Unfortunately no professional experience with photography rights and in the respective countries.

[Rick Jack]

Dear Adobe Stock Photo Team,

in advance. I am an architecture photographer and take photos for well-known corporations and architects.

Some photos were rejected for two reasons:

1. REFUSAL TO PROTECT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Yes, people are in these photos, but they are in public space and therefore no consent is required! In addition, these people cannot be identified and are in action from a great distance. These people were part of the cityscape and are only seen as accessories!

Exceptions to the right to your own picture
§ 23 KUG
a) Pictures from the field of contemporary history
b) Pictures in which the person appears only as an accessory
c) Pictures of meetings and elevators.

2. INDOOR SHOT. I already have the authorization and this is already available in the form of the order confirmation from my client. No further consent is required. The general copyright on the photo belongs to me. There are no American laws here!

It is quite regrettable to see that Adobe does not know the exact photography rights here and operates a photo portal. For this reason, I will continue to offer my photos on all professional portals that know the rights and will not acquire any photos on Adobe Stock here and will not recommend this portal to others for lack of knowledge.

Many Thanks. Kind regards

[Test Screen Name]

"Dear Adobe Stock Photo Team,"

Please understand that this is a community forum. WE ARE NOT ADOBE STAFF, just people with some experience and opinions. You are free to agree or disagree.

"Some photos were rejected for two reasons:

1. REFUSAL TO PROTECT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Yes, people are in these photos"

(a) intellectual property has NO CONNECTION TO PEOPLE. [Different rules apply to people] You must read Adobe's guidelines and follow them exactly. Any photograph of a made object, from a shoe to a skyscraper, may need consent from the rights holder, including very common items like cars.

" Yes, people are in these photos", but they are in public space and therefore no consent is required!"

Adobe do not care what your interpreation is of the laws in your country. They sell in many countries, with different laws, and they MAKE THEIR OWN RULES which may go further than the law. As a supplier you have only one choice: follow Adobe's rules. There is no appeal, and they will not enter into legal arguments with you.

"2. INDOOR SHOT. I already have the authorization and this is already available in the form of the order confirmation from my client. No further consent is required. "

Again, you are looking at this from a legal position rather than from the point of view of following all of Adobe's rules exactly.

[Rick Jack]

@Test Screen Name OK thank you. Yes, then I understand the behavior of the typical forum. I assumed that this is a professional Adobe community with employees from Adobe. I didn't know it was a lay forum. Thank you for the info. Then of course I delete the tread. Nice day.

[Abambo]

You can contact the Adobe stock support for your questions above, if you do not trust the qualified answers from your fellow contributors. https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/Need-Help-Contact-Us.html

[Abambo]

First of all, Adobe stock is Adobe's turf and so Adobe's rules.

But you err in different assumptions: 

1) IP refusals are IP refusals and not refusals due to missing model releases. Indeed you would probably need a property release. But if recognizable people are in the picture, you need a model release, regardless of your current legal assumptions. As Adobe does not control the use of the pictures, Adobe needs to make sure that the use is legal in all circumstances. Or if you take a picture of me on a bridge, and I am accessory to the bridge, I still could require damages, if the picture is used in a sense that I do not authorize, except if I specially offered you my authorization (model release). It is true, I can't object to use the picture for an exhibition or an editorial use. I can object using it in advertisement or any other commercial use.

The same is true for the achitectual pictures and IP concerns. The (c) belongs to the architect and there are restrictions on the use of pictures, which cannot be accepted for stock. Also, please check for any logo, as that also triggers IP violations.

2. Indoor shoots: you need the authorization of the building owner. If he did authorize you to take pictures, he normally did not authorize you to use that picture commercially, except if you have a property release. If you got hired for taking the pictures, the situation is even more complicated. Our contracts state the you transfer the (c) to us or that you restrain to use the pictures without our authorization. 

If your contract states a property release, you may try to submit that one as a property release, but I'm sure that only the standard forms get accepted as I can imagine that Adobe does not check all individual contracts submitted for their legal value. I suggest you include in the future the property release into your contracts as an addendum.

BTW and as a 'clin d'oeil', American law seams to be applicable everywhere in the world...

To be serious: Adobe needs not only to follow American law, but also all local laws where they operate and sell the stock images. That is a quite complicated process and it's the reason why they have restrictive rules. Example: The Eifel tower cannot be pictured for commercial use in France during the nighttime, but that law is only enforcable in France. You can't add such pictures to the stock library. The same is true for the Atomium in Brussels. Local not-American laws...

[Rick Jack]

@Abambo Yes, unfortunately, you can tell that you are not a professional and have no idea of the legal requirements. Send me the paragraphs (legal provisions in the respective country) as clearly as I did and please do not make lay statements.

If you comment on this thread, please refer to the legal situation as a professional should do it.

Otherwise, please work as a professional first and deal with your national regulations. thanks

[Abambo]

---

@Rick Jack wrote:

Otherwise, please work as a professional first and deal with your national regulations. thanks

---

I'm working for more than 15 years as a professional photographer for my company and as such I have coverd many of our big projects (industrial and architectural) either as the photographer or as a customer to a professional photographer. I've written our trademark and copyright policy which I had it checked by our ip property lawyer and I initiated the copyright release forms that every photographer or cameraman/producer needs to sign prior to getting hired and I've created the model release together with our human resources legal officer for our employees to sign when we are taking pictures for commercial use. 

[Rick Jack]

ok, How can I delete this tread?

[Test Screen Name]

You cannot delete your posts. It will stand as a useful reference for people with the same questions, especially those who search for similar terms.

[Rick Jack]

(-, thx

[Rick Jack]

@Test Screen Name Will the thread still be there if I delete my entire Adobe account?

[Abambo]

Yes!

[Test Screen Name]

Yes. The thread will exist, probably with "Deleted user" in place of your chosen nickname. 

[RALPH_L · Accepted solution]

I reside in Europe. Here the laws were recently changed so that written approval is even required for persons in public space. The exception is for newspapers. The end for Street Photography as we know it.  

[Abambo]

@RALPH_L ,

@Rick Jack is located in Germany. 

[Rick Jack]

Dear @RALPH_L , thank you for the only correct and good answer here today. This is of course a shame for all street photographers. Then good light and have a nice day.
Cheers

[Abambo]

Even before GDPR, street photography was not accepted if you had not the model release. As said: Adobe's rules! Other stock providers have similar rules.

Concerning GDPR: Unfortunately, the German government, when it transposed the directive into national law, did not include exceptions for photographers other than those operating under the statute of journalist. So, the courts need to decide. An interesting article in the Spiegel (and as that also published in the c't Fotografie and available for for heise+ customers https://www.heise.de/select/ct-foto/2018/5/1536029301570448) enlightens the laymen about the current (well 2018 situation, citing the first jurisprudences) situation: https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/games/dsgvo-fuer-fotografen-fragen-und-antworten-zur-datenschutzgrun...