Incorrect reasons for refusals

[LOKOBESI]

Hi,

the following two pictures have been rejected because of the reason "infringement of property rights". These are public buildings in Berlin, Germany (picture 1: The german parliament (Reichstag) with an additional government building and picture 2: the "Carillon" near the Reichstag Berlin) . In AdobePhoto and Shutterstock you will find hundreds of fotos with exactly the same and more picture contents (look for "carillon berlin tiergarten" and "berlin reichstag". There are no restrictions of property rights. So there is no reason for any rejectment. If there would be any reason, all other fotos with the same content must been rejected too. If not, these photos have to be added to my portfolio. I believe in a fair treatment by adobe. What can i do?

[joanH]

Hello, You might begin by understanding that Adobe sells stock to customers all over the world. They know the international and local property rights laws. Respect them but feel free to research the laws, not just the local laws. Look at the excellent information provided on the Adobe Guidelines for contributors. Remember, acceptance of your work is totally in Adobe hands and are considering their business security. I have over five pages of the copyright laws in various places. Search it out. Regards, JH

[LOKOBESI]

sorry joan, that i cannot mark your answer as "correct". please tell me about the difference of my work to the other identic works, published by adobephoto. five pages copyright laws cannot explain, why 50 photos with the same subjects are regular with the law and one identic photo suddenly is irregular. i understand now, that "my work is totally in adobe hands" and that means, that adobes customer have NO rights and no chance to be treated fair, because all the grounds for rejecting seems based on the arbitrariness of individual employees of the "authority" adobe. 

Repeating "guideline-words" without taking into account facts, evidence and arguments makes no sense and waists time - mine and yours.

regards LK

[...]

[ricky336]

Hi, with regards to the 1st picture - have you considered the U sign of the Metro - I think that would come under IP rights - isn't that a protected symbol?

Second picture - maybe the design of the building is protected. As for finding similar images on the stock sites, well... you just have to go with what is now!

[LOKOBESI]

Hi,

with regards to your answer picture 1:

the u-bahn-sign is not a protected symbol under IP-rights. it is a standardized traffic- and public transportation sign used all overall germany and austria - like every bus-stop sign für public transportation. i dont use an isolated traffic sign. the sign is integrated part of the u-bahn- station, which is photographed together wird government buildings.  we maybe can discuss about a stop-sign for a private transportion company - but not about an official and standardized public traffic symbol.

picture 2:

i am not depend to offer my photos on adobeStock, so i end this discussion about picture 2. but i have learned today a lot about adobes reliability. with your own words: i just have to go with what is (dictated by adobe) now - if adobe is right or not.

[joanH]

Adobe is your customer - That is how it is.

Kind regards, JH

[oleschwander]

Lokobesi - you are wrong about the first image. The U are not to be found on Adobe Stock, it is a design. But you are right about the second “Carillon”. There are photos of this building on Adobe Stock which shold not be here - or else yours should be accepted - if it’s not something with the keywords ..?

[LOKOBESI]

ole,

i wanted to finish this barren discussion. but before you told me a lier, you should have a look with open eyes to your own stock. you must not look for "u-bahn germany" to find hundreds of photos with the u-bahn stop-sign.

already looking for "u-bahn berlin" you will find minimum the following 15 photos:

Datei-Nr.:  51201626

Datei-Nr.:  84265510

Datei-Nr.:  97737907  xxxx

Datei-Nr.:  90744098

Datei-Nr.:  163282957

Datei-Nr.:  88548858

Datei-Nr.:  81459505

Datei-Nr.:  41761469

Datei-Nr.:  36206846

Datei-Nr.:  88549363

Datei-Nr.:  88083509

Datei-Nr.:  4908900

Datei-Nr.:  95198967     xxxx

Datei-Nr.:  33899076

Datei-Nr.:  88549038

the xxx-marked and following posted fotos should find your special interest. here they are:

please compare these fotos with my rejected foto. everybody who wants to see, will see, that i am right and YOU are (adobe is) wrong. i expect a serious discussion and recognizing facts and arguments by adobe. N.B. Because of the rejection with the argument "infringement of property rights" i have deleted the "U" out of the foto and uploaded it again with the Datei-ID: 202389634. so the reason for rejection is eliminated. I'm curious how adobe handles it.

[oleschwander]

Sorry - you are right ..! I just copied your phases and found nothing ....

Very strage rejections from Adobe reviewers ..!

Maybe it’s not the pictures but in the caption or keywords.

Try to resubmit?

Just to clerify - I’m not from Adobe.

[v.poth · Accepted solution]

Hi,

first of all it should be said that one should never assume that if similar pictures are available in the million data base of a picture agency, with the copyrights everything must be in order. You can't know if they don't have a release for use. Nor is the selection process carried out by humans infallible.

You should always keep in mind that the photographer is ultimately responsible for his work, and not the agency.

In your first picture you can see people in the background and also license plates of cars can maybe be identified here. Here you would need a release and this also could be a reason for rejection..

It is also important here that from 25.05.2018 there will be stricter legislation in the EU concerning the photographing of people, also only as an "accessory" of the main motif, with digital cameras.

The bell tower photographed as a single building is no longer a Cityscape and here one would probably need a release of the architect/owner. Furthermore, the question is whether the owner of the property has allowed commercial photography on his property at all. You cannot know if the other photographers whose pictures appear in the search have a release.

In case of doubt, I think it is in your own interest to accept one more rejection than one too less, which in the worst case could cost you a lot of money.

Greets,

v.poth

[joanH]

v.poth, thank you for this - it is exactly correct and is logical thinking. Best regards, JH