So I've submitted about a dozen original drawings. One was approved in a few days. All of the others have been rejected due to needing a property release. But these are drawings from the imagination -- I don't understand why you'd need a release for something fictitious. Also, why would Adobe accept one drawing of a cat, but reject the rest based on no property release. I've spent a lot of time adding metadata and uploading, and the support section of the site is completely unhelpful. They need to add a FAQ section explaining why on earth a drawing would be rejected for needing a property release.
Have any other illustrators had this problem? How did you resolve it?
Dave - we can’t help you when we can’t se som images ...
This one was accepted:
But these were not:
I don't know if it's AI-driven or what -- if it is, then maybe it saw the two portraits as real people. But the cats? The dog? The girl at desk? I don't get it.
Thank you for your help!
Beats me. The cats should be accepted imo, they are really good, Dave ...
Thanks! I ended up resubmitting with a release stating that they are my original artwork, . We'll see what happens.
These are difficult to express an exact reason for rejection, however, I will tell you what I see. I see a dog drawing that might have come from a photo of someone's dog. Is it yours? If not could the owner identify this picture as their dog? If so, a release is probably required. The next, a long-faced male drawing looks a good deal like one of the Harry Potter characters. Questionable release - borderline. Next male picture is looking soo much like a ghostly Hitler outline and pose. Probably not, but one could imagine it is so. Also questionable.
The big-eyed woman might also be identified with a well-known movie star of a while back. Betty Davis eyes. Now the kitties? Not quite unique enough - could look like many other simplistic cartoon or sketches. The red-eyed one is less so but still easy to copy or come from any artist doodle sheet. A bunch of these floating around and probably not worth the risk of an infringement. I have a search engine that checks for text copyright infringement on my writings and I know many visual artists who tag their work for this sort of search to flag them if someone is using anything remotely resembling their art.
If the first scan of a presented stock piece is set to detect these few things, it will sometimes kick it out before I finish posting it.
So, I have to present original and market desired work for the defined Adobe clients. If I do a painting on my tablet with my stylus and it is photorealistic, I will likely get a request for a model release, even though there is no model - it is made up from my imagination.
Have you put your things and ideas into books or graphic novels form? I know children's book writers like this kind of art and you can submit them to authors looking for illustrators through various publishers. Best regards.JH
We are discussing the cats and the girl at the desk - not the portraits ..!
Sorry, did not know the rejections were not all included. Just ignore what I said about those few pictures. The rest is still useful - I hope. JH
Thank you all for your feedback. I'll try resubmitting with a release the says I'm the owner of the work. I actually was looking at the Shuttershock FAQ and they do have this requirement apparently, so maybe Adobe has the same but their own FAQ is incomplete.
Very helpful! Thank you Joan. I appreciate you taking the time.
I've done editorial illustrations and had some work licensed to bands for album covers -- hadn't thought about children's books. That's a great idea!
I love kids books, easy to put together and fun to see work in book form. Pays not bad either. Glad to encourage artists. JH
Copy link to clipboard
I think Joan may have a point with the illustrations being recognisable - even though they are from your imagination. Perhaps, you can attach a property release form saying that you are the owner of the work. Try that!
UPDATE: I filled out a property release for this batch of images, explaining that I was the artist, and that I had scanned my own work. I got a witness to sign and resubmitted. I put my own info in as the photographer since I did the scans, but left the address part blank, since it did not apply to this situation (it gives you the option to). A couple of the pieces were approved this morning, so I think you all were right about needing the release, even for illustrations. Thanks so much for all of your input.
Adobe could stand to clarify all of this in the docs, so people know up front that the releases don't just apply to location shoots, or models.
Yes, for illustrations and images of artwork you need to submit a property release to verify you are the original artist as opposed to going into an art gallery and snapping a photo of art created by someone else. It sounds like you filled the release out correctly. You need to print and sign your name as both the property owner and the contributor.
Mat - why don’t you just have a clause when uploading saying I am the original artist in stead of all this paperwork When uploading drawings?
It’s like the giant files you have to make in order to upload eps files to AS ...
Why don’t I have to fill out forms when uploading photos stating that I have shot them myself?
It’s time consuming and complicates everything for everybody - also the reviewers.
Thanks for the suggestion.
One more idea-suggestion Mat,
Maybe Adobe could make up a checklist to go along with the general rejection reason or heading - so the reason is instantly understood. It would make things faster and easier to use and might avoid a lot of "why" questions follow-up.
Referring photographer to Adobe training for beginners still leaves the artist with questions and misunderstanding rejection of each stock offering.
Shall I send you a sample checklist or let the Adobe computers search for similar questions to make up the list from readers?
Why so many follow-up questions from selling artists? Just wondering as a new member? JH