Non-compliant image

[beaver1234]

Any idea what does it mean?

[Jill_C]

From the Help pages: 

Noncompliance

Files may be considered noncompliant due to watermarks, inappropriate or irrelevant keywords or titles, or questionable or defamatory content. Also, if you get a reminder to provide or resolve a problem with a release and you resubmit the file without addressing the issue, we’ll reject it as noncompliant. 

I suspect that the nutritional labels you've applied fall into the area of "questionable content" since the claims cannot be verified.

[ricky336]

Hello,

I also suspect the labeling - in this case - watermarks - are the reason.

[beaver1234]

If this explanation is to be taken seriously, then I don't see how it's possible for Adobe editors to approve images like this:

https://stock.adobe.com/ca/images/dog-postman/73293205
https://stock.adobe.com/ca/images/mail-dog/49075576

The content is obviously false.
And we're uselessly killing time here, figuring out "why probably"...

[Test Screen Name]

Sure, there is no way to get direct feedback from Adobe. Tip: you can't prove your photos are suitable by reference to existing photos, as rules change. And these are photos of dogs with mail, not unverifiable nutitional claims. Nobody could legally use your image, since there is no product or recipe associated with it!! Except as an example of illegal claims, which is a bit of a niche market. These are just made up numbers, like 37.6% of statistics in adverts. 

[Jill_C]

The dog pictures make no claims and do not infringe on the logos of any organization. In what way do you think they're similar to your image?

[ricky336]

The dog photos don't contain any watermarks. Yours do! (The nutrition labels. They would count as watermarks.)

[beaver1234]

It is not watermark.

It's a semi-transparent graphic added to the image.
Nowhere is it stated that this is unacceptable.
From what I've noticed, graphics placed like this are used quite often.

[Test Screen Name]

"From what I've noticed, graphics placed like this are used quite often"

1. You cannot prove an image should be accepted by reference to another.

2. You haven't posted any links to similar images, just some dog photos. Don't understand!! 

[beaver1234]

I don't even want to prove it.
And I don't want to argue.
But I assumed that since there are some rules for accepting images, that they apply across the board.
But apparently they're not.

PS.
The dogs have no relation to my picture, but they should have to those rules, as someone posted at the very top.
And they probably don't.

[Abambo]

But I assumed that since there are some rules for accepting images, that they apply across the board.
But apparently they're not.

By @beaver1234

They are, but the rules are interpreted by humans, and sometimes humans tend in one or the other direction. In your case, I suspect that the moderator did not appreciate all your watermarks who make the asset unusable for most applications.

The dog pictures, however, can be used universally, even that the theme displayed is not real world.

Also: the assets you pointed out are quite old and would not be accepted any more today, not because of the theme, but because of the photoshopping errors.

[beaver1234]

What errors you mean?

[Abambo]

Photoshopping errors!

[Nancy OShea]

Gimmicks don't sell images. 

On the other hand, images that convey socially relevant and/or amusing messages do get sold as in the dog characters holding generic deliveries.

OFF TOPIC: I recently received a package delivered by drone.

[beaver1234]

How I can delete this community account?

[Abambo]

If this account is a secondary Adobe id: https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/delete-adobe-account.html