File Declined - Intellectual Property Violation

[Thenhan]

Hello,

Please let me know what is violated the IP in my picture below:

I'd like to learn more about this so that I can avoid it in the future.

Thanks a lot for your times.

Thenhan

[Abambo]

Nice picture. It can't be the moon or the sea so it needs to be the building. It's not part of a "skyline"b and it's prominently in the picture, even if it's only partially in view, it is still a no go for stock providers.

[joanH]

Hello Thenhan,

Lovely photo. The rejection due to intellectual property violations is always a bit murky. While we on the forum will guess along with you, it will fall to you reading the guidelines about legal rights and property violations in the Adobe guidelines to discover exactly what you have allowed into this photograph that triggered the rejection. Do the research, examine your photo under 200 magnification and fix it or take another shot. Best regards, JH See links below for your information on the topic.

From our forum pages " An architecture/building would also fall in the "foggy" category also.  Property release and protection guidelines for Adobe Stock should give you a clearer understanding of what is required. Known image restrictions will give you a more comprehensive knowledge of what is not accepted, and with other's, what composition is accepted. To the extent of the strictness and tightness of the reviews, I do not think any get past the reviewers."

[ricky336]

Is this image from a boat/cruise liner? It looks to me as if you were taking this from the deck of a boat. So, this means you were on (perhaps) private property, so therefore a release would be needed (most probably). A bit difficult to tell exactly, but the reviewers err on the side of caution.

[Thenhan]

Hello,

Thank you so much for your replies.  I still don't get the reason why the picture above is rejected.  SO far I have an Adobe approved picture (below) with Royal Carrbean logo clearly see in the photo.

Regards,

Thenhan

[oleschwander]

Yes, you are 'lucky' the image went through. It's only part og the logotype and it is not obvious in this image, that it is a logo if you didn't bring it up - imo ...

[Abambo]

That‘s pure luck and the picture will be taken out, when someone stumbles over it. You could probably try to edit the logo out.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi Thenhan

Content, including a man with naked top inside of the glass area is visible. Release would have to be required for that.

In addition to the links Joan recommend, also look at the Adobe Stock Contributor Guide at tagproducts_SG_STOCK-CONTRIBUTOR_i18nKeyHelppagetitle

Best Wishes

JG.

[Thenhan]

Hi JG,

Thank you very much for your comment.  I removed that half naked man and resubmitted for review.  Hopefully it will accepted.

Thenhan

[SonnyBanks]

The man's face is not visible...so no release is required, but there is a woman next to the man whose face is visible. Hopefully you edited her out too.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

I just highlighted the people inside to emphasize the visibility of the internal content. Please note, it is an intellectual property violation, not MR. Property Release is what is asked for.

[Thenhan]

I removed the half naked man and resubmitted the photo.  Adobe rejected the photo again with new reason " ARTIFACTS PROBLEM".  Here is the new rejected photo ...

[ricky336]

Depending on the resolution you uploaded this example, the artifacts may be due to this:

So, in your original image have a look at the moon. How does it look to you?

Also, if you have used a lot of noise reduction, this can be a bad thing. It gives the image a 'painted' look.

Did you use a lot of noise reduction as it is a night shot?

[joanH]

Hi rickey336, Is it time to give up on these and go on to another submission? Looks like rejection is final. JH

[Abambo]

I too, I suspect that there will be no solution. But the user deserves an answer. I am with ricky336 .

The picture may be beautiful bur it does not conform to stock requirements.

[joanH]

Hi Abambo,

But Abambo, what is the original question? And what is the correct answer to the two questions?

1. Property violation?

2. Noise. Not quality of Adobde Stock?

High regards,

JH

[Abambo]

joanh22203655  wrote

But Abambo, what is the original question? And what is the correct answer to the two questions?

1. Property violation?

2. Noise. Not quality of Adobde Stock?

The first was: "Why IP violation?", the second was "Why Artefacts?"

And the second question was explained by ricky336​. And I doubt that there are corrective measures that will save the picture for stock, because the water also shows artefacts.

So yes: there is no solution, and yes: there are obvious reasons for this.