Why is the Versace logo for sale up here? lol - AKA: quality control

[zagarskas]

These are real world scenarios that have happend, they are entertaining and funny, but also absurd.

Look at this:

https://stock.adobe.com/images/vector-illustration-of-medusa-mask/373585762

Seem familiar?

Well, a client recently purchased this, got an extended license, hired someone from Fiver, put their company name on it, put it on 500 cheap business cards, printed them and then sent this email: 

"Here is our new company logo, we need it updated on the website asap, a billboard is in order. We paid a lot for this and want to push branding hard this year. How much to copyright? Can you get this to LegalZoom and get it copyrighted?"

To which I replied

"This is the Versace logo. Where did you get this? Who told you they designed this?"

They admitted they bought it from Adobe Stock.

They typed in "greek goddess logo" and this comes up.

Its clearly STOLEN. lol

Isn't that a violation of Adobe Stock TOS?

https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/207707679/studio-uphotopia?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

### FULL STOP ###

Here is another great story:

Client sends me this source file with their company name on it:

https://stock.adobe.com/images/ethereum-chrystal-set-illustration/196246531?prev_url=detail

Their calim:

"We started a new company that will be handling all of the crystal and handmade jewlery portion of our sales, we hired a graphic desiner to do this new logo, can you clone our website and use these colors and base it off this logo?"

I asked them:

"This is the Etherium logo. You can not put your name on this. Who sold this to you, where did you get it?"

Again, they admited they found it on Adobe stock. lol

I asked them what they typed in, they said "chrystal logo"

Which is hilarious because crystal is misspelled...

Isn't that a violation of Adobe Stock TOS?

https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/204188782/aldanna?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

### FULL STOP ###

So...

This leads me to believe we have a "quality control" problem goiung on here.

Anyone else feel me on this?

Am I wrong?

Should the ETH and Versace logo be managing to make it up here onto Adobe Stock without being clearly labeled? Should the Authors be making money on the sales? Clearly these are not marked as "editorial only" and in both cases the clients were able to purchase "extended licenses" lol. FROM WHO? From who did they purcahse those  "extended licenses" eh?

[WendellaBee · Accepted solution]

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I've forwarded this to our content review team.

[Abambo]

There are two errors that happened here. First, the logos shouldn't have been uploaded here (even not as editorial, as single logos are not allowed to be submitted for editorial use). The moderation team (checking quality and usability) could have detected this, before adding the assets for sale. I wouldn't personally have associated both as a logo. As a contributor, I know that the moderation team does normally a great job, detecting the smallest logos i pictures. But for single entries it is difficult to know all logos of all existing products and companies. So it's always great, when people like you jump in and notice such elements. 

The second error is that the buyer is not allowed to use any asset as part of a logo. Logos ask for exclusive access to the asset. Adobe provides only shared access. So, there is explicitly a clause in the licensing terms disallowing assets use for logos. 

(Please note: I'm a stock contributor, not an Adobe employee).