a very good analogy.
I will only add that if the aircraft were less prominent in the background and not the primary subject of your image, you might have a better chance at acceptance without IP releases. But other issues such as model releases might be required. See screenshot.
Hope this helps.