Stock photos rejected under IP reasons

[johnsean]

Hi, I submiited some images for Stock, but they got rejected for IP reasons.

But there are no trade marks or names anywhere on image.  

Any help or advice would be welcome.

Thanks

John

[Test Screen Name]

They are easily identified (even if they aren't) as part of a game, Scrabble. I imagine that's why you chose to take the picture. But that makes it an identifiable brand, and the brand owner would not be pleased to find their brand used in someone else's advert. You need to study Adobe's IP guidelines in full, don't assume it's just about trademarks: you could waste an awful lot of time on unsaleable photography otherwise. 

[johnsean]

Hi,   thanks for the reply and tips.

I understand a bit more, certainly the letter tiles were not bought as scrabble tiles, but not sure if Scrabble could claim and tile letter with a number on it is thier IP as this could be restrictive rights?

I thought it might be the computer or phone that might be identifed as Apple.

Agree, need to redo these with different letter tiles and as you say not waste time.

Thanks again.

John

[Test Screen Name]

Oh, yes, sorry, I didn't even notice the Macbook.Yes, actual Apple kit is iconic and difficult to disguise as generic product. Apple are protective of their property.

A simple rule of thumb, much oversimplified:

- was this work (object etc.) designed or made or modified by a human?

- would anyone be able to identify the work?

- is it less than 100 years since the work?

[johnsean]

Hi,

I redid the photo so the letter tiles do not have numbers on them, so clealry not "Scrabble like" tiles.

However, photos still got rejected due to IP.  

It cant be due to a part of the Macbook showing or part of a phone, becuase when you view Adobe Stock there are thousands of images of Apple Macbooks.

So, I'm still confused as to whats IP when you can find objects/images on Adobe's own stock sites !!

John

[Test Screen Name]

You  should not try to use existing photos to prove whether or not IP releases are needed. Rules change, and images are licensed from other libraries with different rules. Some come in with editorial rules. If it looks like a Macbook, the current rules which apply to you say you need a release.

It could also be that the changed letters still look as if they may be an identifable manufactured product to Adobe's moderators, who do not have a complete reference to all products, but use their judgement and are told to be safe.

[Abambo]

However, photos still got rejected due to IP.  

It cant be due to a part of the Macbook showing or part of a phone, becuase when you view Adobe Stock there are thousands of images of Apple Macbooks.

By @johnsean

Don't go by: There are thousands of this and that pictures... First moderators react differently and something may pass with one and get a refusal with a second, if the picture is limit. Second: instructions to the moderators change continuously. So, pictures that got accepted 5 years ago will now get a refusal, because of more stringent rules. Especially Apple is very protective and so Adobe is cautious about apple products.

[johnsean]

Hi,

thanks for update.

Even with no numbers on the letter tiles and only parts of Apple devices showing I am not sure I agree.

If Adobe doesnt accpet these type of pictures now, then this puts new users at a disadvantage and can never earn royalties from these types of images. 

If it was consistent, and Apple and Adobe are very cautious about Apple products, then wouldnt Apple want all previous stock photos removed ?  

[Abambo]

Products with recognizable brands are not useful for stock usage.

Don't argue stock image databases would be a matter of fairness. Adobe is not interested in being fair to yo but in selling stock assets without troubles. They can only do so by refusing assets they suspect getting Adobe in trouble and accepting those that are OK. If a picture gets flagged, it gets removed. 

We contributors contribute each one nice pictures but at the end of the day it makes no difference to Adobe if your picture or my picture gets the sale.

There is also a category "illustrative editorial' where you submit branded picture.

[Test Screen Name]

"...then this puts new users at a disadvantage and can never earn royalties from these types of images. "

Certainly. You seem to expect Adobe to be driven by a wish to be fair to their contributors, or to provide a "chance to earn". Be under no illusion, this is a supplier relationship, Adobe seek to make money from reselling your work, under their published terms, and it's up to you whether you try to do business with them. It is not easy to make a good income from Microstock. In particular, if you see a problem you need to move on and submit another few thousand images with new ideas, not going round and round with ideas that may be rejected anyway. Do not waste a second arguing with people (who have no power) in the forums (but please let us help you learn, if that's what you want) Sorry if this sounds harsh, but you need to realise this is a very, very competitive business you are entering. 

[johnsean]

Hi,

Thanks for the update.    I now tend to agree with you and will move on and look for more creative content.   I was trying to make sense of this and certainly agree with your interpretation of Microstock sites.  Onwards and upwards.

[Abambo]

My guess: the numbers with the characters get this refused.

As with the other elements in the picture: if something is so iconic that it reminds a trademark it gets refused.

[Test Screen Name]

One other thought: from your picture I can see you are a storyteller. This is a rarity. Story pictures are great and effective, but use a lot of creative energy. I hope you find a suitable and appreciative outlet for your art.