A week or so ago, my image of the memorial monument (called Soul Consoling Tower) at Manzanar National Historic Site was accepted. Today, a similar image taken from a different perspective and in portrait rather than landscape orientation was rejected for "Intellectual Property Refusal". It's a cemetery monument at a public site, so I'm not sure why it is considered IP. Anyone have any idea why one image is accepted and another rejected?
We probably be able to help you figure it out if we'd seen the images. However you might be able to do so after going through Property release and protection guidelines for Adobe Stock . Also look through Known image restrictions and tagproducts_SG_STOCK-CONTRIBUTOR_i18nKeyHelppagetitle . I hope this helps.
First image was accepted; second image was refused as an IP violation.
These images are really nice. I am not sure about the writing on the monument since I do not speak that language, however I can safely say your image was rejected because of the signature. Apparently the moderator did not notice it on the portrait because its done in the color of the image. That is clearly an oversight. The other however was done In in the lighter area and is more noticeable. If the signature is yours, you'll need to upload images without your signature. Do's and don'ts for selecting and editing photos for Adobe Stock will give you a summary of guideline for you to follow. Read all the information on tagproducts_SG_STOCK-CONTRIBUTOR_i18nKeyHelppagetitle as well as links attached and also the links attached to the "Adobe Contributor Guide" PDF. Also you'll find Property release and protection guidelines for Adobe Stock helpful.
I hope this helps
The signature is for sure a refusal but I do not think that this is IP violation. The handling of monuments is a little bit erratic with all stock photo providers.
But the refuser could refuse simply because of the inscription...that he can't read.
I was looking more so on one accepted and the other rejected, of which I figured it had to do with something that is not obvious. But now looking back on it, it is possibly they were both handled by two different moderators, One could read the inscription, and it was a cause for refusal, while the other couldn't and decided to approve it, and of course not seeing the signature.
Yes! all depends on the time frame. That the OP could probably enlighten us. And also if the signature was on the original submissions.
A very valid point
No, the watermark was definitely not on either of the originally submitted images. The above 2 were just quick exports from Lightroom this morning... Which makes we wonder whether having the watermark check box activated in Lightroom causes a watermark to be applied when the images are submitted to Adobe Stock. I sure hope not !
The watermark is not on the image uploaded to Adobe Stock. (I just verified that again.) I quickly exported the above images from Lightroom to create a small jpg to copy into this forum, and a watermark was applied at that time. So that's not the reason... But I will check other images I've uploaded to Adobe Stock recently to be sure they haven't accidentally acquired my watermark.
Therefore it has to do with the monument. It might be the fact that it is a monument, or the inscription, or both. In any case the one approved is an oversight. Monuments/landmarks are not really accepted without Intellectual Property Release - Property release and protection guidelines for Adobe Stock .
Actually it says:
Property types that may require a property release:
Apparently it's not a hard and fast rule. I'm quite sure that if I post an image of the Golden Gate Bridge it will not need a property release! Nor the arched gates to Yellowstone. So there are a lot of famous landmarks that don't need a release. I just wish we could know in advance which ones do...
I'd suggest you read all the information of all the links I post including all the sub-links, and what ever other links you're directed to, and submit according to the guidelines as outlined. Additionally, I also suggest you view the rejections as additional guidelines. At the end of it all the moderators are the ones that make the final decision. You will find out soon enough that it is pointless debating their decision.
I have read all of the posts and FAQ's on the Adobe Stock site numerous times, trying to glean additional information about what works and what doesn't. The whole point of my post is that there is an inconsistency as to what is accepted, which probably simply boils down to human fallibility among the review staff. I was skeptical as to whether the first image would be accepted, since the guidelines aren't definitive. When it was, I went ahead with the second image and was surprised (and disappointed) when it was rejected. By the way, there are other images of the tower on the site - probably without a release, though it's not possible to know for sure.
That's my assumption, but there doesn't seem to be a way to question their decisions...
The Photographers signature in both photos - one is easy to see, the other was missed by a reviewer. The shrines are sacred to those who own it. They might not like their personal and private things commercially published - they surely would need to sign a release for either of these photos. Good discussion. Regards, JH
The signature isn't on those submitted.
The photos submitted have the signature in this forum. JH
The watermark was on neither of the images submitted to Adobe. The monument/shrine is definitely not personal and private. It is located at the Manzanar National Historic Site in the Eastern Sierra (where Japanese prisoners were interred during WWII). Photography is allowed (and encouraged) everywhere throughout the site, even inside the museum. The characters translate to "soul consoling tower" which is how I titled the image.
Even if photography is encouraged, that does not mean that "commercial" photography is allowed. The moderation team is made up of many individuals. We cannot know the specific permissions allowed by all locations in the world therefor in many cases we are required to make a judgement call based on past experience with other images of a similar nature. In most cases, the moderators are told to err on the side of caution. I'm sure that is what happened here. My opinion is that both photos probably should have been rejected. This is clearly a structure designed and created by someone which makes it their intellectual property. It is clearly recognizable and does not appear to be more than 120 years old.
In my opinion, the only logical conclusion is the inscription. This makes the image identifiable - therefore you would need a release for the image. So, it was probably an oversight by the moderator. Other structures like the Golden Gate Bridge probably come under a different category.
The whole topic of IP rights, I think is a can of worms!