Deep Concerns About Biased AI Image Review Process

Actually, the playing field for Adobe's long-standing non-AI Contributors has been far from fair since Adobe started accepting AI assets at the end of 2022. While AI Contributors were getting thousands of assets reviewed almost overnight, photographers, who have always submitted small batches of work, waited weeks or months to be reviewed. 85-90% of the assets added to the database every week are AI assets, and yet I have some real photographs that have waited for more than 10 months to be reviewed. So don't even start playing the "it's not fair" card here! 

The increased rejection rate that has been experienced is across the board - photographs, videos, vectors - and AI illustrations - all are being rejected arbitrarily at much higher rates in the past. 

What’s even more troubling is that I haven’t changed anything in my workflow. The quality, style, and preparation of my images remain exactly the same. So what changed?

 

I’m raising this issue because I believe it’s time someone from Adobe’s administration takes a serious look into whether this sudden spike in rejections is a result of an official Adobe policy—or if it’s something happening on a local level, specifically in the Balkan region.

By @Svemir AI

There is no such thing as localized reviews. As a global company, moderators are hired globally. Most will be located in low wage countries. If you get more refusals, it may well be that the moderators got better trained. Indeed, a lot generative AI assets should have been refused, if the same criteria as for photography would have been applied. 

But no, nobody will investigate this. Why should they?

Let’s be honest—AI-generated content may not be traditional photography, but if Adobe has opened the door to it, then the playing field should be fair. We invest time, effort, and creativity into crafting these images. Seeing them dismissed in bulk due to unclear or unfair internal practices is demoralizing and deeply disrespectful.

By @Svemir AI

Sorry, but photographers invest more time and effort and creativity into this. How do I know? They can't bulk submit! Adobe did not say that the quality requirement for generative AI assets should be lower than that of photography. But indeed, it is, because many contributors don't correct the rendering issues. 

My latest submission of 19 images resulted in only 9 approvals—again, with no change in quality from my side.

By @Svemir AI

I suppose then that you should increase the quality.

What were the rejection reasons?

Post a couple of full-sized images here for feedback.

• Stock receives thousands of submissions per week, more than half is AI generated.
• Adobe has various Reviewers in different locations & time zones.
• Contributors have no say in how assets are reviewed.
• There is no appeals process for rejections.  
• Adobe have neither the time nor manpower to address every contributor complaint about rejected assets. So they don't.

There's a lot of junk AI content that's been accepted into inventory.  I think Stock is attempting to protect its brand & shore up the acceptance standards.  Initially, there have been some bumps in the road, and invariably, this won't set well with all Contributors. But there's nothing any of us can do about it.  

You're welcome to submit content to other services if you wish.