Known Participant

Answered

Submissions denied for "intellecual property refusal"

Forum|Forum|1 year ago
March 31, 2024
6 replies
2441 views

I got a lot of submissions denied for same reason. The only thing they have in common - all of them are picturing musicians, but it's various people, with various races, genders, and even visual styles - from fantasy to cyberpunk, from realistic to chibi.
The images were made by me and i can prove it, if nessesary. Also i will give you a few examples here - try to search by that image and you will find nothing.
So what could be the reason? It feels like those submissions were flagged by bot instead of being reviewed by humans, because i kinda fail to find any intellectual property that would belong to someone else. But maybe you can? Here is few examples:

If you also can't find any proofs that they are someone else's ip, what do you recommend me to do, is there a way to contact Adobe and ask to explain why they think that my images using IP of others people?

This topic has been closed for replies.

Correct answer Nancy OShea

Guitar designs are protected by patents. Gibson, Fender, the Eddie Van Halen Star edition, are easily identifiable by their distinctive shape.

I'm almost certain that's why your guitars were rejected for IP violation.

O

oleschwander

Legend

The images should be rejected for quality issues.

Abambo

Community Expert

The images should be rejected for quality issues.

By @oleschwander

The IP can't be corrected, so that is stronger. But yes, the could also get their rejection on the quality issues. Moderators refuse on the first error they see. this moderator looked at the guitars. Not even a 2s decision.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

daniellei4510

Community Expert

Just a few examples of Quality Issues.

Adobe Community Expert | If you can't fix it, hide it; if you can't hide it, delete it.

daniellei4510

Community Expert

Actually, I take that back. (I just woke up). So long as you check the AI box and the box indicating that the people in the images are fictional, there is no need to submit a propery release. Or there shouldn't be. Was that in fact the reason given for their refusal? Usually, if a property release is required, the images a put under a "Pending" tab to give one a chance to provide a release without resubmitting.

Adobe Community Expert | If you can't fix it, hide it; if you can't hide it, delete it.

A

Andrew28402168wx0rAuthor

Known Participant

No, there is no pending. I checked both boxes for all of those images. Here is the message on all of those arts:

And this is why i feel like probability of them being reviewed by humans are small. Because a human would either explain what exact corywrite they think i violate, or suggest me to fill the property release (it happened before the second box were added, and indeed property release solved the issue).

daniellei4510

Community Expert

If they didn't go under Pending, I think the moderator checked the incorrect reason for refusal.

Adobe Community Expert | If you can't fix it, hide it; if you can't hide it, delete it.

Jill_C

Community Expert

Did you check the box indicating "People and Property are Fictional"?

Jill C., Forum Volunteer

A

Andrew28402168wx0rAuthor

Known Participant

Yes, i always check them.

daniellei4510

Community Expert

All AI images depicting photo realistic or illustrated people require a property release. There is no way to contact Adobe. Images are moderated by humans. That said, I still see some rendering errors throughout these examples that could result in a quality issues.

Adobe Community Expert | If you can't fix it, hide it; if you can't hide it, delete it.

A

Andrew28402168wx0rAuthor

Known Participant

How can i fill it, if when i check the box "people and property are fictional" the menu for adding property release disappearing?

Abambo

Community Expert

Well, when you file a property release, it is not fictional. So you can't tick that flag, but you need to connect the release to your asset. But it will be impossible to get a property release from the rights holders, and you can't claim the property rights on the triggering element: the guitar shape.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

RALPH_L

Community Expert

You jst need to submit an IP release signed by you as the artist.

A

Andrew28402168wx0rAuthor

Known Participant

Ah, is that all? I just need to re-submit them with release?
But why? Because they are humans? But I have other images depicting various people that were accepted. Why those were the ones that got flagged?

Abambo

Community Expert

No, i have different question. Why putting a Ferrary if a movie (commercial use) you need a Ferrary to pay you, but in same situation with an image, you need to pay Ferrary? Both are commercial products - movie and image.

No, i have different question. Why putting a Ferrary if a movie (commercial use) you need a Ferrary to pay you, but in same situation with an image, you need to pay Ferrary? Both are commercial products - movie and image.

By @Andrew28402168wx0r

For the movie, Ferrari controls the image. Here, they do not control the use. A film could use even a Ferrari, if they did not ask the trademarks' owner, but if they would do a commercial, like showing the crapy work of Ferrari compared to a Maserati, they would go to trial, and you too and Adobe too, as you did put the asset online. As Adobe is rich, they would need to pay a gigantic sum, after the loss. You would also have to pay, but as you have little money, they will take that and then ask Adobe to pay the rest. IP violations can be costly.

Showing off a Ferrari in a good film is a nice advertisement.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded