Inspiring

Question

Colosseum Confusion

Forum|Forum|7 years ago
July 31, 2018
3 replies
970 views

Hi all!

I'm pretty new to Adobe Stock, so learning the intricacies and different process to other stock sites I contribute to.

These three images got rejected for Intellectual Property Issues. I've had a look and can't see any logos etc, and the Colosseum is over 1000 years old. Not least that it's also listed in the Adobe "Known Image Restrictions" as ok for use if exterior and taken from a public place... which these are. So I don't know what to change on them... any ideas?

I can't see that it would be for identifiable persons as the crowds are far away in the first two certainly... but then wouldn't that get flagged as "Model Release Missing"? Aside to that, the individuals are in a public place with no expectation of privacy and in no way the subject of the photo... unless the rules here are much different? Regardless, I searched 'Colosseum' in existing contributions and there's loads with crowds, so can't be that, right?

Confusingly, two other shots of the Colosseum were accepted... hmm. Do I just resubmit and hope it was an error?

Contributor critique

This topic has been closed for replies.

D

DrSniffyAuthor

Inspiring

Hi Joan and Ricky,

Thanks for replying! I appreciate an active forum!

Honestly, I'd put money that the reviewer didn't check the Colosseum was on the ok list (exterior) and just marked it as intellectual property as it's a ticketed tourist attraction...

But that said...

I do see the faces in the last one, I just didn't know that Adobe see that as needing a model release (or in this case Intellectual Property). Certainly there's other Adobe Stock images with crowds, and most countries observe that if you take photos in a public place there's no expectation of privacy and therefore don't need a crowd release (so long as the people are the subject of the photo). But I'll blur the faces and see how that goes... Some agencies don't allow blurring as they still insist you can identify a person based on clothes, posture etc etc.

The light flare is part of the image, and I don't think the sun is intellectual property haha I'd assume that would come under personal taste or if the reviewer didn't like it would list as Technical Issue? If you're the reviewer and don't like the sun, sorry!

It's interesting seeing how Adobe Stock compares to Getty actually as Getty don't get involved in the creative side of the imagery, where here seems to be a lot more "I don't like how you edited this" or "Framing is wrong" and images getting rejected on that basis. What is good however is that images I had rejected by Getty got accepted by Adobe and vice versa... so win win I guess haha.

I'll blur the faces and anything vaguely signage or brand looking and see what they say (the signs and whatever that thing is, is already blurred, but I'll blur it more). I don't see the logic that a directional or road sign is intellectual property, but happy to see if that's the issue. I'm picking up that you're both speculating also though, so I appreciate you trying to guess too! I read a few of the forum posts that seem to imply one might never know the thought process of a reviewer haha.

The guides are useful, but from reading this forum I think the biggest frustration is that there's a lot of guesswork and inconsistency in the review process. E.g. If I type in 'lens flare' to search for an image, loads of photos with lens flare appear (here's one where the title doesn't even suggest it's a photo of lens flare: Side view of sisters sitting back to back at park - Buy this stock photo and explore similar images at Adobe Stock | Ado… ), but they weren't rejected as Technical Issues. Yet what you're telling me is that I should remove the lens flare as they will reject it for that reason? Getty, conversely, would accept the image as someone may be looking for exactly a shot of the Colosseum with lens flare...(of which there are also loads on here) just as an example. Is it the case that if you keyword the technical issues they become features?

Adobe are really pushing to get more contributors, but I think they need to look at how they encourage them better. Just rejecting and pointing photographers to a guide on how to take photos isn't going to win their hearts... My photos are far from Nat Geo, but I'm already thinking whether it's worth resubmitting any rejected photos as it could take so long to work out what was wrong with it, and at $0.46 per download... Adobe are lucky to have dedicated people like Joan and Ricky I'd say or no one would have any insight at all.

Ricky336

Community Expert

Hi DrSniffy!

Well, to be fair - Adobe don't need to post guides on how to take better photos - really it is not Adobe's job to teach contributors in the techniques of taking photos! (Although they have a lot of information about using their products.) That is up to the individual. The Adobe guide is after all a guide and not a crash course in 101 photography.

We have this forum, where users such as ourselves can comment on why pictures are rejected - pointing out such things as above.

However, I do agree it can be frustrating and I myself wonder about the consistency, and sometimes, I do feel it is a bit of guesswork - like in your above photo. (But, I do think the reviewer could have rejected it based on other reasons.)

In saying that though, I do personally think, you have to be careful with the use of lens flare, and to be honest, I think it does not add to the photo. For me it is distracting. Yes, Adobe do accept images with lens flare - I have a few myself which have been accepted, but this adds to the picture, and is used carefully. I don't think it works in your picture.

Adobe, I think, also look at the overall composition and how all the picture elements work together - aesthetics. This is also part of photography - composition is an equally important part along with the technical aspects.

To get better, you need to read real books on photography - e.g. The Photographer's Eye - Michael Freeman - and not webpages and photography vblogs/Blogs and so on.

By the way - I kind of like trying to help with these kinds of questions/discussions - so that's why I'm here.

Cheers

D

DrSniffyAuthor

Inspiring

Hey again,

I don't think they need to post guides either. I think a more detailed reason than "technical issue" or "intellectual property issue" would be more useful than "here's a guide to the many number of things the rejection reason could mean" lol

My point about lens flare is exactly what you're saying. You personally don't like it, and if a reviewer doesn't personally like it then it gets rejected. As opposed to Getty who would take the view "it looks crappy and doesn't add to the photo, but if that's what the photographer wants, then so be it". If it doesnt sell then thats down to the photographer and not Getty. You say it isn't their job to teach photography, but they do want to decide what they think is a good photo. I agree, it doesnt add to this photo, but I don't think that's a reason to reject a photo. If all submission reviews were based on preference, I doubt there would be much material. I don't like cropping photos as I think the end user would want more to crop than none at all.

Also, you say they probably rejected it on other reasons. That is exactly my point about the guesswork.. they put "intellectual property issue" when they mean "we don't like lens flare" (for sake of argument) "please remove the pens flare". So we as contributors could either make one crop and it's fixed, or spend all day guessing and making tweaks in the hope they find the issue. Or, as I see other in this forum have done, don't resubmit.

I get the impression you're at the top of your game from what you're saying about learning photography and advice, I'm sure its frustrating for us at the lower levels being cavalier about the photo contributions and what we contribute, so apologies for taking up your time! I do appreciate critique (not that i asked for it yet lol). It's useful to have a set of more experienced eyes look over the work as you know better what is acceptable. Though I learned photography at university, it doesn't mean all my shots are great, nor do I claim such lol. I'll check out those books you mentioned, though I do believe practice is better than theory when it comes to art.

Thankfully the majority of my submissions have been accepted, it's just a few that confused me was all. Its a learning curve starting with a new stock agency. 85 photos accepted in 2 days can't be all that bad.

I do agree with you, these aren't my finest work and definitely have room for improvement. Just wish the submission and review process was more like other stock sites, I guess is my salient point..

I'll pay more attention to what they like now I know

Ricky336

Community Expert

Maybe because of these issues - as in your 1st photo:

Although this example would come under technical issues, I think - lens flare!

And your last photo:

- you can see peoples faces!

You do have to look quite carefully and be aware of these small details. As the idiom goes, 'The devil is in the detail'!

And by the way, your second shot could be rejected because of being similar to the first photo!

joanH

Inspiring

Hi, I do enjoy these photos! However, in the bottom photo, I see a sign and a few faces that could be recognized. You can erase the sign lettering etc. and alter faces so they are not recognizable. As for the other two you need to lower the sun glare and crop off part of the bottom & distracting light flare. I suggest you review the guidelines for the Adobe Stock contributors. Nice work. Look at your photos at 100 - 200 % magnification to find errors, noise and artifacts the buyers do not want. Best regards. JH

You can find information similar to what you have requested at this link: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/rejection-reasons.html

Reasons for content rejection

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded