Participating Frequently

Question

Adobe Firefly-generated content rejected for intellectual property infringement – How is this possible?

17 replies
102 views
Translate

I would like to share an experience that I find extremely difficult to understand.

I recently submitted a video to Adobe Stock that was created entirely with Adobe Firefly, using exclusively an original text prompt written by me.

I did not upload any reference images, use existing artwork, reproduce copyrighted material, include trademarks, logos or recognizable characters. The video consists entirely of abstract geometric shapes and visual effects generated from my own creative instructions.

Despite this, Adobe Stock rejected the submission on the grounds of "Intellectual Property Violation".

Honestly, I find this decision very difficult to reconcile with Adobe's own statements about Firefly.

Adobe has repeatedly presented Firefly as a generative AI solution designed with commercial safety in mind. Its models are trained using licensed content and public-domain material, and Adobe has implemented safeguards intended to minimize the risk of copyright and intellectual property infringement.

So how can content generated entirely with Adobe's own technology, using an original prompt written by the user and without any external reference material, be classified as an intellectual property violation?

I understand that no generative AI system can guarantee that every output will be completely unique or that visual similarities with existing works will never occur. However, if Adobe identifies a potential infringement, shouldn't it be able to explain precisely which element of the generated content allegedly violates someone else's rights?

A generic rejection notice is not an adequate explanation.

I believe Adobe should provide greater transparency in these cases and distinguish between an actual intellectual property infringement and a possible visual similarity detected by an automated review system.

After all, contributors are using Adobe's own technology to create content for Adobe Stock. It is reasonable to expect transparent and consistent decisions when that content is reviewed.

Has anyone else experienced a similar rejection with content generated entirely through Adobe Firefly?

Nancy OShea

Community Expert

Kill the sound track. It’s problematic & contains static.

Besides, you can’t use music or voiceovers without signed Property/Model releases.

Allowable audio are ambient sounds related to the video clip— i.e. chirping birds, traffic, running water, train whistles, etc.

Hope that helps.

Translate

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert

Salvatore291363Author

Participating Frequently

Update – Issue resolved

I have now located the missing image. It was already marked as accepted in Adobe Stock's back-end, but the acceptance status had not yet been updated in the Contributor front-end.

The file had therefore not been rejected or lost. The issue was caused by a discrepancy between the back-end status and what was displayed in the Contributor interface.

The issue is now resolved. Thank you for your attention.

________________________________________________________________

Something else strange has happened: up until 45 minutes ago, this file was also under review. I’ve checked several times—I even cleared my cache—but I can’t find it among either the accepted or the rejected files.

Translate

Salvatore Iovino

Salvatore291363Author

Participating Frequently

This is the video
Abstract geometric shapes

However, something else happened that I cannot explain: two identical photos—with the same title but different formats—were submitted together; one was accepted, while the other was rejected. The reason given for the rejection: similar content already exists in our collection.

Both files contain the same original image. The only difference lies in their aspect ratio and dimensions: one is in a horizontal format (16:9), and the other is in a vertical format (9:16).

Translate

Salvatore Iovino

Cosmic Studio

Inspiring

Maybe the music caused the IP issue. I didn't identify any logos or trademarks.

Translate

Nancy OShea

Community Expert

I can think of lots of instances where seemingly random shapes could infringe on IP without intention. The world is mighty big and filled with global brands. We would need to see the rejected video clip to give better feedback.

Translate

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert

Cosmic Studio

Inspiring

That's a really interesting point.

It's possible the reviewer just selected the wrong rejection reason, but if not, the AI might have generated something resembling copyrighted material, even from a clean prompt. I think that risk is always present, and Firefly is probably the safest tool to minimize it.

Translate

daniellei4510

Community Expert

That’s certainly possible. Take, for example, this Red Cross I generated in Firefly. Since even basic shapes such as this can be trademarked (by the American Red Cross), that doesn’t mean Firefly was trained on this particular symbol from an American Red Cross image.

Translate

Adobe Community Expert | I have miles to go before I sleep, but I'm all done on this end.

Cosmic Studio

Inspiring

Still on the topic of IP issues and Generative AI, a question I have is whether we can draw inspiration from the looks of famous artists, specifically regarding clothing and hairstyles. Just to be safe, after my portfolio was reactivated, I decided to delete some assets featuring female musicians who resembled the styles of Bob Dylan and Kurt Cobain. I find myself wondering if deleting them was the right move as they were generated from clean prompts.

Translate

Nancy OShea

Community Expert

Maybe news of pending lawsuits against Adobe slipped under your radar. It’s been well-reported for over a year.

You can’t blame the tools. The responsibility falls squarely on the contributor to ensure that whatever you submit to Stock is legally safe for commercial use. That goes for content, prompts, titles, descriptions, and metadata. See below for more details:

Translate

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert

daniellei4510

Community Expert

Titles and keywords can also result ini IP violations on occasion, so check those to be sure.

Translate

Adobe Community Expert | I have miles to go before I sleep, but I'm all done on this end.

Salvatore291363Author

Participating Frequently

Thank you for your suggestion. I have carefully checked the title, keywords and original Adobe Firefly prompt.

The video is an 8-second abstract animation created entirely with Adobe Firefly using a text prompt written by me, without uploading reference images or using external material.

The title and keywords refer exclusively to abstract geometric shapes, colors, movement and animation. They contain no references to specific brands, logos, artists, characters, copyrighted works or third-party intellectual property.

The original prompt also contains only general creative instructions for generating original abstract geometric artwork. It does not mention or imitate any existing artist, brand, artwork or protected visual identity.

For these reasons, I cannot understand why Adobe Stock classified the video as an intellectual property violation. I believe a manual review and a specific explanation of the alleged infringement would be appropriate.

A rejection of this kind can understandably raise questions and concerns for creators about the accuracy, consistency and transparency of the review process. I am not questioning anyone's intentions, but I believe contributors should be able to understand the specific reasons behind such decisions.

I also believe that greater transparency regarding the handling of submitted content and the criteria used during the review process would be beneficial to all contributors. Clear procedures and consistent assessments are essential to maintaining confidence in the platform and ensuring a fair experience for everyone.

I would also like to raise a broader concern about refusals based on "Similar content already exists in our collection". This has happened to me repeatedly. I understand that Adobe Stock needs to avoid excessive repetition, but similar does not necessarily mean identical. At the same time, browsing the existing collection, I can find numerous assets from different contributors that appear remarkably similar, sometimes almost identical. This raises a legitimate question about how consistently the similarity criteria are applied. I believe contributors deserve clear and consistent standards, regardless of whose portfolio the content belongs to.

Thank you for your attention.

Translate

Salvatore Iovino

Nancy OShea

Community Expert

I believe a manual review and a specific explanation of the alleged infringement would be appropriate.

===========

Reviewer’s decisions are final. Unfortunately, what Contributors think and what Adobe thinks operate in separate universes. This is their platform, their marketplace, their customers and their procedures. We’re just Invited guests here.

You can make changes to address the refusal reasons & resubmit for a 2nd review.
Or you can submit to a competing marketplace and see what happens.

The choice to edit & resubmit is yours. But after two refusals, it’s best to move on or you risk a strike for spamming.

Post the video clip here for more precise feedback. You might have overlooked something that another pair of eyes will see.

Translate

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert

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.