User is licensing stolen images

[j1mmyj1mbo]

I've just come across someone licensing an image from James Webb Space Telescope which is available for free through NASA's website.

File: 518592754

https://stock.adobe.com/images/james-webb-space-telescope-reveals-emerging-stellar-nurseries-and-ind...

It's a shame that Adobe Stock has become an unmoderated cluster of awful quality content with no accessible way to report images. I've noticed a significant increase in images filtering themselves as NOT Generative AI and "Photograph" so that they still show up when trying to filter them out. Not to mention cases like the one I've posted here of users blatantly stealing publicly-available content. I'm sure this is one of many re-posted images that aren't owned or created by the user with zero effort put towards quality assurance by Adobe.

[j1mmyj1mbo]

@Contributor1would love for you to chime in without the copy-pasted "I see the issue you're referencing and I've sent these details to be reviewed internally. Thank you for the report and sorry for the problem with the images."

[daniellei4510]

It is highly unlikekt that Contributor1 is in a position to take action themselves and must refer complaints to the necessary departments. That's how it works. 

[Contributor1]

Hello @j1mmyj1mbo, sorry for the copy-pasted replies. I try to keep it consistent as I only deliver the reports internally and don't have insight into the moderation process. I've sent your latest report to be reviewed internally.

[Abambo]

@j1mmyj1mbo wrote

@Contributor1would love for you to chime in without the copy-pasted "I see the issue you're referencing and I've sent these details to be reviewed internally. Thank you for the report and sorry for the problem with the images."

As Contributor1 is only the one reporting the images internally, that is exactly what is done. What else do you suggest that could be said? 

BTW: We are all thankful for your report. 

As for your moderation claim: from time to time moderators err. We had the case where an astrophotographer had his assets refused, because moderators suspected copyright violations. So it happens in both directions. Pictures get accepted that should not get accepted, pictures get refused that shoul be accepted. 

If moderators oversee obvious errors in a picture, I would say that they did not do their job correctly. But detecting in 10s that an image is stolen from somewhere needs some expertise, that not all image moderators can have. The system is not perfect, but the moderator does not have a "stolen image" warning, when moderating images.

I hope this helps understanding the system better. I'm both, a stock customer and a stock contributor, but I'm not an Adobe employee. My moderation insight is based on experience and not about specific first hand inside knowledge of the system, except for those rare cases, when one of the people having insight knowledge report internals in webinars and similar. It's based a lot on common sense knowledge.