A question regarding non-compliance rejection using 3D and AI.

[oregano]

Good day.

I have 1 image rejected today for non compliance.

Possible reasons:

- Non compliant use of another artist’s name.

- Undeclared Generative AI Content.

- Content not compliant with overall guidelines:

I created and rendered an image using blender 3D. I usually just set the size to 6k or 8k, make some adjustments and then submit it for review. This would normally take 8-18 hrs or more for 1 image with the current PC I'm using depending on the complexity.  So I tried cutting the image render size in half to save some time and just upscale the rendered image (resize using  AI). Below is the test image I submitted for review and it was rejected for the above possible reasons:

My question is, for my next submission if I plan to resize another image, should I title and tag it as 3D rendered or just go straight with AI Generated Content with no mention of "3D rendered" to avoid rejection? Maybe the reason is something else under the third one, but it's not a Quality issue.

• Image Submitted For Review

• Image Created in Blender
• File Edited with Blending Options and Vibrance

• Rendered from Blender Reduced Size

• Upscaled Image using AI Reduced Size

[Abambo]

Noncompliance is not a quality related refusal. The moderator may have misunderstood the asset as a generative AI asset. Or it was placed in the reminder tab and you resubmitted without addressing the issue.

[oregano]

That's what I thought too, maybe the moderator sees it as an AI asset, as I submit pure AI assets too. It was in "review" tab then went to "not accepted". This is the first image I submitted that is not generated by AI but is resized by AI, to check if it gets accepted and hopefully save a lot of time rendering images. In any case AI is involved, so I'm now a bit hesitant to submit upscaled images that are created in blender without a checkmark on Created using AI...

[Abambo]

It was in "review" tab then went to "not accepted".

By @oregano

Did you resubmit?

[oregano]

No.

[Abambo · Accepted solution]

You could try to resubmit with changes in the title and keywords. For any 3D render, I would add 3D render as an info in the title and the keywords. Do not mention Blender. Don't mention resizing, neither, and resizing is not part of the generative AI.

But yes, if you can afford, do a 3D render at size because the resulting quality will be better. Resizing is not a non-conforming image refusal. It's a quality issue refusal if there are quality issues.

[oregano]

I always have 3D Render in the title for rendered images, I can't check the tags now but I'm positive 3D render is included too. No mention of Blender and resizing.

I re-rendered it at size, took almost 26 hours for 1 image 😞 Will try to resubmit now. If it goes through, upscaling is the problem, if not, I guess it's the image itself (for looking like AI generated).

[Abambo]

If it goes through, upscaling is the problem

By @oregano

You can't definitively tell. You will get a different moderator, so they can take a different decision. If it was the upscaling, it should get refused on quality. You can't say whether an asset has been upscaled or not if you do not see artefacts typical to upscaling.

[oregano]

I was thinking maybe they have a tool to check if an image is processed by AI.
As you can see above, the rendered and upscaled image looks very much the same, unless you nitpick and compare it pixel by pixel, there are few areas that are brighter and sharper on the upscaled one, but this is hardly noticeable zoomed at 100%. It's also clear in the title and tags that it's a 3D Render, the moderator assigned this image must have a good reason to still consider it as an AI asset.

At size renders are definitely better. Hopefully the new one I submitted yesterday will get accepted.

[Abambo]

I was thinking maybe they have a tool to check if an image is processed by AI.

By @oregano

Maybe they have, definitely they have, as some assets get marked as generative AI and they are not.

It's also clear in the title and tags that it's a 3D Render, the moderator assigned this image must have a good reason to still consider it as an AI asset.

By @oregano

I think you have a higher esteem for the moderators' talent than I have. I think they just refused the asset for the wrong reason, either because you were the 536th non-AI-marked asset in a row, or because the moderator did not check your title and hit the refusal button. If the upscaling would introduce errors, it would be the wrong refusal reason. That's also possible.

I fear that more and more 3D assets will get refused as unmarked generative AI. But as the refusal reason is also used for different defects, we cannot say for sure.

[oregano]

Maybe they have, definitely they have, as some assets get marked as generative AI and they are not.

By @Abambo

😁

It got accepted. I think it's a quality issue, the dodge and vibrance effect must be too much. I changed it to screen, which lightly lightens the overall image.

The third reason must be a quality issue:
x Non compliant use of another artist’s name.
x Undeclared Generative AI Content.
- Content not compliant with overall guidelines

I just got another refusal for the same reasons, this time AI Generated Vector, there's no AI tick box for vectors so I have Generative AI written in the title and tags.

It's none of the two reasons, whatever this third one represents, it must have something to do with quality.

I will try to submit another 3D render upscaled image next time, just to check if they'll accept it.

Thank you for the suggestions and advice.

[Abambo]

I just got another refusal for the same reasons, this time AI Generated Vector, there's no AI tick box for vectors so I have Generative AI written in the title and tags.

By @oregano

Don't submit those, as Adobe (not yet) allows them in the database. Contributors are getting blocked for submitting generative AI art. Check here too: https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-contributors-discussions/update-to-metadata-requirements-for-ge...

Be sure to read all of the thread.

[oregano]

Thank you for the link, just finished reading the entire thread.

[Abambo]

The third reason must be a quality issue:
- Content not compliant with overall guidelines

By @oregano

No. Quality is called out in its own refusal text. You will get the non conforming issue for different reasons, but not quality:

• adding a signature to the picture
• framing the picture
• not submitting a release when asked for one
• …

However, as moderators are acting fast to moderate as much assets as they can, the method to communicate a refusal is basic, predifined and not communicative. And Adobe even simplified it more. My early refusals were for exposure, focus, artefacts … That's now all one refusal "Quality issues". If you look at it, normally that is true, as most images are all of that: out of focus, expose noise and have exposure issues. 

[oregano]

I can understand that they are trying to simplify things, with all the submissions in queue right now, I even thought I would have to wait another month for the resubmitted image to be reviewed.