Heineken Original Beer Bottles in a Crate Close-up

[WEBCLIPMAKER]

Can someone explain to me why this image was flagged with the notice 'This content has been removed because it violates Adobe Stock's content submission guidelines. Upon internal review, we found this content to be inconsistent with the standards for stock contributors.'

I mean, I've submitted dozens of photos of beer in crates before, and they were always accepted.

And what's different in this specific case that it even received this kind of rejection? I mean, as I mentioned, all the other images of beer in crates, taken in the same pattern, were submitted in the same upload series and were accepted. It's just this particular image that was 'removed'.

Here are even a few accepted images from the same upload series:

https://stock.adobe.com/stock-photo/id/694177341

https://stock.adobe.com/stock-photo/id/694177340

https://stock.adobe.com/stock-photo/id/694177314

https://stock.adobe.com/stock-photo/id/694177306

This is the first time I've received such a rejection.

I've never experienced this before and I'm really unsure why. Any ideas here?

[Abambo]

I suppose the submission has been accepted and was for editorial use only?

[WEBCLIPMAKER]

I only upload such images as editorial content. Unfortunately, with Adobe, I can't verify retrospectively whether I forgot to label these as editorial.

At least I've double-checked, and I couldn't find any information regarding whether the photo was labeled as editorial or commercial.

However, in the past, when such issues occurred, I was given a different explanation for rejection, not as radical as 'Removal after review: Inconsistent with guidelines.'

Now, I'm even hesitant to resubmit this image for review because I genuinely don't know what went wrong. Perhaps there was a system error or maybe Heineken is now on some sort of blacklist 🙂

[Abambo]

Perhaps there was a system error or maybe Heineken is now on some sort of blacklist 

By @WEBCLIPMAKER

It is for sure on my personal "black" list. I prefer Battin. 😉

So it was an accepted picture and got removed from your portfolio?

[WEBCLIPMAKER]

Ah, Battin from Luxembourg? I would have guessed something more German when it comes to beer 🙂

Regarding the question about the image: No, this was one of the images from the series that was submitted for review for the first time

[Abambo]

Why German? Belgium is the country of beers! 😂 Mort Subite is probably one of the best names for a beer.  🤔🧟‍:female_sign: 

[WEBCLIPMAKER]

Belgium is the country of beers! 🙂 Learned something again 😉

Greetings from Germany 😉

[Abambo]

Germany is the country of the Reinheitsgebot. That did not allow for creative beer flavors.

[WEBCLIPMAKER]

Germany is the country of the Reinheitsgebot. That did not allow for creative beer flavors.

By @Abambo

That was once... a long time ago 😉

I think I read somewhere that we're currently selling more flavored alcopops (Mostly beer with flavor) than ever before. Thanks to young buyers 🙂

[Abambo]

Ah, Battin from Luxembourg? I would have guessed something more German when it 

Regarding the question about the image: No, this was one of the images from the series that was submitted for review for the first time

By @WEBCLIPMAKER

Check for errors like artefacts and resubmit if you do find none. Under the illustrative editorial flag, there is no reason not to accept. 

[WEBCLIPMAKER]

Check for errors like artefacts and resubmit if you do find none. Under the illustrative editorial flag, there is no reason not to accept. 

By @Abambo

Thank you, maybe I'll do that later. Sometimes it's best to wait a few weeks 😉

[George_F]

Unless this image was submitted as an Illustrative Editorial image, it likely was an Intellectual Property violation and it was accepted in error.  Using the trademark of another company is explicitly against the rules unless a release from the company was provided.  I'll provide a link where it mentions this.

https://helpx.adobe.com/lv/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html

[George_F]

Correction:  I just realized all the other assets you included links for are editorial use only, so I think it's safe to assume this is also.

I wonder if a customer who purchased this asked for a refund?  Has it sold recently?  I see shallow DoF images rejected often, and there is very little in sharp focus in this image.  I think the exposure looks ok, but it's hard to check for noise and artifacts with a thumbnail.  Composition wise I wouldn't have included the side of the shopping basket, I think that detracts from the image.

That's everything I see.  I hope some of that helps.  Cheers!

[WEBCLIPMAKER]

Thanks!

ps.: Regarding the image composition: It's a smartphone photo, so it is what it is. I've sold many smartphone images over the past two years without any returns, so I'm not concerned about that aspect 🙂

[Nancy OShea]

It's a smartphone photo, so it is what it is. 

By @WEBCLIPMAKER

=======

Customer expectations are higher now than they were a few years ago.  As the quality bar keeps rising, asset removal is sometimes necessary. I would NOT resubmit it.  

[WEBCLIPMAKER]

From my perspective, uploading pictures is a business, and hey, a business needs to make some moolah 🙂

I've been involved in this stock photo and video field since 2006, and over time, I've learned a little bit the intricate economics of what it takes for an image to be financially viable today.

If you've been in the industry, you'd know that the days of stock photography paying well for individual images are long gone. Some agencies (not Adobe Stock) sell hundreds of images but compensate authors at a rate of around 0.01 cents per picture.

It's intriguing to observe clients emphasizing top-notch quality but opting for Unlimited Download subscriptions at notably lower prices.

Let me be candid: currently, my editorial 'less sophisticated smartphone pictures' outsell my 'high-end commercial archive shots.' And in my view, this happens because, at times, I capture editorial subjects with my smartphone that are unfortunately hard to achieve on the go with a regular professional camera. I believe what's more crucial is the subject in the image rather than the technology used to capture it.

As I view Stock as a business rather than a hobby, I'll continue creating these cost-effective images for as long as possible. Whether customers choose to purchase them or not is entirely up to them.

Mind you, it's just my personal take on things, and hey, I could be totally off the mark!

Thank you for the engaging discussion!

[Abambo · Accepted solution]

Your collection is pretty nice, with a lot of similar pictures. that gives the potential buyer some choice, as soon as they stumble on your portfolio. I think that's the way to go.

[Abambo]

BTW: when getting a refusal, you should onliy reproduce the header, even in your local language setting. The text is uninteresting stock text (Geschwafels), and does not make the errors clearer. Did you translate that from German?

[WEBCLIPMAKER]

Did you mean the reason for rejection? Yes, because I have my settings for Germany, I naturally see everything in German. Just changed 'the country' and received the following rejection reason in English: 'Audit removal: Incompatible with Terms.

Or did you mean something else?

[Abambo]

No, that's it. And to be honest, I don't know what to make out of this error. But it's probable, that the “editorial use only” flag has not been ticked and that the initial moderator should have refused the asset on IP grounds. I can't see, what other terms you should have violated.

It may be interesting to check the appeals options. This for sure is a refusal, after an initial acceptance. It's the first time I've seen such a screen. That's why I could not associate the text to any known refusal reason. 

(Very often users try to translate the stock text, which gives a suboptimal text, that makes it difficult to match the header! Thanks for showing us this.)

[WEBCLIPMAKER]

Exactly this also prompted me to openly discuss such a completely new reason for rejection here in the forum.

Until now, I've never seen or received anything like this.

I'm glad it might be interesting for others as well.

If someone else gets something similar, they could also share it here to see whether this is a completely new rejection or simply a "system error".

Thanks again to all the participants in the discussion and the numerous viewers! 🙂

[Nancy OShea · Accepted solution]

"This content has been removed..."

=============

Asset removal from Stock isn't random.  No doubt, someone alerted Stock to the problem asset, which triggered an internal audit.  For example:

a) a customer complaint,

b) refund request,

c) DMCA infringement notice (take down request).

See Counter Notices and Objections at the link below.

https://www.adobe.com/legal/dmca.html

[WEBCLIPMAKER]

Thanks for the info.

Given that I hadn't uploaded something from this brand before, I don't think a refund or complaint would be feasible.

Unless, similar cases have happened with other providers and my case was simply decided based on a precedent.
Perhaps the brand is actually on some list, and hence, it was 'manually removed.'

As I mentioned, it would indeed be interesting to figure out why this happened in this particular case, but not now.
Christmas is around the corner, and it's better to focus on better things than investing a lot of time researching why a photo got rejected 😉

Cheers! 🙂

[Nancy OShea]

I agree.  I haven't decorated the tree yet.

Have a Merry Christmas!

❄   ☃   ❄

[WEBCLIPMAKER]

Well, tomorrow (I mean, today, Friday 🙂 ), I still need to get and decorate the tree. My son is eagerly waiting for it. So, let's disconnect from work for a bit and enjoy the time 🙂

Have a Merry Christmas and Frohe Weihnachten 🙂