Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hi. I wonder why these 2 photos were declined. Both of them were shot by me and NO AI was used in any way. I've used Photoshop to remove trademarks on the fuel pumps and to increase the sky background on the photo with the car.
Adobe says:
Possible reasons:
- Non compliant use of another artist’s name.
- Undeclared Generative AI Content.
- Content not compliant with overall guidelines:
Can anyone explain the possible reasons? Thank you!
[moderator detached from unrelated thread]
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Non-compliant refusals here are probably in relation with the title or the keywords.
At least the car image has also quality issues (image composition).
The attached files are called “screenshot”. They are screenshots from where?
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I already uploaded the original photos as a separate topic and one of the expert users told me that maybe the file's title was the reason for rejection for one of the files because there was a car's brand name in the file naming. But I can't figure out the exact rejection reason for the second file, because there was no brand name in the naming of the file, neither in the title or keywords. Maybe as daniellei4510 said it was because of some composition issues.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hey, can someone explain to me why these 2 photos were rejected? Both are real photos taken by me. I've only used Photoshop's clone tool to remove watermarks from oil pumps and the content aware tool to increase the sky background in the photo with a car. That's it.
Adobe says:
Possible reasons:
- Non compliant use of another artist’s name.
- Undeclared Generative AI Content.
- Content not compliant with overall guidelines:
Thank you in advance
[moderator merged this with a prior post]
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
The second file has Volkswagen in the file name. If you also included that or VW in the title or keywords, it is a noncompliant image.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
There were no Volkswagen or VW in keywords, but I didn't know that file names are also important in that way. Thank you.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
No, file names are not important. But as I answered in your other post, look at your keywords and the title.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I justed checked both of the files and I can confirm that there were no brand names mentioned in the titles or kewyords of any file. "Volkswagen" was used in the naming of one of the files on my PC, not in the titles / keywords.
Thank you any way.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
You could publish the keywords and the titles here. You don't need to have IP violations in the metadata for them to be non-compliant.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Have you any idea, about the second one? I can't figure out what could be the reason for rejection.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I had to look hard, but the only two issues I would have corrected myself (and these may still not be the reason for rejection) are the orange tinge at the very top of the roof on the upper left hand side, which I corrected with Content Aware Fill, and I used Distort to slightly straighten the corner of the building in the background. Relatively minor issues, but maybe these got passed to a really hardcore, play-by-every-rule moderator.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
That's interesting. Thank you so much for the detailed answer and your effort.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
This cloning is not done properly.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
There was no cloning made in that part of the image, but thank you anyway 👍
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Volkswagen is a protected brand name. You cannot use it in titles, keywords or descriptions.
That said, I would have rejected both images for 'quality & technical' reasons. Both images are cropped too tightly. And it's unclear what the subjects are. As a Stock customer, I would not buy them.
Read your Stock Contributor User Guide for more tips.