Rejection of intellectual property

[davidtaphotography]

Hello!

The other day I uploaded a couple of files of the Seville Tower but they have been rejected for intellectual property. I have been researching and this building does not have any copyright as may be the case with many buildings in the city of Paris for example. So what is the problem?

I would like someone to help me to solve this doubt.

Thanks.

[Test Screen Name]

Adobe's rule is you will need a signed release. This does not change by country, they do not know every building in the world. 

[davidtaphotography]

Hello, thank you for your reply 

I already know the rule, what I do not understand is why I am required to have an authorization when this building does not have any type of restriction or is protected by anything. I do not understand why I am asked for these photographs in particular and previously, with other photos of buildings that I have uploaded, I have never been asked for anything, except in Paris, which I accepted since the buildings are protected. 

I still don't know the reason why I'm being rejected. 

[lawrg94708991]

"For example, a skyline
shot of Manhattan, which contains dozens of buildings, a bridge,
and a river, would be okay without a property release.
A shot of the Empire State Building by itself would not."

[davidtaphotography]

Thank you for your response.

I understand, it's just that other times I have uploaded pictures of isolated buildings and I have never been asked for authorization, it's something I will have to accept in this case even if I don't understand it.

Thanks again for your answer.

[George_F · Accepted solution]

The exact thinking of the reviewers is something that we will never know.  Adobe may very well just have a general policy of "buildings that are the main subject and identifiable need a property release".  Protecting themselves from a lawsuit is more valuable than any one asset.  I follow the same principle personally, and there are assets I probably could submit as commercial that I still keep as editorial use only.  I hope that at least helps highlight a potential line of thinking that Adobe may have.

Cheers!

[davidtaphotography]

Thank you George for your response.

I just had this doubt since I have climbed isolated buildings on other occasions and had not been asked for any kind of authorization. I will have to accept this even if it seems absurd to me.

Thanks again for your reply, very kind, best regards.

[George_F]

It's been speculated before that Adobes internal policies change slightly over time, possibly as the result of litigation.  What's interesting about buildings is the many up claims they could have.  The architect, the builder, the stone designer, and the light designer could all have ip claims.  Being accessible to the public and being free of intellectual property ownership are two separate matters.

The Eiffel Tower lights are a pretty well known stock restriction because the light designer owns the IP to the lights.  I believe only daytime photos of the Eiffel Tower are ok for stock use.  

I wish you success 🙂

[Nancy OShea]

You're attempting to sell a picture commercially.  The high rise has no other buildings around it and is easily identifiable.  Don't you think the architects, builders and property owners have rights to refuse you permission to do that? 

If I took a picture of your home and sold it to an advertising agency, how would you feel about that?  Would you be pleased to see your home on a billboard ad or side of a bus without your permission? 

[davidtaphotography]

Hi Nancy, thank you for responding.

I see that you have not quite understood what this building is. This building is a public place where anyone can enter and where, inside, there are several stores. Obviously, I will never upload a photo of a private building like a house. So your answer has nothing to do with my problem.

Regards.

[Test Screen Name]

I think you have not understood Adobe's rules. Almost all buildings are in public places, where you stand to make a picture does not change Adobe's rules. Having stores does not change Adobe's rules. Being an entirely legal shot in your country does not change Adobe's rules. There is no appeal, there are only the rules, which are made only for Adobe's convenience, not ours...

[Jill_C]

The fact that the building is a "public place" which people can enter to shop does not make it a fair target for photography. Shopping malls in my area are "public places" but have a "no commercial photography" policy. They may be open to the public, but are probably privately owned, by an individual or a corporation, and each can have their own IP claims. It is difficult to know which buildings are subject to IP claims, so I usually don't spend a lot of time editing or preparing such images for upload. Moderators can be inconsistent on the issue as well, and tend to err on the side of caution. You can go ahead and upload the image anyway and see if it's approved if you don't mind having it rejected.

[RALPH_L]

As long as the structure is fairly new (last 100 years or so) and is the focus of attention in your photo, you need a release form.