"Data Issue" - this is a new one to me. I can't figure out what to do with this now.

[DarkClearSky]

Hi Adobe community..

I've been contributing for roughly six months or so now.  Reasonably "good record" with submissions / acceptances (I think).  Recently though - I submitted four images on different topics (all science and tech related though) and all four came back with "Data Issue" - I've attached a screen grab below.  The description of this hold basically says essentially that the image is OK but there is an issue with keywording or title - and gives little else guidance.  Furthermore it gives me the opportunity to correct this and resubmit.

That's all nice but problem is I don't know what to correct, this looks fine to me and seems consistent with all the other hundred images or so I've submitted / Adobe accepted in this past six months.

Any guidance?  I've attached the image and the submissions response.

Thanks!

[Jill_C]

This appears to be a Generative AI image, however you haven't titled or tagged it as such.

[Abambo]

If it is a generative AI picture, it's very clean. I also could guess this to be a 3D render with some Photoshop (globe mirror). However, the “ai” and “artificial intelligence” keywords may confuse. I would in the current context not use "ai" as a keyword.

If it is generative AI, check this: Generative AI submission guidelines - Adobe Support Community - 13549435 

[Jill_C · Accepted solution]

I think you're right. Those keywords can cause the moderator to falsely assume that generative ai software was used.

[DarkClearSky]

Thanks for the quick responses.  The image is not generative AI but it is CGI modeled the "old fashioned way." 

Pondering if I am going to somehow have to prove I'm human from now on.

Good thoughts on the AI keywords confusing it - but three other images (basically all the images I submitted that day) got the exact same treatment and the others have different keywords without any "AI" terms.  As an example - I've attached another from the group and the response.

I am wondering if the reviewer just assumed they were AI generated and I didn''t click "AI Generated" on the submission form (perhaps he/she was "AI weary" from a long day of staring at substandard weirdly proportioned AI images).

I've been submitting CGI images for some time now and this is the first time I've encounted this.

-Pete

[Abambo]

I think, moderators see now generative AI everywhere…

(just an unrelated question: how long did your assets sit in the review queue?)

[DarkClearSky]

Eight days - which is longer than normal (I'm not complaining - and wait times are inconsistent anyway).  I've noticed a similar slowdown on "other sites" as well.  I think generative AI has arrived.  I'm predicting higher turnover for stock photo site reviewers!

-Pete

[Abambo]

Eight days

By @DarkClearSky

Eight days is still OK. At least that shows that generative AI seems really to be in its queue, which is great news. I, as a contributor for illustrations, would really hate to be put on the same queue, than those people who spit out (bad) pictures non-stop.

[DarkClearSky]

Eight days is not bad - I've certainly had longer waits but it has typically been shorter (guessing around 5 days avg in the past..?).. It doesn't really matter a lot to me - happy to have images be curated and I've learned a lot in the process.

If this space is genuinely inundated with AI images then perhaps I should be rethinking this hobby...?

-Pete

[Abambo · Accepted solution]

Customers are asking a lot for a possibility to exclude generative assets from their search results. Most are not happy with the poor results of those assets.

[Nancy OShea · Accepted solution]

Keep doing what you do.  It's fine.  It's way better than any Generative AI I've seen recently with 3 legged tables, 5 legged horses and 6 handed clocks, etc..  🤣

Generative AI is a great idea whose potential has not been fully utilized or perfected yet.  Customers like me want high quality images.  AI hasn't met that litmus test yet.

[DarkClearSky]

Keep doing what you do.  It's fine.  It's way better than any Generative AI I've seen recently with 3 legged tables, 5 legged horses and 6 handed clocks, etc..  🤣

Thanks for the encouraging words..!

I added "3D Render" to the titles as well as an a additional keyword and resubmitted.  Hopefully that does the trick.

I appeciate all the assistance!

-Pete

[Abambo]

You have added your submission data and the image, but not the response.

[DarkClearSky]

Oops - sorry about that.. (I thought I had - but it was the keyword screen)..  I've attached it here. 

I'm inclined to resubmit them "as is" and hope the reviewer is less AI weary this time around..?  Thoughts..?

-Pete

[Abambo]

Well, the keyword screen was quite interesting too, as it showed the AI-keyword. I would not use AI as a keyword, as users are given the advice to use “-ai” in the search, to avoid generative AI.

I would also add to the title 3D rendering. Just to emphasize that it is not a generative AI. I was doing 3D for some time in a prior life, and as I saw recently many generative AI assets, I think that I have an eye for the difference. AI simply has not the regular structure as your image. It's more “illustrative”. But on a thumbnail, that is not always clear.

But just let's call @MatHayward into this discussion, to see if he has something to add.

[DarkClearSky]

That's an excellent suggestion (adding a "3d render" keyword)..  Some other stock sites require this on CGI - but for Adobe I've just been clicking "Illustration" for file type and assuming that was Adobe's way of making that differentiation.  Now that AI images have flooded the space - I guess things have changed.

TBH - I was surprised when Adobe starting allowing AI generated images.

I will remove any AI related keywords - but the other images don't have these keywords and got the same treatment...  But all the same - why risk it.

I'll await Mr. Hayward's insights before I do anything more with this.

Thanks for your advice!

-Pete

[Abambo]

I will remove any AI related keywords - but the other images don't have these keywords and got the same treatment...  But all the same - why risk it.

By @DarkClearSky

If the moderator sees all day generative AI, and they can't any more distinguish this from CGI, this is what happens.

I'll await Mr. Hayward's insights before I do anything more with this.

By @DarkClearSky

That is certainly appropriate. Mat also sees the other side of the wall.

[DarkClearSky]

Update on the "Data Issue" weirdness when submitting 3D Render images (these are not AI images - they are renders).

The images that I had originally encounted this with and described in this thread here - after I added "3D Render" to the title and keywords and resubmitted cleared the review and were accepted (and actually have not done so bad). Credit to Abambo for recognizing what the problem likely was and this excellent suggestion!

After that situation, I assumed that is a new type issue to deal with in the age of AI so I made a habit of marking my images as 3D renders to make sure they werent' being confused with AI images and going into the same months long AI review queue and/or being mistaken for AI images.

Now - fast forward a bit to today.  After waiting for (by far) the longest I've ever waited for review - 19 days - three images were dumped into the same "Data Issue" category...again..  which isn't an outright rejection - it's a "this is missing something you need to correct and then we'll accept it" - and we had theorized in this thread that "something" was that I must've "forgot" to mark it as AI... which it's not.

So - sort of stumped.  I'll resubmit these and make sure I have stronger "3D Render NOT AI" callouts somehow - but frankly I'm discouraged as if I've hit a dead end.  This has been a fun run and I admire Adobe as a company - but wondering if the future of stock images at Adobe is all about AI as that is what appears to have absolutely flooded the place at the expense of normal stock photography scrutiny and appreciation.

The images in question are attached if you are curious.  Please feel free to comment on their worth (I'm always interested) - but actually just looking for any comments on this whole weird situation. Anyone else seen this?  You guys have been fantastic. 

Again - these weren't rejected - they were marked "data issue" (which we determined had to do with the meta-data with the image).  They were (rightfully) NOT marked AI.

Thanks!

[Abambo]

I'm just doing guesswork here: What is your title? Did you submit a property release? What are your keywords (language consistent?)?

It must have to do with anything like that.

Maybe @MatHayward knows the issue.

[George_F]

I agree with @Abambo that the keywords and title should be further scrutinized.  For the limited number of photos I've heard about with this issue, I think one keyword was in a different language or something along those lines.

[DarkClearSky]

(consolidated reply for both comments above)

Thanks for the comments and suggestions!

Apologies that I didn't post the titles - they all contained the same "adjustments" from the last time I was sent down this road (which was the last time I had submitted images).  The titles and keywords were:

1. Title: 3D Render of a Stethoscope and a one hundred dollar bill.  Keywords: insurance, healthcare, health insurance, medical cost, health care, hospital, medicine, american healthcare system, american, stethoscope, medical, cardiologist, cash, conceptual, economics, cost, currency, dollar, economics abstract, expensive, finance, finances, business, illness, instrument, money, 3d render
2. Title: 3D render of random shapes arranged in a matrix. Keywords: random, shape, creative, wallpaper, simple, perspective, abstract, background, concept, design, graphic, blue, green, render, 3d render
3. Title: 3D Render of man about to enter a large maze. Keywords: career, life, problem, businessman, puzzle, strategy, decision, analysis, freedom, contemplate, confusion, abstract, labyrinth, maze, challenge, complexity, concept, conceptual, entrance, experience, leadership, 3d render

I'd post the screen captures of the "Data Issue" notice (it's identical to the ones above) and the title/keywords panel but I've already resubmitted them.  This time with the similiar titles but have reworded them slightly to say "raytraced render" and have added an additonal keyword to each -> "raytraced."  Basically hoping that keys the reviewer that these are not mismarked AI images.  TBH - if they do think they are AI then maybe I need to hang it up.. lol..

Also - all were marked as "illustration" and language was English. No property releases were submitted - I've historically not needed those for these renders and I'd think if that were the issue then I'd get rejected for needing to submit a release.

I guess I should be glad I didn't have to re-upload and re-keyword them from the start.  That process can be so time consuming.

Thanks!

[Abambo]

If they get asked a release, they may also end up in the review tab. At a first sight, I do not see anything that would trigger my mind to look for trademark names. 

The only thing I see in the first asset is "health care" and "healthcare", but I can't imagine that this would trigger a keyword conflict.

I'm out of suggestions. I think your solution is the best you can get. 

[Abambo]

Looking into your prior posting here: Your title may contain trademark names. Or your keywords may contain a tradename. I'm sure that those are checked against a tradename database, and if they get a hit, you get placed in the review tab. 

In no cirumstances, I would use the keyword AI, as currently, people get asked to enter -ai to avoid generative AI themed assets. People serching for AI will be mostly flooded with generative AI, so that the chance to get shown your asset will be small.

[DarkClearSky]

Thanks (again) for the suggestions.  I guess I'll just wait and see how it goes...!

[Sam283349533tpw]

I think it's just because this really looks like an AI-Generated image even though upon very close inspection I can see it's not.