MicrostockGroup

I uploaded 68 images to FT yesterday, all of them are view of London Eye, but when I wake up this morning all of them are been "declined" by Intellectual/Industrial Property reason, this is really shock for me, 68 images upload and 68 reject, omg 100% rejected, so after this i try to seach some image of London Eye in FT, but none of them could be found, if any of you try to upload image of London Eye to FT, just forget about it, none of them will be approve, ........what a bad day~!

You could find images of London Eye, in Shutterstock, Can Stock Photo, LuckyOliver, 123rf, Crestock, Big Stock Photo, and 1 or 2 in Dreamstime, but only Except Fotolia "NONE"~!, but I think Dreastime do the same thing put London Eye in Intellectual/Industrial Property! you can try to search it!

by the way I didn't Exclusive to any agencies

I don't think Alamy is a good place for referance.  I think you could find any copyright thing on there you wanted.  do a search for 'mac' 'ipod' 'coke' .. you will find more than enough.

As far as I'm aware (and I'm not a lawyer) any photograph of structures, buildings, etc. taken from public land in the UK is okay.

I think the owners of the London Eye would have a hard job making a lawsuit stick against a photographer who has a photo with their structure in it, if that person was standing on public property.

Omg you found one, I know there is very few of them, as you can c the one you found does not include key word "LONDON , EYE"!

The London Eye is also know as the British Airways London Eye and although they sold their stake in the Eye to the Tussauds Group in 2005 they are still sponsors of the Eye.

One of the planning conditions at the time was that the London Eye could not be used for advertising.  I suppose editorial use would be ok, but you may still require permission if on their property.

They don't get sued. It's just that they MIGHT get sued.  As some microstock official said, "maybe nobody has been sued for this, but do you want to be the first?"

On Alamy, they approve the image first and then the owner puts it into RM or RF, so there is no policing of which license it appears under. The photographer takes the risk if he or she declares it does not need a property release when it does.

In general, though, it is the end user who is most at risk if they don't check that they are allowed to use something.

Ooops! How did I do that? It was near the top of some list I got.

Agreed: I took some photos with permission of a specific location interior for a photo course I was doing. I asked for permisson to submit them as RM for editorial use to Alamy and the managers of the property refused. Not, 'yes, but it'll cost you £XXXX', and outright 'no'. There are many photos of the interior of that building on Alamy. (The outside of the building is OK as you can photograph it from public land, and the owners even mentioned this in their reply to my request). Another property flat refused me permission to shoot inside even for my photo course (the only property which refused) and said that no photography at all was allowed inside, and there are several photos of that on Alamy too.
I wrote to Alamy and pointed this out, and got a weird email back saying that I should not be trying to submit these photos. When I wrote back again, I got no reply.
iStock isn't the only company whose support staff are trained to skim read and pick out a fact, but not read the issue. I think this is a weird policy as it often means you have to go back and forwards several times to get an issue resolved.

@OP: FWIW, here's what istock's Technical Wiki has to say:
The London Eye is a structure in London that is part ride, part vehicle, conceived by British Airways engineers. It is permitted to use images of the machine for a broad range of use, excluding advertising - therefor considering it prohibited for royalty-free stock.
Allowed: City scapes including the London Eye ARE allowed. (Note: If the London Eye IS NOT the primary subject of the photo, it is permitted for use in royalty-free stock).

But like everyone else, I get perplexed from time to time about what they reject, when there are plenty recent 'similars' accepted and what gets rejected as editorial with the note I should send to the main collection.

68 images. :-(
Hint for the future: if you find that there's a well-known structure which isn't in a collection, there's almost certainly a reason for it. I thought I'd found a niche when I started micro with my pics of the Guggenheim Museum, NY.