Can anyone explain Intellectual Property violations in regards to festivals?

[#1]

I have submitted various balloon festival images and some accepted some not and I cannot find where the violation is. I tried to make sure that there are no logos or identifyable people in the images. I have read the rules REPEATEDLY and cannot find the violation. Any help appreciated.

Here is an example of a rejected image. 

[#2]

I have submitted various balloon festival images and some accepted some not and I cannot find where the violation is. I tried to make sure that there are no logos or identifyable people in the images. I have read the rules REPEATEDLY and cannot find the violation. Any help appreciated.

Here is an example of a rejected image. 

[#3]

It could be because of the patterns of the balloon. Due to this, the balloons can be identified. Here the patterns are clearly visible.

[#4]

Same balloons here and it was accepted. These two also show people so I'm not quite sure your reasoning is the reason.

[#5]

The question to ask yourself is: if this picture was of one of MY objects (my balloons, in this case), would I be able to recognise it (from the appearance, the context, the other objects in the picture, anything)? I'd say yes. It may be that some similar pictures are accepted, but it was an error. Imagine: you own a balloon. Someone photographs it. Sells the photo. The photo is used to advertise a flatulence product ("hot air"). The ballon community recognises the balloon in your ad, and ever more your balloon is called "that flatulence balloon". Bookings fall off and you are ruined. Photographers, and agencies, have a responsibility, both legal and moral, to protect pictures of recognisable objects.

[#6]

I don't think that is the reasoning behind it. These festivals are WIDELY covered by photographers, which is why we go. Plus these following examples were accepted and have people.

[#7]

Festivals can sometimes be regarded as Intellectual Property. Also, this is for commercial use, rather than reporting.

As to why the others got accepted - I don't know. I'm only suggesting a possible reason based on experience from using Adobe Stock. Perhaps the others were accepted by mistake.

This may help. It's from Adobe.

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/property-release.html 

[#8]

Do you think it could be the title? I'm not certain what a I called it but looking at the others I didn't state the town but used titles like:  Editorial Baloon Festival. Hot Air Balloons at dawn

[#9]

Could be. Adobe does not accept editorial images from contributors. You have to be invited by them to submit editorial photos.

[#10]

Interesting because "Editorial Balloon Festival" is a title I used that was accepted. 

I have re-read the rules regarding this topic over and over and cannot find what it is they are looking for or why what I did was wrong. I do realize that different stock companies have different standards and what works for one might not for the other, but one would think that if they are using real people to jury submissions that they could vbe a bit more specific on the error.

[#11]

Your title is not relevant. Adobe accepts editorial images only from a limited number of people. You need to have sakes of more than 1000 assets. 

Now image vetting is not a science where you get a pass or refusal. Many assets are on a limit where the human moderator may decide one side or the other. Especially IP when no logo is visible, you need to hope that the asset passes.

[#12]

So it seems completely random depending on who does the vetting?

[#13]

Then you should have stated this. If one image was accepted using this title, then obviously that is not the reason. It would be because of the balloons and being part of the festival according to this moderator on this particular image- who regarded this as an IP issue. 

[#14]

OK. It is just confusing when you submit dozens of images from the same event and have them split down the middle with accepted and IP Violation. None were rejected fot technical issues. I tried to make sure that there were no logos or identifyable people. I'm just not going to sweat it because it looks like it is not something I'm doing wrong but the individual vetting the images.

[#15]

IP violation can also be because of some keywords. It does not need to be the picture. I suppose simply that one moderator sees the ballon design as an IP violation without a releas as they are highly identifyable, the othere moderator just thinks of them as a bunch of ballons.

You may try, after a cooling of period, to reintroduce a refused image and see what happens. Just don't do that with the whole bunch as this may be considered as spam if it happens to get noticed. I had several images that got accepted after an initial refusal and minor modifications. But I don't do that for a battery of images...

[#16]

Good to know. Maybe I'll try that in a month or so and see what happens. Thanks.