Seeking clarification regarding Intellectual Property refusals on conceptual AI-generated future infrastructure videos

Thank you very much again for all the feedback and help.
 

So in your opinion, would it be worth trying to resubmit the exact same videos again, but with much simpler and more natural keywords? Or once a video has already been rejected for IP, would you recommend avoiding resubmitting the same file and instead applying these improvements only to future uploads?
 

After reading your comments, I realized I may have over-optimized the metadata and relied too heavily on compound keywords instead of using more natural buyer-oriented search terms.
 

For example, for the lunar residential video, I was thinking about simplifying the keywords to something more like:

moon, lunar, colony, drone, aerial, futuristic, habitat, residential, sci fi, space, architecture, night, glowing windows, futuristic homes, settlement, moon base, cinematic, technology, space colony, future, modular buildings, housing, drone footage, futuristic city, pathway, low altitude, realistic, exploration, innovation, modern, astronomy, outer space, science fiction, habitat modules, engineering, infrastructure, urban design, advanced technology, environment, cinematic view

 

And for the Mars industrial facility:

mars, drone, aerial, futuristic, industry, industrial facility, solar panels, solar field, mining, colony, sci fi, technology, infrastructure, energy, cinematic, red planet, engineering, futuristic industry, industrial complex, space, mars base, drone footage, architecture, habitat, future, science fiction, exploration, advanced technology, resource facility, metallic structures, dust, landscape, innovation, power, futuristic world, industry concept, industrial design, outer space, cinematic view, technology concept
 

Do these look more natural and buyer-oriented to you, or would you still recommend reducing the number of keywords even further?

 

I genuinely want to make this work because I’ve been producing a large amount of high-quality conceptual content focused on future infrastructure, future energy systems, future cities, industrial evolution, and speculative environments that I believe could add value to the Adobe Stock library.
 

Maybe I simply tried too hard to optimize the metadata instead of keeping it more human and search-oriented.
 

What else would you recommend I test with future uploads to improve my chances of acceptance?
 

And one final question:
is there any actual channel where contributors can directly communicate with Adobe’s review team regarding refusals, or are these reviews mostly automated with no direct communication possible?
 

Thank you again for your time and guidance.

The Jeep shape is a patented design.

Read about Trademarks & Trade Dress below.

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/ip-guidelines.html

Trade dress includes brand colors, shapes & designs. 

I don’t see anything that would trigger an IP rejection; however, you are much too reliant on compound keywords which actually make your content harder for the buyers to find - should it ever get accepted, that is!

Well, as far as IP violations are concerned, I’m stumped. And while I suspect it has no bearing on such refusals, I did notice an extremely high number of compound keywords compared to single-word examples. Compound keywords are generally not recommended except in such cases as “studio portrait,” “cargo ship,” etc., and I’d probably even avoid those in practices. Who might think of entering “off world housing” as a search term, for example. Like wise, “futuristic, architecture, space, colony, settlement, cinematic, motion” all work just as well by themselves.

Can you post a couple examples here, along with keywords and titles?