How long to review/approve

[T Kolbeck]

I’m new to Adobe Stock. I uploaded a photo a week ago and it’s still waiting for review. How long does it normally take?

[v.poth]

Hi,

welcome to Adobe Stock and here in the forum!

Normally the check takes 1-5 days, but with high upload numbers, and this is currently the case, it can sometimes take longer. Prerequisite is that your account is activated (identity and e-mail address), otherwise there will be no review.

greets,

v.poth

[marog-pixcells · Accepted solution]

Stock Contributor User Guide > Review process > The review:

"...Files are reviewed in the order they are received. Wait time varies but you usually get a response within one week.  ..."

best regards

Mario

[augustasč73971899]

hallo , my photos not rewiew 23 day ;(

File ID: 203976544

[pammicha]

Yes, here it has been 13 days and still no review... Why isn't Adobe transparent on their approval time and state that its beween 1-5 days where in reality its much more?

[Abambo]

...because it's typically one week or less. But it may be more...sometimes. I suppose that the time increases when a moderator passes an image to a superior, when he or she has doubts on the image. So 13 days may be OK, if it happens not to often. 

If after 3 weeks the moderation is not completed, I would contact Adobe: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/Need-Help-Contact-Us.html

[johnwick1845]

Hi, 16 days and i'am still waiting. Hope they got approuved soon 🙂

[Abambo]

The waiting times have changed drastically since 2020 if you submit generative AI. The waiting time is currently between one month and two months. If yours get moderated at an earlier time, you are lucky.

[mars lewis]

I have had that long a wait to get generative AI approved, but I am currently experiencing my longest wait yet.

AI is most likely overwhelming the staff because so much more can be produced with Generative AI at a faster rate.

If Adobe wants to stay efficient in their approval proccess they are definitely going to have drastically increase staffing

[Jill_C]

Adobe will only increase their staffing if the Generative AI assets they're seeing are of high quality and saleable AND if they are experiencing significantly increased sales as a result of having allowed such assets into the database. We've seen a lot of really bad AI images here in the forum, and I get the impression that the reject rate is quite high. Moderstion is a huge expense to Adobe, and hiring a bunch of people and training them to hit the reject button is not a good ROI. In the Stock forum Buyers are complaining about the glut of poor quality, improperly labeled AI stuff that they do NOT want to license. I suppose allowing the queue to grow ever longer is a way to throttle the influx of bad images.

[mars lewis]

I agree. Most of the submitted AI isn't being worked into a refined state, properly upscaled and post worked. I have taken the time to put in this work and have experienced an exceptionally low rejection rate of less than 1%. 

I am concerned with how cluttered the entire Adobe Stock asset collection has become with really poorly executed AI imagery. Too many low quality novelty images with very little actual commercial utility. These have really slowed down the approval rate.

I am afraid however that if Adobe begins clamping down on AI submissions it might negatively impact everyone who enjoys creating generative AI assets. 

[Nancy OShea]

I suppose allowing the queue to grow ever longer is a way to throttle the influx of bad images.

By @Jill_C

==========

And terminate bad conributor accounts that flood the wait queue with unsellable garbage.  I think we're seeing both.

[Abambo]

If Adobe wants to stay efficient in their approval proccess they are definitely going to have drastically increase staffing

By @mars lewis

Look it from the Adobe side. If they were happy by approving (I say just a number) 10k assets a day, and they still approve 10k assets a day, they are still happy. If people submitting classical illustrations are in the same queue then people submitting generative AI art, then Adobe will have a problem, as that kind of asset will not get approved at the same rate as before. But if the delay only concerns AI art, and the sales of AI art do not increase significantly, Adobe will not add more resources there. In that case, they simply should limit your review queue to something reasonable, like 50 items in review.

[Phillip273825145ug4]

Join the club, not only are they taking longer to be inspected, but fewer are passing the QC. If I am lucky one in ten is being accepted even though all are taken with the same camera and lenz.

[Abambo]

If I am lucky one in ten is being accepted even though all are taken with the same camera and lenz.

By @Phillip273825145ug4

The same camera and lens can produce good and bad quality. This is not a criterion. I do not experience a higher rejection rate, but I submit very slowly and take great care to select the best of my pictures only. I'm putting in more effort than it is worth (financially)  but for me, it's just using dead time to sharpen my skills. Not to become rich.

[Phillip273825145ug4]

Compared to the majority I have only been submitting for a very short time, making mistakes and learning along the way. As they say, experience is a good teacher.

For myself as well it is about sharpening my skills, just when I think I have got it, I learn I haven't.  I am trying out new things and new ideas, for example, I never shot still life before now I am experimenting with it. Some images work and others don't.

Like you I am currently putting in more time than it is worth financially, however, my goal of submitting to stock was never financial in the first place.  I however have scored a photography job for an up-and-coming event, because their usual photographer is ill. In many ways I am excited, but dreading the long hours and the heat.

[Nancy OShea]

Photography and Generative AI are apples & orangutans. Way different things.