Please help me figure out what is non-compliant about my photography

[Kat4Birds]

What's wrong with this picture?

I recently submitted my first images to Adobe stock, but they got rejected as "Non-compliant". I read through Adobe's guidelines and still have no idea why my pictures of birds were not accepted.  There are no identifiable people, places or things that would require a model release.  They are just close-ups of an animal. I'm open to any critiques anyone can offer.

Thanks!

Kat

KatsBirds.com

[v.poth]

Hi,

please have a look at the part of the User Guide:

Non-compliant file

This reason means that your content doesn’t comply with our Contributor Agreement. Content may be non-compliant due to watermarks, inappropriate or irrelevant keywords or image titles, or questionable, or defamatory content. Your file is also rejected as non-compliant if you receive a reminder to submit a model or property release, or resolve a problem with a release, and you resubmit the file without addressing the issue.

Maybe there could be the reason for the rejection.

Greets,

v.poth

[richp]

I have had a similar experience, 4 rejected for non-compliance, initially received an email saying no model release, when I checked there were model release attached which I added to the comments for moderator.

I find it funny that some out of the series have been accepted and one sold very quickly, but they refuse the others.

[joanH]

If this photo meets the sharpness @ 100% sharpness test, I think it might be a less than lovely bird. Audubon bird folk will love it.

[Kat4Birds]

Thanks for your response.  Excuse my ignorance,but I am brand new at submitting photos.  Would you mind explaining the "100% sharpness" test? I've been using Lightroom, Photoshop, and other digital editing programs for a while and I understand the concepts of sharpness,noise reduction, grain, dehazing, etc. but I've never heard of the test you mentioned.

I also read the Adobe guidelines about submissions before I entered the photo,but I'm still not sure what's really wrong with the image. I used keywords, it is not offensive in any way to anyone, there are no models who I should have got permissions from (well, maybe the bird is offended by unlicensed use of his likeness, but I doubt we'll hear anything from the Wood Stork), there are no people at all, no architecture (except as provided by the Good Lord in the form of the tree... but I'm pretty sure He is not offended by showing the beauty of nature).

Is it just a bad picture? This was my first ever submission to anything, and I also included a few more "Nothing but the bird" pictures, all of which were rejected. Will Adobe tell you if they just think it stinks?  Or is "not compliant" just a euphemism for "Don't quit your day job!"?

Thanks for the tip about Audubon. I had forgotten people can post their own pictures within the app.

Have a great day!

Kat

[v.poth]

Hi,

have you uploaded the picture with the same keywords and the description "2017 KatsBirds. com" which can be read here in the IPTC-data of the picture?

On the one hand, web addresses are not allowed in titles and keywords, and on the other hand, you only used very general keywords and did not provide any specific information about the bird species or name of the bird, which is clearly the main motif. Here you should pay attention to describe in the keywords what you can see in the picture.

You need a release for pictures of animals e. g. if you photograph them in a zoo or national park where commercial use is prohibited without permission.

I also see some technical problems in the picture, namely the bright light effect around the wings and the bird doesn't really seem to be in focus.

Greets,

v.poth

[Kat4Birds]

Thank you for your answer.  I appreciate the precise response and suggestions. I had forgotten my website was in in the metadata., but that's certainly an easy fix. You've given me a concrete critique I will use to improve my future submissions,

[v.poth]

Hi,

I am glad that I was able to help you..

Greets,

v.poth

[Jacky D]

v.poth  a écrit

You need a release for pictures of animals e. g. if you photograph them in a zoo or national park where commercial use is prohibited without permission.

Good evening

And yet, new contributor (but elsewhere also), I downloaded my the first 9 images, all accepted, including 3 images taken in an Animalist park of Paris.

Jacky

[v.poth]

Hi,

Be aware that as a photographer, you are ultimately responsible for ensuring that your images are legally protected, commercially viable and can be sold. Even if your pictures were accepted by an agency, you have to be sure as liable author of the photo that you do not violate any copyright. Are you sure that in this zoo photography for commercial purposes is allowed without permission of the zoo? If so, everything would be fine. Otherwise you would need a property release from the park owner.

The selectors do their best to protect providers from such errors, but generally speaking, accepting an image at an agency does not protect you from personal liability for the uploaded image material.

Greets,

v.poth

[Jacky D]

Ok, I am of agreement with you, and this answer has another subject, devoted to the Castles in France.

I am afraid well to have very to stop, because I will not risk myself with a lawsuit for the 0.25 $ which I would have gained.

Or then to make landscape, flowers (and still)

I am on another stock with 1500 éditorial images has 95%, and it is protected better.

Jacky

[oleschwander]

Be careful not to photograph flower from a national park or something - you never know ...

Just kidding...!

[v.poth]

Hi,

of course, to submit the pictures as editorial is the safer way. At Adobe Stock, only a small number of vendors selected by Adobe are able to offer such material. Adobe is considering a possible expansion to an extended group of vendors.

Certainly you don't have to submit only landscape, flower and still photos to earn money here. However, it is important to make sure that no copy protection is violated in all submissions. This is also possible for example with animal pictures or pictures of buildings, I think. You just "only" have to know exactly where and what you are photographing and what is allowed for commercial use.

Greets,

v.poth

[MatHayward]

Did you upload the file with your watermark on it (as seen in the lower left corner of the image you posted here)?

If yes, that will result in a non-compliant rejection every time.

-Mat