A Lack of Racial Inclusivity

[Monique Kelley Designs]

This complaint is meant to address the lack of racial inclusivity of Adobe Stock. When trying to find beautiful black women, the search results contain a majority of white women. Black women are marketable, and we can be stunningly beautiful, yet when searching the term beautiful black women, the search engine recommends average black women and a majority of white women. When searching for related images, the results still recommend white women. Search the team beautiful women, and the results are of stunningly beautiful white women. The user does not even need to specify the search by searching for beautiful white women. Simply beautiful women. It would be nice if the term beautiful women contained an equal number of all races in the result.

[Test Screen Name]

Interesting observation. What steps would you suggest to encourage an equal diversity of contributions (since Adobe Stock is simply the sum of its contributors' images)?

[Ricky336 · Accepted solution]

This is entirely dependant on those people who contribute. It is not by design!

[Nathan5E07]

Curious! Is this "correct answer" suggesting that Adobe can not do anything to fill a void for black subscribers or promote diversity? Should we just say, "Ok, thanks for clearing that up for us"? With all due respect & kindness, that was such a privileged answer.

[Abambo]

The correct answer is really the correct answer as this depends to the contributors. If you are a contributor and are able to upload pictures of African and Asian people, please do so.

[Jill_C]

Adobe does not dictate what Contributors can photograph or submit. In fact, I've attended several seminars and read a lot about how to be a successful Stock Contributor, and it is often suggested that we choose diversity among our subjects. Adobe Moderators accept images based on technical quality. There is no nefarious plot here to exclude people of color.  

If you search for "beautiful+black+woman" Adobe returns 2,886,058 stunning results. 

If you search for "black+woman" you get 4,939,563 I scrolled through many pages of the results and didn't see a white woman until page 5, and she was wearing a black turtleneck sweater, so that's why she showed up.

If you search for "woman", you get many millions of results, and about 15% on page 1 were women of color. I'm not certain what qualifies an image to be on page 1, but I believe it is prior sales.

[moonlynn]

Hi @Monique Kelley Designs and @Test Screen Name  and @Nathan5E07 🙂

Just thought you might be interested in this similar post, as well, started by @Nathan5E07. Nathan, your comment, "Should we just say, 'Ok, thanks for clearing that up for us?'" really seems to hit the nail on the head about how the Adobe responses are coming along in both this and your post. Here's to hoping for some positive change!

[Ricky336]

Hi @Monique Kelley Designs and @Test Screen Name  and @Nathan5E07 🙂

Just thought you might be interested in this similar post, as well, started by @Nathan5E07. Nathan, your comment, "Should we just say, 'Ok, thanks for clearing that up for us?'" really seems to hit the nail on the head about how the Adobe responses are coming along in both this and your post. Here's to hoping for some positive change!

By @moonlynn

Just to be clear, I don't work for Adobe, so my response that is marked 'correct'  really is just that. The key word is contributors, so go ahead everyone, contribute, and upload diversity! The ball is in the court of Adobe Contributors, isn't it?

[moonlynn]

Hi @Ricky336 

No worries - I directing comments to actual Adobe employees, not you. You've posted everywhere that you are not an Adobe employee. 🙂 We all know.

However, I will say that you frequently mention that everyone should contribute what we want to have available. ("Be the change you want to see!") I get that. However, others here are students or in other professional roles. I am a presentation designer. I am/others are not a photographer. You can't just walk into "Models are Us" and grab some people for free and skillfully pose them with all the special equipment needed like professional cameras and lenses, lighting, reflectors, backdrops, etc. that just happen to (not) be laying around.

I think people are just trying to get the question answered: How do we get these kinds of requests into the hands of the people who do photography for a living who also contribute to the site? All the responses are tantamount to saying "Who do we talk to if we want to get a professional bakers to start making strawberry lime wedding cakes?" and being told that if we want strawberry lime wedding cakes, then we can go make some and contribute them and hope that the cake lives up to Gordon Ramsay's expectations enough to be included in his menu.

[Abambo]

I think people are just trying to get the question answered: How do we get these kinds of requests into the hands of the people who do photography for a living who also contribute to the site? All the responses are tantamount to saying "Who do we talk to if we want to get a professional bakers to start making strawberry lime wedding cakes?" and being told that if we want strawberry lime wedding cakes, then we can go make some and contribute them and hope that the cake lives up to Gordon Ramsay's expectations enough to be included in his menu.

By @moonlynn

You nailed it. That's the business model of stock assets providers. And, by no mean, think that providers are professionals. Most of the providers do this as a side job. I too, provide what I have in excess. When I do a shoot, it's rarely extra for stock. And when I shoot for a customer, the customer gets the rights to the images. That's the one feeding me. So, stock gets the leftovers, my other pictures are the interesting ones: Nice buildings, nice offices, nice people in working set-ups. And from time to time, they are diverse.

Stock photography lives from its contributors and when you think diversity is missing, you will need to provide that.

[moonlynn]

Hi @Abambo 

Thanks for the insight about the photography process for you. Something about the way you worded all of this really helped. You helped me understand more about how stock sites are side jobs/supplemental and not nearly always a dedicated "job," per se. Not being part of the photographer community, I (and it seems others), have/had a totally different idea about how stock images are accumulated.

I think people, like me, who post about diversity are really trying to bring awareness and don't know where to turn. I hope no one thinks I was pointing fingers or anything. Just trying to be an advocate by bringing general awareness since I can't be a contributor.

[Abambo]

Very few people can make a living from doing only stock. If, however, you have the right portfolio, you can make a decent income from this. Posting dogs, cats, flower, and landscape pictures can't get you earning big. If you have the chance to be able to photograph willing African, Asian men and women in diverse situations, you increase your sales, probably :-).

The good and the bad in Stock is that every creator can be a contributor. But not everyone will make big sales. And the share of what the contributor gets here is 33% per sale. https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/royalty-details.html.

So if anyone has pictures fitting into the “diverse” requirement, he or she can for sure stand out of the crowd and when you contribute items that are asked, you can make money.

[Nancy OShea]

I don't think there's the dearth of racial representation that you describe.  But there's always room for improvement. 

Adobe Stock is a "new kid on the block" compared to micro-stock giants like Shutterstock & Getty who have been in this space for many years and amassed huge inventories of assets.

When I searched Adobe Stock for "Ethnicity" as my keyword, I got over a million results.  When I searched for "White Racist," results dropped sharply to 3K results.  

Shutterstock: 

==========

Ethnicity = 7.5 million results  -- many of which are textile prints, not people.

White Racist = 5.9K results.

Getty Images:

=========== 

Ethnicity = 8.8 million results.

White Racist = 189 results.

As the pool of Adobe Stock Contributors grows to include more photographers from other regions of the world, I think content will evolve to include more ethnic, cultural and religious diversity.  But it may take some time because   equipment isn't cheap and good photographic skills are not learned overnight.

[RALPH_L]

Keywords and titles associated with the image determine what is shown.

[IlDella977]

Do we actually need Politically "Correct" answers?
I mean....if you need inclusive answers just add it to the prompt. 
You're opinions are just limiting the program and not giving chances for people to be creative.
So basically th people that actually need to work with it, wastes time and money just for you to not feel "offended"?
There is not only you in the platform, there is also serious people who would like to have actually the desired outcomes form AI.

[Nancy OShea]

---

@IlDella977 wrote:

There is not only you in the platform, there is also serious people who would like to have actually the desired outcomes form AI.

---

==========

To be honest, I'm not sure what any of this has to do Adobe Stock Contributors. Stock is global marketplace for buying artwork by talented artists from around the globe.  It's not an AI generator. 

I think you landed in the wrong space.