Rejection for Intellectual Property Infringements

[Arturo Matta]

Hi I submitted a bunch of images of which most were rejected for Intellectual property. I see in a couple cases there is a brand but in the great majority its just streetscapes, architectural or street images and landscapes. 

Here are the links of the submission (I got approved 5 out of them all!) and its very frustrating. 

https://adobe.ly/3CX09vD

https://adobe.ly/3wp3YWz

https://adobe.ly/3qbmXEk

I appreciate your help. 

[Moderator moved the thread to the correct forum]

[Test Screen Name]

These seem to be whole galleries, rather than specific images to check. I see boat names and building names. 

in future please post 1-3 original images (not resaved) in the Stock Co tributes forum, with rejection reason for each. 

[Arturo Matta]

Thaks for the answer. It seems to be really counterproductive then to post any of my images to Adobe Stock, being that to have any semblance of income I understand you need to provide thousands of images, and having such a hard time getting even a few images accepted when I am infringing no property laws in 90% of the images I posted... 

[Test Screen Name]

Well, it seems you know best, and don't need to read Adobe's rules on IP in images.

[Abambo]

For Adobe (and other stock providers) to have such pictures accepted, you need to photoshop these ship names and other identifiers, logos etc.

Stock photography needs to be secure to use by the customer, and that means that you need to prepare your pictures accordingly.

If you are new to stock, you should consider these resources: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/tutorials.html
Please read the contributor user manual for more information on Adobe stock contributions: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html
See here for rejection reasons: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
and especially quality and technical issues: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html

[Test Screen Name]

Also many modern buildings. You don't have the rights to make money from other people's designs. 

[Nancy OShea]

It's your responsibility as a Stock photographer to be informed and educate yourself about what is legal for commercial use.  Avoid taking pictures of objects that don't belong to you 100% or submit signed property releases by the rightful owners.  Nobody wants a lawsuit, particularly YOU!

Start reading these links.  Seek a legal consultant if you think you need one.

• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/terminology-and-importance-of-copyright.html
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/property-release.html
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restrictions.html

[Jill_C]

Stock photography in public places, particularly marinas and harbors, is always going to be difficult. You can spend a lot of time scrubbing away all signs, logos, identifiers, etc. and still never sell the image. I usually don't waste my time doing so unless it's a quick editing job.

[Arturo Matta]

What a pain... I cant see how any boat owner would sue over their boat being shown in a professional picture! How can that be harmful. I understand when you are featuring intellectual property of others for your benefit, but this is ridiculous. Then photographing an ancient building might infringe on that civilization's creativity... lol  

[Test Screen Name]

Adobe make the rules, and contributors need to learn them, just like they need to learn the minimum size in megapixels or acceptable file formats. It's no use trying to use moral arguments to claim Adobe should ignore their rules. But anyway--

". I cant see how any boat owner would sue over their boat being shown in a professional picture! How can that be harmful." Suppose a person owned a boat and were a committed vegetarian. And suppose Macdonalds used it in an advert for burgers. The person might be upset. They might sue Macdonalds for the unauthorized use of their boat. Macdonalds could then sue Adobe, who promised them free use of the photos and full releases for all IP. And finally Adobe could sue the photographer, who promised Adobe free use of the photos and full releases for all IP.

Or suppose it were used in an advert for a political party that person hated. This is not about professional photos, it is about using them in commerce. It's a very different thing.

IP is generally felt to last about 100 years but it does vary by country, which grant some created work perpetual protection.  

[Nancy OShea]

If it were MY boat and I saw someone profiting from its likeness on a bus or billboard ad, I would be very upset!   You can't assume that everyone sees things as you do.  The world is filled with property lawyers, courts and judges who will side with rightful owners 100%, leaving you with a hot mess of legal fees and fines.  If you can't comply with IP requirements, don't submit the photo to Stock. 

[Arturo Matta]

OOOOH, OK. Thats why I dont live in the US, full of legal sharks looking for their next prey. Riduculous... But you can have an insurrection and nobody is responsible. What a joke

[Arturo Matta]

By the way, it is companies like adobe Stock and the like which proliferate images for pennies to any suitor--those should if anybody be to blame-- not artists, "contributors" like me and others who are simply taking in what is in the public domain. I was not shooting at a particular boat, full of recognizable people, flashing recognizible brands and exploiting that for my own gain! Please you make me sick. 

[Nancy OShea]

Property & copyright laws are NOT unique to the US & Canada.  The EU, UK, Australia, South Africa, etc... all have similar laws.  Just saying...  😉