Will you be able to identify why my videos has been rejected ?

[defaultnpda4bg9doak]

Hello Adobe community,

I made my 1st submission of videos but it has been rejected by Adobe Stock for "technical reasons". I would like to understand what is the issue involved in order not to reproduce it the next times.

I didn't find a satisfactory answer on the guidelines but I guesse that it will be obvious for you experimented contributors.

Here are my 3 videos rejected uploaded on youtube (I join also the mp4 versions just in case):

https://youtu.be/cCXJ2Qo6CGA

https://youtu.be/HCGJ5238yQQ

https://youtu.be/VDgw0KjiPrY

Thanks in advance for your help

[defaultnpda4bg9doak]

Just a post to update the 3 youtube links due to an account change :

• https://youtu.be/xW5TIUQv1oY
• https://youtu.be/ZLNPNn4Jn-8
• https://youtu.be/FRIzy26nlaE

Thanks again for your assistance

[Nancy OShea · Accepted solution]

The first and third videos have major lighting issues.  The first is way too dark and the third is over exposed. 

Did you submit a model release with your second video?

[defaultnpda4bg9doak]

Hello Nancy,

I confirm to you that I well joined a model release for the 2nd video next to Adobe team's request, despite the fact that the model is not really recognizable from the video's point of view to my opinion (no visible distinctive sign).

I take note for next times about lighting issues for 1st and 3rd ones. I made it on purpose to bring specific rendering to the videos. I didn't know that it would be refused insofar as other video stock platforms accepted similar medias of mine.

Thanks a lot for your answer

Have a good day

[Test Screen Name]

I think the model might remember that day, sitting and watching by the sea. If the model would recognise themselves, they can sue Adobe. And you wouldn't want that, I'm sure.

[defaultnpda4bg9doak]

Hi again,

To my opinion the model would not recognize her even if she was informed about it. We just see a woman from back, with some basic hair & clothes, on a basic path where hundreds of tourists pass by each day.

The funny thing is that I have checked that for fun before to propose this video online, and the model (a close friend of mine) confirmed me not being able to do so. That is why I found the measure excessive after receiving Adobe's notification of form requirement.

Believe that I can understand the stake to prevent legitimate suing (with real recognizable signs like a tatoo or a unique piece of dress), but here to me, it is more about being too chilly regarding the "recognizable" criteria.

But anyway there is no point in debating it hours, in the end it's Adobe's team decisions so I respect it and I will conform it, hopping that I will not find it too cumbersome too quickly. Too much forms kill creativity.

Godspeed you

[Nancy OShea]

If I was the model and I suddenly saw my likeness plastered on TV, buses & billboards, I think I would be more than alarmed if I had not agreed to it.  Wouldn't you?? 

It is the same with static images as videos.  Whenever there is a model, you need permission and a signed release to use his/her likeness commercially.  No ad agency will use it without one.

[defaultnpda4bg9doak]

Sure, we both agree about the fact that it is relevant to have such forms for recognizable people.

Here as I mentioned, this was not the case from my opinion (and incidentally from model's one).

But I respect yours, because "recognizable" is too subjective to be rational so let's move on.

Thanks for your answer anyway

[Nancy OShea]

The agencies I work with use hand models, foot models, teeth models, etc... where nothing much is recognizable as a whole person.  Nevertheless, we must have signed model releases to use them commercially otherwise the agency will reject them for legal reasons. Does that make more sense now?

[defaultnpda4bg9doak]

On your specific examples, yes it would make sense to me. If one would take a photo exclusively representing a foot or an hand, the focus would be fully on it so we could see all the details. On these conditions, a model could easilly identify it and prove its belonging to it, and more easily again if he/she has a distinctive sign on it. We talk about unique body parts, not common clothes, so similarity can be used as a kind of proof I assume.

But on my case evoked above, I still see no distinctive sign visible on the video, so no potential way for the model to reazonably recognize and prove its identity. On these conditions I don't see the relevance talking about legal proceeding or assimilated. I am not lawyer but with no solid distinctive sign, any woman with a few physical similarities (hair color) could claim being on the video, so what value would it really had?

[Nancy OShea]

Lawsuits are expensive for everyone, especially frivolous ones.  If you leave an open door for someone to sue, you create potential problems for everyone.  That's why agencies are so strict.

Also don't confuse models with casual pedestrians walking on a public street.  They are NOT the same thing.  A model remembers the date and time s/he did the photo/video shoot (I was there, I can prove it...).  Model release time.

The casual pedestrian walking his dog in the background is probably unaware that he is in the scene.  If he & his dog are unrecognizable, no model releases required.

[defaultnpda4bg9doak]

On my case the woman visible on the video was a pedestrian if I adopt your terminology. There was no specific video session dedicated with the woman when it happened, we were just trekking. She was a minor brief part of the video. She was just there during the shot, so I made my best to make her unrecognizable on the video and I think having suceedeed.

But pedestrian or not, your team asked for a Model release form to continue with my content submission, so I had no other choice than to fill your form anyway to continue the adventure. By chance the pedestrian was a close friend so I could easilly contacted her, and she accepted to fill the form even if she was not recognizing herself on the video and didn't understand well the logics behind either.

About the agencies it is understandable that they take some precautions, because they want to minimize the risk so they count on you. But there is also common sense involved on your side. It is your responsability not to fall into the extremes about policies and the way that they are applied.

I would be curious to know how you differentiate a pedestrian than a model when watching the contents. To me there are just 2 categories of people : the recognizable ones and the non recognizable ones.

[Nancy OShea]

I'm not trying to be contentious.  I'm trying to help you understand what it takes to be successful with Stock.  You need to think like a business person because that's what this is, a business. 

Goodbye and good luck!

[defaultnpda4bg9doak]

It is more than a business for me, I have other more reliable/profitable sources of money than contents selling. It's rather a way of sharing to other people and diffuse, some contents that I have enjoyed to make at first.

But that does not mean that I don't think like a business people. It just need first to understand well the rules and the way that they are applied/interpreted not to lose time in discussion and going back and forth. Honnestly I didn't get such difficulties to date on the other stock platforms to make such basic submissions.

But I don't blame you either, you are just doing jour job the best I am sure.
Thank you agin for your time and good continuation.