We have a brand new look! Take a tour with us and explore the latest updates on Adobe Support Community.
The reason my images are declined vary but they are always declined and the information of why is very poor so I have no idea. Help me understand.
This image was declined for intellectual property violation.
Here's the full reply:
Thanks for giving us the chance to consider your image.
During our review, we found that it contains elements that appear to be protected by intellectual property laws, so we can't accept it into our collection. Please review the following intellectual property rights guidelines:
Protected elements can be certain objects depicted in an image as well as protected terms (like names or trademarks) in the image's description, title and/or keywords. Here are some examples of subjects protected by intellectual property laws:
Products and objects
Commercial products (e.g., toys, fashion items, electronic devices and designer furniture) should never be in focus and/or be the main subject of the content if they're identifiable and distinctive in visual appearance, like shape or color.
Trademark, trade dress and intellectual property
We can't accept any appearance of logos, trademarks, company or brand names (e.g., Apple, Nike, Gucci and BMW) in your images. This includes identifiable packaging or other product dress.
Locations, venues, monuments, landmarks
Ticketed locations with paid admission—like zoos, museums or amusement parks—very often have photography restrictions. Images require property releases when they depict unique locations with distinctive features in an identifiable manner, including but not limited to identifiable enclosures, installations and animals.
Some landmarks and monuments can't be accepted, depending on location, artist, age and all other relevant restrictions. It's your responsibility to find out if any photography restrictions apply.
Modern architecture with unique building structures requires a release when it's the main focus of the image. However, depending on the specific situation, city vistas, skylines or closeups may be fine.
Images depicting or originating from artworks, sculptures, street art, drawings, illustrations, literature, fonts and graphic elements are not acceptable if not originally created by you.
These measures are in place to protect you, our contributor, as well as our customers and Adobe Stock. Please feel free to submit images that adhere to these guidelines in the future.
My question is, what in the image is intellectual property. Is it the sign?
Can't a person take a picture of that sign without permission from New York city?
Also, the sign is not a photo, nothing in this image is a photo, I draw it all up in Photoshop so another question
is if I depict my intepretation of the sign, would it still be a violation?
Or is it something completely different that I was refuced for, what do you think?
Here's another image that was declined.
This one had Technical issues. without specification of what.
What would that be? The image is raster bitmap, 15000pix width at 600dpi. so shouldn't be resolution.
Maybe it's the fact that it's Not a Photo, Nor is it a vector illustration so you can't submit created things?
Again, this image is a real photo, I've drawn it all up, the train, the rails, the people inside the car are real photos but they're blurred out of recognition.
Help me understand what I can't do so I can get anything accepted.
Believe it or not, graffiti is Intellectual Property. So probably this is one of the reasons as both images have graffiti.
As far as Technical Issues are concerned - it's White Balance, Saturation, Contrast. I think White Balance could be an issue.
But, I think you'll have problems because of the graffiti.
Here's a link about Technical Issues:
Okay so if the image has poor quality for any reason that would be considered a technical problem, not too far fetched I guess since it can be just about anything but I still have problems with it since I draw the image,,it simply can't be technically bad, it's an original so to speak.
Illigal painted graffiti can't be intellectual property cus then artists could sue when they're cleaned up. Legal graffiti is of couse by default. Perhaps very recognizable graffiti could have some issues like a Banksy piece but I doubt it if it was an illegal thing.
But maybe it is so crazy that I need a property release for each tag on the subway car, it sounds completely redic but I guess it could be so.
It is the graffiti ..! Today graffiti can’t be accepted under any circumstances, not even a tiny scribble ..! That goes for tattoos too. And the first image also contains protected typewriting.
I guess you are right, I googled about it and found posts saying the same thing from other stock photo sites with similar policy.
That is absurd though! How can illegal graffiti be copyright protected, that would mean that the artist could sue the goverment for cleaning it up.
But thx, now I know. Can't upload MY OWN Graffiti even because the property release for it would be insane.