My guess is it is so blurry that it was interpreted as a "blur" for use as a background, and Adobe does not accept this type of image, they get rejected as non-compliant.
Some other sites do accept blurs for use as backgrounds, if they appear marketable, but Adobe does not.
I believe this may have been taken through the window of a plane, and that the subject of interest may be the bird in the centre, rather than the blurry mountain. But it is not a very clear picture of the bird, and rarity counts for nothing with stock... this does not account for the non-compliant tag, but it's not recoverable. Compare your competition.
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.
However, the image is so blurry that it should have been rejected for Technical Issues
Thanks. I know this photo is a little blurry and I will be understandable if it get rejected by technical issues. However it is by non compliant image which make me want to find out what the real reason.
I know this photo is a little blurry and I will be understandable if it get rejected by technical issues. However it is by non compliant image which make me want to find out what the real reason.