Submissions denied for "intellecual property refusal"

[Andrew28402168wx0r]

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?

[RALPH_L]

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

[Andrew28402168wx0r]

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?

[Nancy OShea · Accepted solution]

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.

[Andrew28402168wx0r]

Had no idea about that. So people can put a copyright on... guitar shape? That's crazy how it's even allowed. But thanks for sharing.

[Nancy OShea]

People patent designs for everything -- cars, toys, computers, smartphones, electronics, you name it...

[Andrew28402168wx0r]

I guess i should go and patent a circular wheel before someone else does it. So all the competition will have to invent the new form of wheels) Society is crazy.

[Jill_C]

Disney owns the rights to Mickey Mouse ears. Apple owns the rights to the iPhone round button. VW owns the rights to the shape of the Bug..The list goes on and on... Distinctive design shapes and elements can, and often are, protected by Intellectual Property laws.

[Andrew28402168wx0r]

So if someone using, let's say, Ferrari car in the movie, they have to first contact Ferrari and ask  the permission? And the artist who will draw Ferrari can be sued by the company?

[daniellei4510]

They don't ask for permission. They ask how much Ferrari will pay them if they use their car in the movie. It's called product placement. If you see the familiar Apple logo on a laptop in a movie, Apple paid them to make it as visible as possible.

[Andrew28402168wx0r]

Then, why it's the opposite with art?

[daniellei4510]

Not really understanding your question, but AI is not art. It's graphic design, as in the catagory of arts and crafts. Hobby Lobby, Michael's, etc. 

[daniellei4510]

And before you ask, I'm not dissing AI. While I have a photography background that goes back nearly 40 years, 100% of my submissions to Adobe Stock are AI.  I was a fine art, fashion, wedding, portrait and figure photographer back in the day, but I've moved so many times, I've lost all my model releases. So I can't submit their images for commercial gain.

[Andrew28402168wx0r]

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.

[Abambo]

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. 

[Nancy OShea]

Motion picture studios pay for permission to place products in movies. It's a sizable portion of the movie budget. Everything you see from cars & trucks to candies and beer are there by arrangement with the product maker.  If the product maker won't give the studio permission, the filmmakers have to drop the product or find a replacement. Such was the case with E.T.'s favorite multi-colored candies. 

The reason ET eats Reeces Pieces instead of M&Ms.

https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/the-reason-why-et-eats-reeces-pieces/

You're selling your work for commercial use.  It has to be 100% legal for Stock Customers to use.  You cannot sell what you don't own.

[Abambo]

Car manufacturers pay for their product placement in big productions. If you are a small budget film, you lease a car. You do not need a special authorization from the manufacturer, except if the car plays an extensive role in the plot. 

[Abambo]

Then, why it's the opposite with art?

By @Andrew28402168wx0r

This is not art. This is letting people use the data you upload for any use. You could use the picture of the Ferrari to show how badly built they are. Ferrari wants to control the use of their trademarks. 

Stock is not art.

[Jill_C]

It depends how intentional the product placement is. If a branded product appears incidentally in an image, like perhaps a box of Cheerios in an open kitchen cabinet, no release is expected. However, if there is a very intentional use of a product, the property master for the film will have obtained persmission. You might be interested in reading more about it at the link below. Product manufacturers are primarily interested in ensuring that their product is not featured in a negative manner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_placement#:~:text=In%20many%20cases%20the%20film,agencies%20or....

[Abambo]

Had no idea about that. So people can put a copyright on... guitar shape? That's crazy how it's even allowed. But thanks for sharing.

By @Andrew28402168wx0r

Apple has IP on the round button on their phones. VW has IP on the beetle. 

This shape is not the standard guitar shape: 

…and these design elements are protected for guitars by Fender, if I remember well:

The standard guitar shape is not protected, however. 

As soon as you have either registered the design or you have a high visibility with your design, that design is protected, to avoid others to make business with your unique design decisions. 

You can't protect the circular wheel shape, however, that's too late. It is in the public domain. If you want to protect your wheel shape, it needs to be distinct from the common wheel. And btw, the procedure costs money, and may even cost more money, if someone contests your request for protection. 

[daniellei4510]

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.

[Andrew28402168wx0r]

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

[Abambo]

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.

[Jill_C]

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

[Andrew28402168wx0r]

Yes, i always check them.