"Intellectual Property" seems to be a bit nebulous

[richards95750395]

A few days ago I had an image of a stream and waterfall in a Chickasaw National Recreation Area (managed by the National Park Service) rejected for "Intellectual Property". I have posted the image on the critique forum but, so far, have received no comment as to how it could possible violate someone's intellectual property rights.

Today several images of the Oklahoma City Bombing Memorial (again managed by the National Park Service) were rejected for "Intellectual Property". These are a bit easier to understand since buildings and monuments are involved, but it is a National Park site and several images of the memorial are already available on Adobe Stock. I am quite sure no property releases were available for the ones already on sale. My experience with government entities is that releases are difficult to obtain. In any case are releases needed for public buildings and structures?

[MatHayward]

The problem is your keywords. Even if you are allowed to use photographs taken in the park for commercial use (which not all National Parks allow) you do not have permission to use the name of the park for commercial licensing. You listed "Chickasaw National Recreation Area" as a keyword. This is likely the reason the file was rejected. Remove the identifying keywords and titles and the file on its own does not show any IP violations.

Good luck,

Mat

[richards95750395]

Interesting. So any image that is identified as on public land will be flagged for "Intellectual Property"? I know I have other images that have been identified as public land and, I'll bet, a search for "Yellowstone" or "Yosemite" or any number of other well known parks will yield large numbers of images. Not complaining - and I appreciate your explanation. It's just that it does seem a bit inconsistent. 

What about the images I referenced from the OKC Bombing Memorial? What about those that are already accepted by Adobe?

[MatHayward]

It's going to depend on the park but generally since these images are not being sold as editorial content you are going to be better off without identifying the location. If the content of the image is generic enough that it could be in any river or park you won't need to worry about IP rejections if you don't identify the location.

What are the image numbers of the memorial you are referencing?

[richards95750395]

My file numbers are: -1727, -1728, -1737, and 10192. Are all Adobe images sold for commercial purposes? Is there no editorial use at all? That will certainly make a difference in what I send.

[MatHayward]

I'll need the entire number to find the images. Yes, we only accept images for commercial licensing. No editorial only content at this time.

-Mat

[richards95750395]

175529572, 175529542, 175529517, 175531508. Sorry I didn't know where to find those numbers at first .

[MatHayward · Accepted solution]

These would all likely be considered editorial content. Since the church is so clearly identifiable you would need a property release. The detail shots are likely trademarked as well and would require releases from the artists that created the display.

You can contact the people that run the memorial and ask if they will sign a property release however it can be challenging to get this done.

-Mat