Skip to main content
berndk39283532
berndk39283532
Known Participant
April 24, 2019
해결됨

Straßenszene Grund für eine Ablehnung zum Schutz geistigem Eigentums

  • April 24, 2019
  • 1 답변
  • 984 조회

Ich habe das nachstehende Foto angeboten. Es zeigt eine Straßenszene, die mit Graufilter und Langzeitbelichtung aufgenommen wurde. Die Geisterbilder sind - auch bezogen auf den Titel "Alltagshektik" die Hauptaussage des Bildes. Die Häuser sind alle älter als 70 Jahre und wurden lediglich restauriert.

Sie sind aber nicht die Kernaussage des Bildes sondern Bildbewerk. Ich habe alle Logos und markenrechtliche Schriftzüge entfernt. Dennoch wurde es zum Schutz geistigen Eigentums abgelehnt. Ich kann wohl sein, dass die Häuserfassaden damit gemeind sind. Wenn ja, dürfte ich keine Stadt fotografieren.

Ich brauche mal eine externe Begutachtung und Meinung. Dank im Voraus.

이 주제는 답변이 닫혔습니다.
최고의 답변: Abambo

Some where in the instructions is buried a remark that buildings erected after a certain date (19??) have ip protection. This one does not fall in that category, however, because it is part of a street scene.

However the picture has been refused correctly.

I've identified several pieces that each one alone would result in a refusal. You should really review your editing techniques. Editing out something needs to be done in a way that it is not obvious.

But:

  • IP: Credit card logos, the name of the company and logo and the advertising pictures will need a model release and a property release:
  • IP: Name of the business and logo:
  • IP: May be taken as a logo:
  • IP: This is part of a logo (and editing is not professional)
        
  • Bad sign edits:
  • Sign not edited:
        

1 답변

jacquelingphoto2017
Community Expert
jacquelingphoto2017Community Expert
Community Expert
April 25, 2019

Hi bernd

There still remain the artwork work at the front yellow entrance of one of the buildings. Also there's some additional prints on the same building towards the extreme left edge of the photo. Those will attract intellectual property violation rejections.

I hope this was helpful

Best wishes

JG

berndk39283532
berndk39283532작성자
Known Participant
April 25, 2019

Hi Jacquline.

Thanks for the comment. I also thought about this possibility, but it makes no sense for me. This building and the entrance sculpture dates from 1589. Neither the architect nor the sculptor are still alive. A consent can never be granted. Although the building is under monument protection is subject otherwise no restrictions. The painter, who has repainted the entrance sculpture, certainly has no rights. Based on the argument that ancient sculptures and sculptures are subject to general protection, no old buildings with old sculptures from the Middle Ages, churches, and monuments should be rejected in pictures. If there is any confusion, why does Adobe then push the picture not in the folder "reminder", so you can comment on it.

VG Bernd

Abambo
Community Expert
AbamboCommunity Expert답변
Community Expert
April 25, 2019

Some where in the instructions is buried a remark that buildings erected after a certain date (19??) have ip protection. This one does not fall in that category, however, because it is part of a street scene.

However the picture has been refused correctly.

I've identified several pieces that each one alone would result in a refusal. You should really review your editing techniques. Editing out something needs to be done in a way that it is not obvious.

But:

  • IP: Credit card logos, the name of the company and logo and the advertising pictures will need a model release and a property release:
  • IP: Name of the business and logo:
  • IP: May be taken as a logo:
  • IP: This is part of a logo (and editing is not professional)
        
  • Bad sign edits:
  • Sign not edited:
        
ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer
약관 및 조건Accessibility statement
Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices