Sorry, currently there is a bug in the forum software. I can't open the asset. ... View more

Adobe does not specify chromatic aberration. Adobe says "quality issues". At least at a first sight, I would guess that you have contrast issues with this asset. I also would add more sky, it would make the asset more appealing to buyers. ... View more

Besides the composition issues and the messy background, you also have artefacts typical for small sensor cameras. Ideed, the software has "optimized" some of the fur into a blurry mass, as you often see with such assets. And the snout is not as detailed as it should be, which also points to some processing issues caused by the in-camera processing unit.    Next time, stage the photoshoot in such a way, that no disturbing background elements, like the papers, or the knee are in view. And be careful to crop the asset correctly.  ... View more

The glas and the pencil images are basically the same, but simply differently cropped. That is a strong refusal reason, and when that happens often, it may lead to blocking the account.  ... View more

As you are mentioning increasing the dpi: First you increase the ppi value, second this is the most unnecessary parameter for stock photography. There is only one reason, why this parameter exists: to translate the pixel values into inches. So a picture with 2000points may be interpreted as a 100ppi image, meaning that it will be interpreted as a 20 inch length, or a 200ppi image, meaning that it will be interpreted as a 10 inch length. Nothing, and I repeat nothing has been changed in any quality related parameters. So for convinience, leave the ppi value at 200 or 300, whatever your prefered value is, and don't consider it anymore. It's completely irrelevant.   The resolution, however, is probably the most intersting parameter that you can touch up. But increasing the resolution does not create new information, but that information does need to come from the neighboring pixels and gets interpolated. There has been big progress in the course of the last years in this, increasing the resolution of assets intelligently, trying to keep the sharpness, without introducing new artefacts. But there are limits to this method, as you have experienced.   For some uses, those limits are not important, for some other applications the limits and the loss of quality is a major issue. As for this reason, do not increase the size too much, so that the asset, when checked at 100% still holds the necessary sharpness, without introducing artefacts. But this means that your source imge needs to be perfect, which is rarely the case with generative AI. You need to fix rendering errors first, then scale up and fix upscaling errors and those rendering errors that you did not see during your first checking. It's not al all an easy and fast task.   ... View more

You did tick the "include the free 30 days stock plan" (or similar) when you did take your student plan. Whenm the free month is passed, you get invoiced for that additional plan. If you are still in your 30 days, you can cancel without a fee. If you are in the first 14 days of your paid plan, you can cancel, and you will get refunded. If you are behind these 14 days, you will have a one year plan, that can be cancelled by paying an early termination fee of half of the remaining dues. Contact customer care in this case, to see what they can do for you. ... View more

Try this URL: https://stock.adobe.com/ca/contributor/205713908/josewsy   What you see in your portfolio is what is open for sale in your region. For some reason, in some regions, Adobe restricts access to assets, as long as they did not pass a second vetting. That happens to all assets, not only yours. When they did pass this second vetting, they will be open for sales in all those restricted regions. But all assets are open for sale in other regions and may generate sales. It's a feature, not a bug. You just see it, as you are looking at your public profile from your region. And all assets that you see in your region are open for sale in that region.  ... View more

BTW: for any asset that costs more than one credit, you need to confirm the licensing. So you did license and confirm the buy despite the high price tag. You didn't buy a premium subscription, but a premium asset. ... View more

Reporting quality issues here is the recommended way to proceed. @Contributor1 will chime in and take care of your complaint.   As for your other concern: assets are getting quality checked before they are entred into the database, but for some time the the system got overwhelmed and new, unexperienced asset moderators did let pass too many bad assets. That situation seems to be adressed by Adobe, as contributors report a more stringent checking, and a higher refusal rate than before, all for quality issues. ... View more

Download the licensing text (it's a general PDF document) and take a screen copy of your licensing history. That should be enough to justify the legal use of the assets. That the licensing occured on the free trial is irrelevant. You are entiteled to use the licensed items perpetually, as long as you do not hit a limit on the web. There is no limit for website use, except that you can't use the asset for more than one "customer". Your company should count a a customer in this sense. ... View more

I've answered your question multiple times. The hardcopy of your licence history should be proof enough. Copytrack is using some very doubtfull methods, you need to do as is shown on this very old post. They will accept this as proof of licensing.   As for the rest of your rant: generative AI is not at the correct level to replace Adobe stock or any other stock database. ... View more

I suppose that Google AI is not an Adobe stock customer.    I would say that it is the Yganko asset, where you need to proove the licensing. If you want to play games with them, ask them proof of representation of the asset owner. And tell them that you have forwarded their request to Adobe. mailto:copyright-stock@adobe.com.   If you do not want to play games with them, send the screen-shot of that one line with your answer. Still ask them for proof that they are representing the contributor in question and tell them that you will claim a fee for any further work and expenses that you will have, including lawyer's fees.    The basket is for licensing again. If you have used the asset for one client's work, and you need to license the same asset for a different client, you need to license again. Licenses never expire, but there are conditions that may render the license obsolete (ie print run of more than 500k). For websites that you own and use on your behalf, there is no issue. You can use the asset for any of your websites, without having to licence again.    ... View more

<Error displaying attached content> I don't see anything.   By @Nancy OShea I get the same error. I will need to check if it is because I'm checking the assets on my iPad, or if it is a new general issue for my account. ... View more

Your account will have no issues with a bad acceptance rate. The acceptance rate of all all contributors did take a hit when they introduced this new "similar" refusal reason.    As for the quality, Adobe seeems to come back to the high standards that they had, before accepting generative AI. ... View more

Size is not and has never been a quality property.   Similar content is probably the most difficult refusal to solve. It is recommended that you should check the titles and keywords so that they are more unique to the asset.    Quality issues for vector assets normally are the result of bad vectorization and nonclosed elements.    If you get IP refusals, that may be that you are using proprietary elements like logos or design elements (the red cross is one of the most common unsuspected IP refusals, the round iPhone button is an other one). There may be other elements that will not pass. We need to see the asset to check that. ... View more

Any suggestions on how can I do more reearch or what types of files needed?    By @abstractman There's not really a real fail proof tipp on how to avoid this "similar" refusal. Suggestions are that you need to have quite unique titles and keywords. Adobe thjinks that their algorithms are doing a good job at detecting duplicates and asset spams. If they do, there are a lot of colaterals, and as nobody exactly knows how this works, it is very difficult to avoid these refusals, even for seasoned contributors. ... View more

Having assets accepted on other platforms is not a measure for the assets quality. I have very bad assets accepted on other platforms that got refused here, rightfully. They also should have gotten a refusal on the other platforms sites. ... View more

En règle générale, on retrouve la bibliothèque dan l'app de commande, à partir des applications créative cloud, ou sur le web: https://www.adobe.com/files. Il faut être connecté au bon compte. ... View more

Vous avez changé d'identifiant Adobe?  Est-ce que vous avez un identifiant societé? (Creative Cloud pour équipes ou entreprises?) ... View more

I have to wonder about this company: By @daniellei4510 It's kind of a scam. They know that a huge majority of their targets has a valid license. But I suppose they are trying to represent retired stock contributors who can as such get a second source of income. I also suppose that they get a only get fraction of the (additional) license fee asked for. ... View more

having the same issue. no way to get the actual license from Adobe Stock.    Google AI says there's supposed to be an "eye" icon next to the license type (Standard/Extended) on that License History table listing your assets, but there's no "eye" to click on.   i can't imagine Copytrack will be satisfied with just a screenshot from that Licensed History. You would expect Adobe Stock to provide a PDF formally recording the license and that is has no expiration date (they're not limited in time, unlike yearly licensed).    By @KBD Office The screenshot from the licence history is the way to go. Why shouldn't they be satisfied by this, as they know how the business works and they are anyhow not interested in serious interaction with you. Their business model is to get you scared and to pay. They know that 99.9% of their targets have a valid license. They also know that some people are lazy at documenting the licensing, so that they after years of use, connot find proof of the license, either because they closed the account, or they have licensed from multiple stock sources and do not know from where this exact asset comes from.   I do not know how they come to represent that portfolio of the contributor they are pretending to represent, but you may as well claim that they are trying to scam you, if they don't prove to be representing the individual having created the licensed artwork.    They know hell well, how the Adobe stock business is working and that the contributor can not claim additional compensation for their assets. So send them the hardcopy of only that line, and ask for their proof that they are representing that contributor, who is the copyrightowner of the picture. And then tell them that, as you rightfully licensed this asset, that you are going to contact Adobe which will handle the dispute on your behalf. And if you are located in Germany, tell them also, that you will ask for an "Aufwandsentschädigung" if they further pursue their claim.      ... View more

That is a false information. What plan do you want to upgrade to yearly payments ? ... View more

I get an error with each of your pictures, when I want to check it.    You will need to check the asset at 100% and correct any error you may see in your picture. Don't expect that because it is Firefly that assets pass more easily. And each AI generated asset has issues that need to be addressed. ... View more

@Pranjal_Bathla8190 could also ask for a model release, if the man is known to him.  ... View more

(& can i delete the NOT ACCEPTED files)   By @m_2666 I have thumbnails from before 7 years in my account for rejected assets. Those will remind me for ever about my failures. It's not an issue, it's only a thumbnail picture, and quite interesting to see your evolution as a stock contributor. ... View more

Food fotographie is a carefully orchestrated setting. It rarely works as snapshots. As @RALPH_L said, the asset is to dark, but there is also that disturbing background. And the colours do not seam to be right. There is probably too much saturation. ... View more

cosmetics bottle moisturizer plain bottle mockup-1.jpg: White balance, focus, exposure, chromatic aberration. skincare product bottle cosmetic tube yellow-3.jpg: noise, exposure, chromatic aberration, but anly very lightly, focus. sunglasses with blue lenses sports spectacles-2.jpg: exposure, focus and noise. hair straighteners ceramic styling tool-2.jpg: exposure, focus, chroma noise, probably also white balance. ... View more

Same reply as here: https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-contributors-discussions/refus-propri%C3%A9t%C3%A9-intellectuelle/td-p/15629226   There is no need to ask the same question on the same subject in different postings. You can group that into one post. If you want to add something, you simply can reply to your own post. ... View more