Audit which generated a deletion of an asset posted a year ago.

[John Gilham Photography]

Whilst I have no problem with Adobe not wanting my image for whatever reason I am offended by being told I have ‘Violated their policy’ I submit images and often get them refused for whatever reason that I respect Adobe's decision. This image was posted a year ago and had been accepted by Adobe at that time. . There are also hundreds of others on the Adobe stock image site of exactly the same scene.  This has somewhat annoyed me. I also regularly get images refused for quality issues which I am happy to accept but in reality there are no quality issues as they are happily taken by several other stock sites. Sometimes I resubmit the same file and it gets accepted. Seems a strange vetting process. 

[Moderator moved the thread to the correct forum]

[Jill_C]

Indeed, some inexplicable rejections and deletions are happening right now. Some Contributors have been reporting that the deletions were actually duplicates. Have you checked your portfolio to determine whether the deleted asset was a duplicate? Unless you have a rock solid process for avoiding duplicates, it can happen...

[daniellei4510]

I'm hoping that once this purge of duplicates (real or in error) is over, things will get back to normal with regard to the "too similar" rejections. Maybe they've slowed acceptances down until whatever is crawling for duplicates has completed its task. They did email people quite some time back that they were going to start removing duplicates. Maybe it took Adobe programmers this long to finally get the thing working as it should.

[John Gilham Photography]

I don't have a problem with duplicates other than will they remove the oldest first as anyone that has updated a file would want the oldest removed first. This is not that problem it's a file that is not duplicated but is presumable because it was taken in a private park with no property, but there are hundreds of the same scene by other artist that are still on the site. 

[John Gilham Photography]

Duplicates I have no problem with as long as it's oldest first but this was said to be a 'violation of policy. 

[colinp67975424]

I have exactly the same issue with a frame accepted a year ago now deemed a violation of terms. I've asked for a review (and even offered to submit the raw image). Seems to me that impugning the integrity of long-time contributors is a poor business model ...

[Jill_C]

No one is "impugning your integrity", though the wording of that screen could definitely be worded better. The deletion could have occurred because it's a duplicate, or too many similars, or titles/keywords that violate current guidelines, or it no longer passes the quality hurdles. Unfortunately, not enough info is provided for you to know which of those reasons applies.

[colinp67975424]

There are rejecting screens that cite similar images or quality issues. This isn't that

[Craig_Z]

With this obviously being an automated process, they know why it was rejected.  Not including this basic info is just an insult to the contributor and does nothing to help the contributor from repeating the "mistake" in the future.

[Craig_Z]

How did you ask for a review?  While the rejection notice references reviews I could find nothing about how/where to do that.

[daniellei4510]

Adobe is not likely to respond to requests for reviews.

[colinp67975424]

Adobe is that cavalier about contributors?

[daniellei4510]

You can certainly try. You will most likely get a generic response.

[Jill_C]

No, they are simply not staffed to reply to every request for a reconsideration of rejected assets. 

[colinp67975424]

With respect, that's no excuse under these circumstances ...

[Jill_C]

I'm not making excuses for Adobe - just making an observaton based on years of experience in being a Contributor and active participant in the forums.

[colinp67975424]

Understood. I'm suggesting it's no excuse for Adobe under the circumstances

[Ricky336]

I really don't think Adobe has to give explanations or detailed reasons for the deletions; they are a business!

In my case, I would just accept it and move on.

[Craig_Z]

I have just had several rejections of year old images too, with really no helpful explanation.  If they are suspected duplicates I wish they would just say so.  I have 3500 images with Adobe, so it certainly possible I messed that up.  If it's for other reasons, I really want to know why and stop wasting my time submitting images that are going to get rejected.  They mention an "appeals process" in the rejection but I could fine nothing about how one would go about it.    This content has been removed for violating Adobe Stock’s content submission guidelines. We have determined that this content is incompatible with the Stock Contributor Terms on the basis of an internal audit. For more information on this policy, why this content was found to be incompatible with the Terms, and your appeals options, please see the content guidelines

[Abambo]

Most of the assets that I have seen, and that were rejected by this audit, had quality issues. They should not have been accepted first. That is the "violation".

Having assets accepted by other stock sites does not mean that Adobe needs to accept them here. Most of the assets we have seen that got a quality refusal, have been refused correctly.

Sometimes I resubmit the same file and it gets accepted. Seems a strange vetting process. 

By @John Gilham Photography

That's dangerous if you do that too often. There are different moderators, and some moderators are better at their task than others. That's why now they have decided to do this audit, may be because they got too many complaints from the buyers.

[John Gilham Photography]

It wasn't rejected for that reason so can only assume it was because it was in a private gardens but then so are so many others. I do know what a good quality image is and I am not AI 

[Abambo]

It wasn't rejected for that reason so can only assume it was because it was in a private gardens but then so are so many others. I do know what a good quality image is and I am not AI 

By @John Gilham Photography

That does not change my assertion. But definitely, you could also get a refusal for showing a picture that would need a property release. Quality has per se nothing to do with generative AI, even that with generative AI, there is an additional layer of things that can go wrong.

[John Gilham Photography]

I understand reasons for property release but then sometimes I get an image refused for that reason and then find another of the same property has sold. It all makes a mockery of the vetting process. As I originally said I don't have a problem with Adobe rejecting any of my images for any reason but to do it a year later just seems odd when it's not a duplicate. 

[Nancy OShea]

I wouldn't take it personally.  If anything, this is a boilerplate explanation for the removal of assets that Stock no longer wants to keep in inventory.  You are not the only Contributor affected. This appears to be part of a massive 'Spring Cleaning' purge.

They might be looking at a variety of factors— activity/sales, keywords, titles, descriptions as well as quality of the actual assets.  It's anyone's guess what Stock is thinking.  They don't communicate publicly about their procedures.

[RALPH_L]

Post the image so that we can review it.