Skip to main content
Correct answer Jill_C

Every visible sign and logo in the image needs to be edited out as each one constitutes an Intellectual Property violation. Have you read the Adobe Stock Contributor help pages relating to IP?

2 replies

Z
ZALEZPHOTO
Inspiring
June 4, 2025

Jill is correct! The solution is simpler than you think.

adobe has advanced dramatically in AI editing. Removing all those branding signs seamlessly is just one click away. I prefer using Photoshop for that, but keep in mind you need the subscription version.

You will love it, just don't go crazy 😜 

Francisco ZALEZPHOTO
    P
    Przemek24462118fuydAuthor
    Participant
    June 4, 2025

    Yes, I understand now—thank you! Of course, I’m familiar with Adobe tools and quite comfortable with retouching, especially in Photoshop. Based on similar images I had seen, I assumed it wouldn’t be necessary in this case and thought the rejection reason might be something else.

     

    And yes, I’ve loved Photoshop for a long time—since version 3.0, actually 😉

    Jill_C
    Community Expert
    Jill_CCommunity ExpertCorrect answer
    Community Expert
    June 4, 2025

    Every visible sign and logo in the image needs to be edited out as each one constitutes an Intellectual Property violation. Have you read the Adobe Stock Contributor help pages relating to IP?

    Jill C., Forum Volunteer
    P
    Przemek24462118fuydAuthor
    Participant
    June 4, 2025

    Thank you for your response and for pointing out the issue. I have read the Adobe Stock Contributor guidelines regarding Intellectual Property, but perhaps I misunderstood some parts. I based my submission on similar works I had seen, which included logos—even on buildings with outdated branding. That might have misled me. I truly appreciate your quick and helpful feedback.

    P
    Przemek24462118fuydAuthor
    Participant
    June 4, 2025

    It's possible that the existing images you saw in the database are Illustrative Editorial, suitable only for editorial use, not commercial use.


    That's an interesting point—what surprised me is that the files I saw weren't marked as Illustrative Editorial. In fact, not just photos but also videos appeared to be available for commercial use under the standard or extended license. That’s why I assumed similar content was acceptable.

    Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
    Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices