Early At Submitting, What's up?

[Gary Culley]

Hey, good people. Little help, please.  I'm new and having a hard time understanding some of my rejects.  This says it's for intellectual property reasons.  I see other images of this archway at Jackson Hole, what's up?  Could it be because of my new-ness I'm not able to do editorial?  This archway has got to be public property.  Any explanation is appreciated.  

[Test Screen Name]

"Public property" can still have copyright. This looks like a modern construction (less than 100 years), which the owner would recognise. You therefore need permission. Otherwise, if the owner saw this in an advert, they could sue Adobe and Adobe could sue you, because you claimed you had the right to post; it's that simple.

You cannot use the "I saw other photos of this subject" argument, because perhaps those photographers did file the needed paperwork.

[Gary Culley]

Yo Test, thanks for the note.  Let me give a little more info and please let me know your thoughts.  Jackson Hole Wyoming has a town square and this archway sits over the walkway entering the park at the center of the square.  I searched for "Antler Archway Jackson Hole" and there were 258 photos to see.  This is not a construction project.  The details are echoed in the titling and keywords with the photo.

[Test Screen Name]

Here's the thing: (1) you are trying to explain where there is no propery release, but there is no way to explain things with your submitted photos and (2) you are still assuming that the world is full of things you can make money from photographing, because they are public. Yet the world is full of things that you may NOT do this, such as the Eiffel Tower by night. If it was made by a human less than 100 years ago, it is protected. There are 258 photos, so why not assume there are 258 property releases and add one more, for these arches, which were rebuilt less than 15 years ago, attracting new protection even though the originals would have lapsed.

[Nancy OShea · Accepted solution]

Adobe Stock are not accepting editorial submissions from individual contributors.  They receive their editorial content from trusted partner agencies.

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html/stock/contributor/help/editorial-requireme...

Your argument is not valid.  The Hollywood Walk of Fame is in public view too but that gives you NO RIGHT to sell photographs of it commercially.

Since the artwork in question here is the primary subject of your image (not a background), you need a signed release from the legal owner giving you permission to sell the image. This applies to all art (indoors and outdoors), statues, street art, wall murals, architectural displays, public exhibits, drawings, paintings, illustrations, etc...   If you created the art yourself, you still need to submit a property release stating that you are the legal owner/artist as well as the image's photographer. Otherwise Adobe will reject because it's not legal for their customers to use the image in commercials.  Make sense?

See these links:

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restric...

[Gary Culley]

Thanks for that.  You mentioned editorial.  I read in the literature that I could submit when I've sold 100 downloads.  Are you saying that this image as an editorial submission has a chance of being accepted?  Thanks

[Test Screen Name]

Not "editorial" but a special subset of it "illustrative editorial" described here https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html/mena_ar/stock/contributor/help/illustrativ....

This is a special kind of imagery using real brands. You still need all the other permits and IP releases as normal; it also significantly reduces your market because the purchaser of your image license cannot use it for most commercial purposes. We see a lot of beginners who just don't want to do the work that they need to do. Getting IP releases is just a normal part of the job of commercial photography, just as it is to get a permit to, for example, do commercial photography in Yellowstone National Park.

[ricky336 · Accepted solution]

Hello,

Apart from the IP issue, I don't think it will be accepted as it stands due to the composition. It's messy form a photographic point of view.