How hard can it be?

[oleschwander]

Adobe Stock is overflowing with totally fake images of famous places in the world. The simplest thing in the world would be to reject all images that have proper nauns. When the moderators are so sharp with everything else, why on earth can't they catch a name for a place and reject it at once? They don't even need to know the place.

This is certainly not the new Munch Museum in Oslo: 1320480402

This is the new Munch Museum: 1307296772

This is not Azerbaijan: 1328330668 (same 'artist' as Munch)

This is certainly not the Opera in Oslo: 1212819239

This is not Axel Towers in Copenhagen: 1190076078

This is the Axel Towers: 637903951

This is certainly not Guggenheim Museum Bilbao: 1298086187

And so on, and so on ...

[Jill_C]

I agree with you that Adobe should not allow AI Contributors to include titles and keywords of "real" places. Yesterday, I was looking for images of the Juneau, Alaska capitol building and came across an AI image that showed a beautiful building with a dome - the real building does not have a dome....  Hopefully, Buyers are doing their own research to ensure that they don't use these fake images in any way that would further mislead their customers. 

[daniellei4510]

And this is part of the reason large companies do not let their media departments use AI. Imagine how embarrassing it would be to use one of these examples in a media campaign and be called out for using fake images and passing them off as real.

[Jill_C]

And there really is NO reason to choose to use an AI image to represent a "real place" - "real photographs" of very high quality are readily available. Pictures of U.S. State Capitols have been steady sellers in my Portfolio, because too many of the existing images are of snapshot quality and not very professional. 

[Nancy OShea]

You're preaching to the choir here.

You should be submitting this information directly to Stock Contributor Support.  If they know about it, they can take appropriate action.

[Abambo]

It could even be that these images are violating the contributor agreement, well, or not… Adobe is so confusing in this.

[oleschwander]

They indeed are violating the agreement. And all common sense ..!

[Abambo]

They indeed are violating the agreement. And all common sense ..!

By @oleschwander

It's Adobe's discretion to rule on that. For some fake town images, at least, they decided that the asset stays in the database, even that the generated thing is not near to the real thing. But in the cases you mentioned here, there may even be IP issues. 

1. the creator of the pictured building controls the copyright on it.
2. the architect/creator/owner may even have an interest of going after fakes in a stock database. 
3. either the contributor claims that the assets are fictious, then they cannot claim the building's names, or they have a property realease from the copyright holder, which I really doubt about.

If you go over to the stock forum, and denounce the assets, may be someone will check those and take them down. You are right, however, if you ask, how they could get acceptance in the first place. But that is a general issue with Adobe stock, since they decided to accept generative AI assets. 

Generative AI assets from stock are probably not used a lot in serious advertizing, even that I've seen some very bad assets in real world PowerPoints (unlicensed even... 😉 ).