Seagull is Intellectual Property Violation....what?

[jtp77]

This image of a seagull got rejected for beeing Intellectual Property Violation. It has a number tag on its foot, but that not really a logo, or a company. Soooo...I have no idea why this is rejected. Do you have any ideas? The rejections seems very random....

[Ricky336]

The number tag makes it identifiable, therefore being rejected. Anything that can be identified will most likely be rejected under property violations.

[jtp77]

Then its kind of funny that today this image DID get aproved:

Sooo....?

[Ricky336]

And so the plot thickens

[Szalam · Accepted solution]

Different reviewers have different ideas, I expect.

[La Su]

Maybe it was submitted with the correct paperwork? (Seagull's owner approval)

Or maybe the seagull belongs to the photographer

[jtp77]

Did you see post nr 3?

[La Su]

No, I didn't.  I was just trying to understand why one would be accepted and not the other.

[jimac1953]

I had one like this. It was a alligator in the wild. I couldn't figure how it could be an Intellectual Property Violation. I was talking to a fellow photographer about it and he suggested it just may be so close to someone else photo, one that may have been purchased already that it may be considered a copy of the other photo. I don't know, sounds as reasonable as anything. Maybe that's why the second was accepted. What do you think?