long time disapproval of imagessss

[Black Garage T-shirt]

The pictures I have uploaded for 18 days are being reviewed and awaiting approval. If you're going to keep the pictures we uploaded waiting for so long, why should we upload pictures to this site? The strange thing is, they don't tell me how much longer to wait. He says it will be reviewed in 1-2 business days. It's been 18 days. I don't think I will upload pictures or designs to this site again. good luck everybody

[EzyRider_II]

Yes, it's a very long approval time in the last 3 months or so. I think
Adobe already has way too many photos, so they don't really need many more,
or they just cherry pick. Just a guess! Good luck to you wherever you post
in the future. I am not uploading new either. My frustration comes from the
too many (,unreasonable in my view) rejections.

[Abambo · Accepted solution]

Adobe is moderating 500k pictures a week. You need to have to wait. If you don't participate, that's no problem, but I do not see a reason to complain about slow moderation, as moderation is taking your pictures in the order they have been submitted. If you have to wait, you have people having submitted before you.

[Black Garage T-shirt]

I don't have to wait for anything anymore I don't care how many pictures they review.

[Abambo]

I would say that that's your choice. I don't even know why you are posting here and responding if you don't care. If you do not upload, you do not sell. You are the supplier here, not the customer.

[Jill_C · Accepted solution]

Due to the huge influx of Generative AI assets, the queue for illustrations has grown to 2 months or more.

[George_F · Accepted solution]

For an asset that will be offered for sale for many years, I don't think a few weeks is too long to wait.  In fact, a license just sold for an asset that had last sold in 2020 for me.

Nothing about Stock is fast in my opinion.  I just don't think these wait times matter much for most of us.

[Nancy OShea · Accepted solution]

1. Stock is a business, not social media. 

2. Stock sells assets everyday from current inventory of 300+ million assets.

3. Whether your assets are reviewed this month or next  doesn't matter to Stock.It all comes out in the end.

4. What matters is your submission vs rejection rate and number of sales (downloads).

High performing contributors with low rejection rates may get reviewed quicker.  At least that's the prevailing theory.  Contributor accounts with poor track records are eventually terminated. 

Contributing to Stock isn't for everyone.  It takes talent, hard work and above all patience. Some people have it, some don't.

Best of luck on your future endeavors.

[RafaelMera]

thank you my friend 

[jacquelingphoto2017 · Accepted solution]

Hi @Black Garage T-shirt ,

There are no place on the Adobe website that shows that assets gets moderated within 3 days. The shortest time published is 5 business days and that applies to photographs only. My understanding is Generative AI takes up to 3 months. PNG and Vector falls between. From your complains I assume you have one of the two newest formats in the queue waiting for review. That's how it is now and will be until the rush generative AI upload reduces.

Best wishes

Jacquelin

[daniellei4510]

OK. With all due respect, I think AI is getting a bum rap as the reason for so many images being stuck in the queue and thus causing an insane delay with images being approved. For starters, as I understand it, AI is separated from real photographs and placed in to a different queue (I hate that word...why isn't is just spelled cue?). Also, I have seen far fewer AI inages posted by AI designers asking why their images were rejected compared to beginning photographers (who admit they are beginners) and going so far as to complain that their images should have been accepted because they have very expensive cameras. Sorry, but AI usually does a better job compared to beginning photographers. It's just that competitive right now. As a retired photographer with 35 years experience, I've taken better photographs with a $12 Diana camera compared to some images posted by beginners asking why their images were rejected. I am not saying that beginners should throw their cameras away and turn to AI. Nor am I saying that AI will eventually replace real photography. But let's get real. Enough AI images of female robots with huge bosoms. Enough real photographs of flowers that any 8 year old could have taken with a camera with auto focus and auto exposure after being turned loose in a greenhouse and told to go take some photos of flowers. Expand your minds. Trash bad photographs and trash bad AI. And spend a year or two on how to correct issues that arise with either. 

[Jill_C]

I don't think anyone is trashing bad AI any more than we are trashing bad photographs. However, the fact remains that a Contributor who has decided to concentrate on AI can generate and upload hundreds at a time (until they hit their account limit for uploads), whereas a new Contributor of photographs is probably going to be able to capture and upload just a handful of photos in the same period of time. The act of creation is far simpler for AI since you can do it entirely from your desk; whereas photography requires considerably more effort and planning - which you know as a veteran photographer! 

[Abambo]

For starters, as I understand it, AI is separated from real photographs and placed in to a different queue (I hate that word...why isn't is just spelled cue?).

By @daniellei4510

Because “cue” is a different word in English:

[ricky336]

And don't forget the cue stick used in pool - and not a swimming pool, but the game, or snooker or billiards! 😁

[ricky336]

As a retired photographer with 35 years experience, I've taken better photographs with a $12 Diana camera compared to some images posted by beginners asking why their images were rejected. Trash bad photographs and trash bad AI. And spend a year or two on how to correct issues that arise with either. 

By @daniellei4510

This is called 'progress' and now with digital cameras and smartphones, every man and his dog can take pictures, and what's more with AI generative images, the sky is no longer the limit, but perhaps the universe! 😁

[Abambo]

This is called 'progress' and now with digital cameras and smartphones, every man and his dog can take pictures, and what's more with AI generative images, the sky is no longer the limit, but perhaps the universe! 😁

By @ricky336

It's more your prompts. Because if you exchange queue with cue, you will get different results. 😂

[WEBCLIPMAKER]

My observations are as follows. I don't upload a large number of images to Adobe on a weekly basis, but I've noticed a significant slowdown in the review process over the past few months.

Interestingly, my editorial photos are usually reviewed within a day and approved quite quickly. However, the photos with commercial licenses take days or even weeks before they get reviewed.

It's possible that the situation varies for each individual, but personally, I've experienced a noticeable decrease in the speed of reviews compared to earlier times. Additionally, as I mentioned in a previous tweet, the acceptance of my images has also noticeably declined, without any changes on my end in terms of my workflow, quality, etc.

I understand that Adobe reviews a large number of photos each week, but was it different a few months ago? Why did we suddenly experience this "deterioration" in review times seemingly overnight?

I understand that internal processes of a functioning large photo stock agency like Adobe may not be publicly disclosed, but the explanation that they have a high volume of photos to review isn't entirely convincing, especially if it used to work better and faster before.

[Jill_C]

The reason is the huge influx of Generative AI asssets from Contributors, many of them uploading hundreds, or even thousands, at a time. This explosion of submission volumes was simply never possible with photographs, vectors, videos, etc. 

[WEBCLIPMAKER]

Well, that could be one explanation for the sudden slowdown. But I also think that such a situation could have been foreseen, and maybe they could have set a limit on the upload of AI-generated content from the beginning, you know?

But as I mentioned earlier, we as regular contributors to stock agencies never know the exact reasons or facts about what goes on inside a company and whether certain measures were taken or not. So, we can only speculate or come up with our own theories to understand the situation better.

Absolutely, let's see how things develop and whether the review speed improves. I'm really curious to find out as well 🙂

[Jill_C]

The problem of AI-induced review backlogs isn't speculation in my part. It is well understood both here in this forum and in the Discord channel that AI submissions are the problem. Adobe has also acknowledged the problem and taken several steps to address the backlog. Scan other posts here and you'll see that many of them are about review delays, and virtually all of the complaints are from AI contributors. 

[WEBCLIPMAKER]

I have also heard from colleagues who upload AI-generated images that it takes a long time for them to be reviewed. But, as I mentioned earlier, I no longer upload AI images and can only speak about the review times for my "regular" images.

I'll say it again, my "editorial" images are reviewed almost immediately, and I believe that perhaps different reviewers handle the editorial review, or there might be fewer editorial images to review, which is why it's faster.

[Jill_C]

I think you're right about Editorial images. They represent a relatively small part of the overall volume, and are probably routed to specially trained Moderators.

[daniellei4510]

But I was under the impression that accounts are being blocked for spamming when this happens with AI submissions. As an AI contributor myself, I would hope that anyone doing so would have their accounts summarily blocked without a moderator so much as taking a peek at the first image in a group of such uploads.

On the other hand, I've had 85 images accepted over the past 7 work days, with only 1 rejection. As of today, I think my streak has been broken, but I ordinarily have images accepted every 2 to 3 working days (and sometime 4 or 5 if one counts weekends and holidays). So something appears to have changed.

[WEBCLIPMAKER]

I uploaded a few dozen AI-generated photos a couple of months ago, and it took a very long time for them to be reviewed. Since then, I haven't uploaded any AI photos, so I can't say how long it currently takes for the review process.

But I can see how long "regular" photos with commercial licenses are currently waiting in the queue for review, and personally, I only see slight improvement. However, it could also be due to my portfolio and the amount of content I upload each month.

[Jill_C]

My photographs (captured with a real camera)  are still getting reviewed in ~4-5 days. AI generated assets are not "photos".