Rejected Images for Technical Issues and IP Refusal

[fernandocallo]

Hi! I just uploaded this 3 images and were rejected for Technical Issues. I don't know what it's wrong.

I also uploaded a lot of images of a Fender Telecaster. The logo isn't visible at all but they were rejected and yes, I know is a recognizable model but I searched the available stocks and there were a lot of Telecasters, even with the logo in it. So what the hell?

[Ralph Lear · Accepted solution]

It seems to me that focus is your main issue on theese three photos. The objects are too soft. They are also a little dark.

[fernandocallo]

Oooh yeah, you're right. Thank you so much for your help!

[Test Screen Name]

You can't judge whether something will be accepted by looking at the library. Adobe keep tightening the rules (presumably, as they get sued). 

[George_F]

Have you heard of any particular instances of this happening with either Adobe or another stock agency?  I've searched a few times without much success.  I assume most of the time it's settled out of court and the details are not public.

I also know that there are automatic penalties for Intellectual Property violations that lawyers basically just have to send a collection notice for, at least in the US.

I have heard that though, that many of the restrictions are the results of lawsuits.

[Test Screen Name]

Adobe are completely silent on this. Not just naturally careful, either; a big target like Adobe would never reveal its litigation strategy or anything connected to it, to avoid giving weapons to the countless companies who make a good living by filing suits. I'm sure everyone has the aim of settling out of court since court could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a time. There are no figures for out of court settlements, because it's a private arrangement, but there seem to be several hundred cases of copyright infringement that reach the courts per year in the USA. However, that's only one area of litigation; trademark infringement is entirely different, and there are still other kinds of protected IP. What we can be pretty sure of is that Adobe will pass on any costs they can to the artist, who certified they had all rights for their offerings. Again, we never hear of this. 

[Test Screen Name]

One more thing: the point of contact for IP claims is often going to be the person who paid for the stock image. IP owners frequently use web scanners to find all "offending" images. So one "bad" image could result in a hit of dozens or hundreds of Adobe's customers. The cost in both money and reputation is likely to be high, so it's no wonder Adobe sets the bar high. 

[George_F]

That's an interesting point.  I never would have considered them talking about it publicly was giving away their defense strategy.

That's another interesting point of the IP violation going to the end user and not the provider.

Thanks for the info!

[Nancy OShea]

I also know that there are automatic penalties for Intellectual Property violations that lawyers basically just have to send a collection notice for, at least in the US.

By @George_F

===========

I resemble that.  🙂   Out of the blue, we received an invoice for $125 penalty fee on behalf of a company located in France who claimed image ownership.  It smelled a bit fishy to me.  I understood the image was royalty-free or I wouldn't have used it.  But rather than fight with them, we paid the fee and took down the image. 

[George_F]

Oh my goodness!  I'm so sorry that happened. 

On one side with me being a photographer I'm glad there is protection in place with punitive damages stiff enough to deter image theft.

But on the other side as a consumer, I hear it's a real shake down racket at times and feel bad for anyone who genuinely just didn't know.

It's even worse for those like you who weren't in the wrong, but still payed the fee to avoid potential fines of thousands of dollars + court.

I hope that was the first and last time you have a run-in like that!

[Nancy OShea]

S h * t  happens.  It's the cost of doing business. 🙂

[George_F]

The guitar photos I spotted with logos on them were marked for editorial use only.  A contributor with 100 or more downloads has the opportunity to contribute editorial use content if I'm not mistaken.  I think they also use partner stock agency for editorial content, I can't remember which one though.

It's also theoretically possible for contributors to have releases from companies to use their brand for commercial purposes.

I agree with the others on the technical issues.  A bit underexposed, and the main subject isn't in focus.

Better luck with submissions 🙂

[fernandocallo]

Mmm yeah, I kind of assumed it was something like that. Thanks for the good vibes!

[PepeCastro]

Tiene un enfoque blando y la turbiedad del ruido de iso, le da a la foto un ambiete evocativo y literario, yo las usaria si tengo que ilustrar un texto o un artculo , pero por lo que veo en AS aqui hay que poner el foco duro a rabiar, no hay que interprtar las imagenes, poca poesia  con ellos 😛