OK I am mystified: This image was rejected as an intellectual property violation. It was shot on public land, I inquired of our guide and he indicated no release was needed, and I only showed the front of the ATV to avoid logos/branding etc. Was it a key word perhaps? If so what was it. And a suggestion: Where there are easily fixed issues like an unacceptable key word, a process to amend the image or keywords rather than outright rejection (and inability to reload thereafter) seems like a good idea.
Thanks - Bob
The rejections seem to be completely random at times, as if the same algorithm that's choosing the keywords is choosing the approval/rejections.
I hear you. Had another one rejected which was shot across a park, showing only the sides of 2 buildings, the few small signs were scrubbed. The key words were all pretty generic - city and country, "parks" and the like. I don't have a clue about the "intellectual property issue on that one but let it slide.
I think that if you knew anything about quads (which I don't) you could work out quite easily which brabd this one is.
Yeah, and unfortunately Adobe hasnt done anything really to support their contributors. Mat will chime in, but he's not doing the reviews, so you're pretty much left to wonder. Ive started to realize that they're not looking for "photography", which I guess is why its stock photography. I've had ones rejected for out of focus because im using a 1.8 for depth of field...uhh, ok. So i've started just looking for bland pictures from my own library. I do finally have a total of 2 views for my 35 pics....yay? And funny enough, they're 2 of my black and whites which they really dont accept much of, go figure
The more I've read about the review/rejection process the more it reminds me of Wikipedia. If you've ever tangled with the moderators there you know what I mean.
Here, there seems to be a cadre of invisible, poorly-trained grunts doing all the work, making arbitrary and capricious decisions based upon guidelines that Adobe put in place basically to cover its legal *ss first, and only as an afterthought implement some poorly-defined aesthetic guidelines which are not explained to the people doing the screening, and which are interpreted and implemented differently depending on which individual screener checks your uploads.
There seems to be no recourse other than to complain here, which does little except get a cheery reply from Mat.
All that said, I've had photos rejected for "out of focus" when THE ENTIRE IMAGE WAS CLEARLY OUT OF FOCUS.
It's called color and light and shape, folks, which was pretty much what I though photography was all about.
Maybe the moderators simply know nothing about photography and are just minimum-wage worker bees. Beginning to think that's the case...
What I found to be my biggest problem, was my expectations. What I thought I was teaming up with was the Adobe who brought us the most widely used, most powerful photo editing program out there, Photoshop, instead I was teaming up with the Adobe that brought us the most flawed, exploited, most hated extension by administrators, Flash. The people or program (I actually think the thing that approves the pictures is the same program used to auto generate the keywords) used to approve the pictures certainly dont know photography. I had a picture rejected because of focus when it was a picture using a 1.8 aperture for depth of field. Hopefully none of the buyers stumble across this forum to find out this really isnt about good photography, but simply stock images. I've changed my focus to putting up plain pictures that would fit the stock category. I am happy to say I have made a whopping sale of $.71....granted that's $.71 more then i'd of made otherwise, but considering i have to have like 55 sales to even be able to withdraw it, I guess thats a start. So in the end, if you're expecting a world class partnership youre going to be sorely disappointed, they're certainly not committed to a working relationship with its contributors.
Sorely disappointed. I have three times the rejections from Adobe Stock than from other companies. A rejection from another company is always a surprise and an "oops" or a learning experience. Adobe rejections are pretty much expected and it has only become to mean that I have to resubmit it. Chances are high it will be accepted then. Crazy. Twice the work. Starting to think it isn't worth it.
I think this horse is about beaten to death, but if you want to sense the full irony of Adobe's upload approval and the depth-of-field/out-of-focus rejection issue, check out the pho bowl image used as an example on the "Stock Keywording Tips" page under the "Think Like a Buyer" heading here: Stock Keywording Tips | Creative Cloud blog by Adobe
Shorter Adobe: "Don't do as we do, do as we say you must, without us ever explaining it anywhere".
Haha, in that blog I could see every one of those pictures being rejected for Intellectual property refusal for the iPhone, Out of Focus for the pho, artifacts problem for dad and daughter holding hands and swimming pic
I checked the full resolution copy of this file and you can clearly read "Kawasaki" on the dash. Try cloning it out and resubmitting. I hope that helps.
That makes sense - Sorry I missed it, thought I had scrubbed it adequately.
Fr. Bob Woods
With the link FinchHaven posted, as erazz pointed out, every one of these photos that they are showing as examples, there is blatant use of factors that others in this forum have been rejected for. What about the person who has a photo of a womans legs who is wearing a standard 'paisley' print pattern dress and it was rejected apparently because the dress maker could possibly recognize the print and claim it as their design? Well i guess they might recognize their pattern on every cheap handkerchief ever made with paisley pattern on it. But even more interesting is that subtle detail on the mans jeans who is walking with his daughter in the example photo, a designers TAG. Something used for identifying and labeling a brand! Also as a side note, by those standards you shouldn't be able to use clothes with any print or stitching shown at all because whose to say that a designer wouldn't be able to recognize their clothing with those things shown. If one photo is rejected for it, shouldn't they all be? Or does Adobe base their decisions on each individual and not on their content?
Having done a little more research into what I've received as both acceptance and rejection emails for the photos I've submitted, I've got a bit of a different idea.
Every acceptance or rejection email I've received is *not* from Adobe: it actually originates from "mailjet.com" which is a bulk email service based in Paris, France.
Then, when I look at the full email headers (Internet long-timers *may* know what this means) every one was emailed through mailjet.com with a sending local time somewhere between 2:30 am and 3:30 am my local (US PST) time.
Doing a little time zone math, this suggests a work day somewhere on the Indian subcontinent: generally (time zone math is complicated) switch am to pm and add one hour thirty minutes.
My gut feeling is this: photo review or rejection FOR NEW ADOBE STOCK (not older Fotolia) CONTRIBUTORS has been off-shored to India or Pakistan where the "reviewers" have no personal understanding of photography and are working down a bullet list that's 1) poorly written and 2) in which they've received poor training.
This would explain a lot. The email source (mailjet.com) and the acute send-time difference certainly opens some serious questions, IMO...
To add to Finch, I am not receiving either moderated or sale emails and according to Mat it seems Yahoo has issues getting their emails. Strange, I asked what was different since I get all other Adobe emails, as he has not responded back to that yet, I can now see why. Crazy. The only suggestion was to change email or to ask Yahoo suggestions, not sure what I would tell them since it hasnt been confirmed on what is different, but assuming its this email domain. It really is comical actually
That's interesting. If you have a Yahoo! email address, it may be that Yahoo (for wrong or for right) blocks as a spamming domain "@bnc.mailjet.com" which is where my acceptance/rejection emails have all come from. Again, it's a bulk email hosting company based in Paris France (offices, anyway) so who knows what other email "clients" use it as a sending address.
Email notifications about posts to *this* forum seem to come from "jivehosted.com" which doesn't even have a DNS entry, so it's pretty well buried for whatever reason.
My email address is effectively [me] @ [my_domain_name.com] so I don't have these issues. Just tons of spam from having the same email address since the late 1990's...