Modern architecture with unique building structures requires a release

Explorer ,
Jul 18, 2018 Jul 18, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I have just started to contribute to Adobe Stock. Had an image of the Hayward Gallery in London rejected because it infringed copyright. While it does contain a modern sculpture on top of the building, that is only incidental because the gallery decided to erect it. However, it doesn't mean the building itself or the view of it  then becomes copyrighted (I cannot copy the building but can make a representation in line, paint or photo).

While reading the guidelines, was horrified to read how Adobe is misrepresenting the copyright law, or interpreting it, to photographers. As far as I can ascertain, there are no clauses in the copyright act that requires a release form if your photo contains "unique building structures." You only require one if the building has been trademarked, and trademark not only displayed to reserve rights, but actively used by the company (for example, in their stationery, brochures, annual reports, etc). Has anyone come across a "unique building structures requires a release" clause?

TOPICS
Contributors

Views

613

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines

correct answers 1 Correct answer

Adobe Employee , Aug 01, 2018 Aug 01, 2018
Hi there,Please see Reasons content is rejected at Adobe Stock for more details.Regards,Sheena

Likes

Translate

Translate
Explorer ,
Jul 19, 2018 Jul 19, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I have now had quite a number of photos rejected because in Adobe Stock's misguided interpretation of the copyright act, I have violated intellectual property when I have not. The following image is one that has been rejected! So the London skyline is now an intellectual property? Since when? Go figure!

Screen Shot 2018-07-19 at 12.31.30.png

I have had a lengthy discussion with contributor support who doesn't understand basic copyright law and is saying because Adobe is a private company, it can accept reject what it likes. Huh? What has latter to do with former?

However, the rejections I object to specifically state I have violated intellectual property when I have done no such thing. He's also conflating taking images of copyrighted buildings in a panorama with Freedom of Panorama (i.e., in his view, if a building is the subject, you cannot exploit it but the FOP exists precisely for that purpose--not all countries support it but that's another subject altogether). Furthermore, he has the gall to say I of all people should know and respect intelectual proprety when he doesn't understand the law as it stands.

For the record, the FOP clause for architectural works allows a photographer to take a photo of any permanent object in public view and to exploit it. Both the UK and the US, currently, support FOP but both the Adobe Stock lawyers, who must surely have overseen the language used on the Adobe Stock Contributor site, and its employees don't understand the law as it stands in their own country, let alone in the UK (same, as it happens where FOP is concerned).

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Adobe Employee ,
Aug 01, 2018 Aug 01, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi there,

Please see Reasons content is rejected at Adobe Stock for more details.

Regards,

Sheena

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
Aug 02, 2018 Aug 02, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hello Sheena,

Have you read my posts? I don't think you have. Do you know the copyright act? Who has marked the thread as answered? Not me! Question has NOT been answered.

Neither Adobe Stock staff, nor its lawyers know the copyright act. Based on my extensive communication with contributor support, I can categorically state they do NOT know the copyright act. I submitted a wide shot of the Science Museum (London), and a medium close up. Wide was accepted, medium rejected because it violated IP. Huh? There is NO IP in either.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Adobe Employee ,
Aug 02, 2018 Aug 02, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi there,

You can contact our support team by raising a support ticket from within your contributor portal or dropping an email to contributor-relations@adobe.com.

Regards,

Sheena

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Adobe Community Professional ,
Aug 02, 2018 Aug 02, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi,

I’ve follwed this discussion and as a person with experience in the builing sector, I need to say: buildings are protected by (c). The copyright holder is the architect. You are allowed to take a picture, but you cannot use that picture commercially (not for art) if you do not have a model release. Btw: the building owner is probably also protected via privacy concerns.

Your skyline contains logos, if I see that correctly. That’s probably the most common reason to refuse skylines.

As I am also a contributor with other stock picture providers, I can say, that all providers have similar requirements.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
Aug 02, 2018 Aug 02, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

FYI, the design of the building is protected PROVIDED it has some artistic merit. If your house is a bog standard semidetached or terraced house, it isn't protected.

The copyright act has a provision that allows you to exploit your photos, of which YOU have the copyright, provided the country supports the Freedom of Panorama clause (both the USA and the UK support it). The building has to be a permanent structure and in a public place.

As for logos on the buildings, they are incidental to the skyline. You can NOT stick a logo on your building and prevent people from taking photos and then exploiting the photos.

As I said, I have had lengthy discussions with contributor support (did you read my posts?), so I don't intend to waste more of my time.

You guys haven't read the copyright act judging by your responses. Go and read it and we can have proper discussion. I am more than happy to be corrected and apologise if I have misread it.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Adobe Employee ,
Aug 02, 2018 Aug 02, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

The numerous tickets you have sent to support have been answered by multiple agents. We will not accept images of private property for commercial licensing without written permission from the property owner in the form of a property release. This is as much for your protection as it is ours. The policy is firm and we will always err on the side of caution if there is any doubt about intellectual property during the review process.

Our legal guidelines can be reviewed here as reference: tagproducts_SG_STOCK-CONTRIBUTOR_i18nKeyHelppagetitle

-Mat

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
Aug 02, 2018 Aug 02, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I haven't sent "numerous" tickets. I sent one. When my questions were fobbed off or half baked answers supplied, I sent a second one for the issue to be escalated. As only one address is supplied, it went to the same department. Erm...

It's pointless discussing any copyright issues with you as you don't understand copyright law, which is pretty black and white. You keep insisting on release forms when NONE are required by copyright law. IAC, when a building owner, say, Chrysler, or the Eiffel Tower lit at night, or the acropolis in Greece, do require a release form, they will NOT issue one to a roaming photographer, unless he has millions stuffed in his back pocket. As for finding the right person to ask for a release form, good luck with that one!

I'm done and unsubscribing from this pointless, time wasting thread (I only started it because I was advised to by contributor support).

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Adobe Community Professional ,
Aug 02, 2018 Aug 02, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I think we understood your point of view.

But still there is ​one more point​ that I want to add:

Adobe is free to fix the rules at their gusto. So do not discuss the rules, when your pictures fall into those rules. Choose a different service provider with different rules.

BTW: Some service providers allow submission for editorial aims. There the rules are somehow different as most of what is rejected on IP reasons is covered by the freedom of speech act and that one precedes. Also, you are free to publish your pictures in a gallery or in a book showing your artistic work, without trademark or copyright issues. This is different from a commercial exploitation of your picture.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
Dec 17, 2018 Dec 17, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I haven't visited this thread because I lost all interest in it, and have removed all of my files from Adobe Stock as they are selling for ridiculous prices (£0.14p -- that's 14 pence!).

There is a lot misinformation in the thread, and unhelpful advice such as don't discuss rules (huh?), which is liked (huh?). I was right on all accounts. I did NOT violate intellectual property. I DO understand the copyright act more than Adobe staff, and some of the posters here (Abambo) who should know the copyright act because they are, presumably, photographers and contributors are making it up on the hoof.

My advice to anyone reading this read is to thoroughly read the copyright act, and stand up for your rights.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Adobe Community Professional ,
Dec 17, 2018 Dec 17, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

LATEST

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Singh%2C+Shangara  wrote

My advice to anyone reading this read is to thoroughly read the copyright act, and stand up for your rights.

That's a good advice, but it does not get your pictures through the validation process... because Adobe is free to refuse any picture with or without reason.

If you get 14pence per picture that means that you got the percentage Adobe promised you to get. The amount depends on the subscription of the buyer. That's the same with other stock providers.

Some other providers are promising 50% (now 40%) but never sold a picture for me. Adobe is my most valuable seller, even if I have not sold for a fortune until now... But I know, I will shoot the picture that will get me 100 of $s...

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Adobe Community Professional ,
Aug 02, 2018 Aug 02, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Singh%2C+Shangara  wrote

FYI, the design of the building is protected PROVIDED it has some artistic merit.

That merit is true for most of the buildings. You can argue here, but the rules applied by all the stock vendors are quite the same.

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Singh%2C+Shangara  wrote

The copyright act has a provision that allows you to exploit your photos, of which YOU have the copyright, provided the country supports the Freedom of Panorama clause (both the USA and the UK support it). The building has to be a permanent structure and in a public place.

Yes, you own the copyright in the picture (PROVIDED it has some artistic merit) but the architect owns the copyright on the building and has the right to be named when you use the picture for publication. However, as the stock vendor does not know for what the buyer uses the picture, and because pictures need to be usable universally, stock vendors do not accept the submission if there is doubt on the release issue. It's up to you to prove with a signed release that there is no issue.

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Singh%2C+Shangara  wrote

As for logos on the buildings, they are incidental to the skyline. You can NOT stick a logo on your building and prevent people from taking photos and then exploiting the photos.

You need to edit them out. Again the stock vendor does not know what will be done with the picture and can not assume any risk.

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Singh%2C+Shangara  wrote

You guys haven't read the copyright act judging by your responses. Go and read it and we can have proper discussion. I am more than happy to be corrected and apologize if I have misread it.

I suppose that an army of lawyers have read the copyright act and have concluded the rules that are applied ​by all stock vendors where I sell my pictures. There are differences in acceptance based on "commercial value" or "artistic merit", but for your issue the rules are clear.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines