Alternative for Adobe stock?

[serendipitous_dream0401]

I'm deeply concerned about the rejection of similar images. I spend my entire semester break to AI generate high-quality 1800+ images to update my portfolio. But now I'm facing the so-called "similar image already uploaded" rejection. I'm looking for a good alternative to get a reasonable income for my time. Please share your knowledge. 

[Moderator cured the topics. Please do select only relevant topics.]

[RALPH_L]

Good luck. I find that Adobe Stock has the most to offer.

[serendipitous_dream0401]

Are these platforms really bad for selling Ai images 1. Vecteezy 2. Dreamstime. 3. 123RF?

[Abambo]

Are these platforms really bad for selling Ai images 1. Vecteezy 2. Dreamstime. 3. 123RF?

By @serendipitous_dream0401

Try them out and let us know.

[Suomii · Accepted solution]

Hello dear, I answer to you what I would love to answer to thousand people who are experiencing the same "similar images" rejections. These rejections have a REASON according to the Adobe's perspective. They don't want to flood their data systems with duplicates which have a great cost for the company (in terms of data storage and customer experience). So INSTEAD of looking for an alternative, why don't you PERFORM A RESEARCH before generating AI or even better, why don't you start snapping original photos according to the briefings they give? We all are good to ask AI to work for us, but this is NOT what Adobe is looking for right now!

[thibaultr20691496 · Accepted solution]

This is totally false, I have rejected AI images that return only 17 pages of results and others accepted with more than 100 pages of results, and for non-AI images they are almost all validated for me, no matter if it is a common topic or not

[daniellei4510 · Accepted solution]

Original photos are being rejected as well for being too "similar," even though they are arguably unique. No one has an issue with too many duplicates. But the assets being rejected are not. While some that are being accepted certainly are. There is no logic being implemented.

[thibaultr20691496]

yes, no logic from "Adobe's perspective" in there, just chance or not

[Suomii]

Of course there is a logic behind their behaviour and the logic is COMMERCIAL. "Similar images" means they have already something that covers well that topic. Maybe you are missing an important point: there is AI integrated with Adobe Stock that customers can use to GENERATE VARIANTS of the same image. So why should they accept a variant of one "concept" image and pay you while it can be generated inside AS? 

[serendipitous_dream0401]

So what is your suggestion for what contributors should generate and upload? Do you suggest uploading uncommon files in the AS database?

[daniellei4510]

I've had images of soap suds accepted. Soap suds. I said on them for months because I thought they couldn't possibly be accepted. There are over 330, 392 images of soap suds. I've had hamburgers recently accepted. There are 2 million hamburger pics availalbe. Making suggestions as to what might get accepted is pointless.

[thibaultr20691496]

Then explain why images that return very few pages are rejected? Moreover, even a highly covered topic, like Halloween or Christmas, needs new, updated images, otherwise Adobe would stagnate with always the same images available. And the AI ​​variation tool returns poor quality images. So your argument doesn't hold.

[daniellei4510]

" "Similar images" means they have already something that covers well that topic."

This is simply not true. Photographers have photographed unique places not previously represented and had them rejected for being similar. While the majority of my portrait work has been rejected for being too similar, they still accept others that are are no different to the ones rejected. Yes, Adobe lets customers generate variants (I have a feeling it is seldom used), but they PAY for that variant if they decide they like it.

[serendipitous_dream0401]

"The Blind Men and the Elephant." It's all Greek to me.

[Jill_C]

You said "So why should they accept a variant of one "concept" image and pay you while it can be generated inside AS? " Many Buyers don't want to spend the time fooling around in Firefly trying to generate a variation of an existing image which requires them to pay for AI generation credits and can be very hit and miss; they just want to find what they need, license it and be done with it. Have you tried generating an image yourself on the Adobe Stock page?

[Suomii]

Hey guys, first of all we all are on the same boat, trying to find a logic in what is going on. The suggestion to perform a RESEARCH before start producing your content to find NEW NICHES is pure COMMON SENSE, of course you want to give more chances to your work. Said this, I don't think Adobe wants to destroy his contributors, on the contrary, it is simply cleaning his data-base according to his CRITERIA. Just to be clear with you guys, this is happening in many other platforms where they pay you for your content (for example Medium which pays for writing content). And do you know why? Because there are thousands of "creators" who have overflooded these platforms with FAKE CONTENT which simply is not selling anymore. So, cool down, re-focus and perform your searches to untapped niches to have more chances. As simple as that. 

[Jill_C]

No it's not as simple as that. Your comparison to Medium is nonsensical. If Adobe wanted to discourage new submissions, they wouldn't just start rejecting them during the review process; they would simply lower the submission limit dramatically. Reviewing is costly. Rather than review then reject, they could just reduce the flow of new assets needing to be reviewed. 

[Suomii]

My comparison is nonsensical, why? All these companies are facing the bad effects of their decisions to accept AI contents which has drammatically brought to their platforms any sort of scammers. I am reading on Discord there are people who upload 1000 pictures a day, generated with AI. I understand your frustration but as an Illustrator and Painter who creates everything by hand, I see this "cleaning" as a good sign. By the way, all the assets I submitted have been accepted. I am uploading less and only extremely quality content. I am so cool about this because I like diversifying my income, so I don't depend on Adobe, evenif Adobe has paied my work more than anybody else. A competitor agency accepted the same assets as Adobe, and I started selling after 4 days with a new account. So I prefer seeing the positive in every situation and adjust my strategy, without spending time complaining or asking Adobe to explaining WHY they are rejecting the assets. They don't owe me any explanation.

[Jill_C]

Adobe is NOT cleaning the database of AI assets; in fact, except for one day earlier this week when they removed a lot of duplicates, they continue to add, on average, a MILLION new AI assets per day. AI assets now constitute ~44% of the entire database. If Adobe has faced "bad effects", as you say, from their decision to accept AI, why haven't they done anything to slow down the influx of new assets?

[Suomii]

Jill, you know very well that they are accepting a lot of AI assets AND in the same time, deleting a lot of stuff too, together with many accounts blocked and suspended. So surely a cleaning is happening, exactly as Medium did. The fact is this: they have DATAS on customers' researches that we don't have. Datas is Power. So they accept according to what they like, want or think could sell to their customers. We don't have access to those datas, we could only GUESS about what is going on. That's why I suggested to our friend to perform a research on untapped niches. If I see a certain topic has already 300.000 assets, I don't even bother myself to start thinking about a design. If I see that a niche has only 3000 assets, I go for it. That's the only thing in my power and that is the only reasonable advice I could give to another person.

[coffeeman_L]

...............If I see a certain topic has already 300.000 assets, I don't even bother myself to start thinking about a design. If I see that a niche has only 3000 assets, I go for it...............

By @Suomii

My image of a building facade titled "A low-angled depiction of a pink building facade in pastel tones" below was also rejected due to similarity.

When I search for "building, low-angle, pink," (from Canada), I see 209 results on Adobe Stock.

When I search for "building, low-angle, pink, pastel," I see 19 results.

As community expert Jill_C noted yesterday, when I type the above search terms in quotes, I get no results.

Removing the commas or dashes from the search term does not make any significant difference to the results.

It is impossible for me to understand anything.

[Abambo]

You do not know how their tool works. Maybe they are searching the database visually for pictures that simply have windows like in yours. 

As such, with this asset, if it had not been refused on similarity grounds, it should have been refused for quality issues. 

[Abambo]

(...) AND in the same time, deleting a lot of stuff too, (...)

By @Suomii

They just now deleted 100% duplicates, even payingf attention that the most successful duplicate does not get deleted. 

together with many accounts blocked and suspended.

By @Suomii

There are not that many accounts blocked or suspended. It's like bad news. You read more of that as you would read from no-suspended accounts. Or imageine this: "I'm writing you to enquire why my account has not yet been suspended...".

[elizabeth_8944]

Hi all,

   I've been reading this thread and I saw you mention the number of assets. I've been having quite a few this past month that has been denied due to 'similar' images in there database, I'm okay with that. My question is how do you tell how many assets there are in a specific category? I want to stay away from the 'similar' denial but not sure how to check the numbers on what's already there. Thank you

[daniellei4510]

You go to stock.adobe.com and search for concepts you are interested in submitting. Do you get 20 hits? 3,000,000? But be aware that unique assets are arguably being rejected as being similar, while it could be argued that similar assets are being accepted. We really can't be of much help on this issue other than doing what I suggested above..