"Similar content” rejection with zero actual similarity – how is this decided?

[Vikky1904]

Why does Adobe Stock keep rejecting new AI submissions as “Similar content” when there is clearly no similar image in my portfolio or on the platform?

I carefully checked using the Visual Search and manual keyword browsing — and found nothing even close in style, color, composition, or subject.

:question_mark: So here’s my direct question:

• Where can we see what Adobe considers “already existing” in the library?

• Where is the list of “overused themes or visuals”?

• How are we supposed to compare before uploading, if these resources are not public?

I’m not talking about random gradients or textures. My content is well-styled, curated, and market-friendly. But I get rejected with “similar” without any actual references.

If Adobe is moving toward exclusivity — fine, but authors need clarity. We are trying to work with the system, not against it.

Please provide real examples or guidelines, not generic advice.
Thank you.

[AlexBond]

Today is Saturday. The inspectors are hungover and not in the mood, so they reject anything they simply don’t like, with this "Similar content” reason.

That’s the only explanation I can think of.

By the way, if you want a real answer (or, at least, formal but answer) from Adobe, you should contact support directly. Here on the forum, you’ll only get replies from “volunteers” who will try to convince you that Adobe is always right and you’re wrong — and from other contributors who are facing the same issues but also have no idea what’s going on.

[Vikky1904]

Hahaha you just made my day 😂
But seriously — I totally agree. Feels like someone’s cat walked across the keyboard and hit “Reject” 20 times.

I’m not stopping today though — I’m writing everywhere. Forum, direct support, pigeons to Adobe HQ if needed :bird:

Enough is enough. Let them deal with it.

Thanks for the laugh and solidarity ✊

[daniellei4510]

As one of those "volunteers," I have also experienced "similar" rejections and have argued repeatedly and openly that whatever system they are using is flawed. I've had unique images rejected, while I've had obviously "similar" images accepted, and below is an example that I've posted previously. The process doesn't just seem arbitrary and illogical, but apparently is, as this example suggests.

Submitted first and rejected as too similar:


Submitted later and accepted:

[jie_8284]

Actually looks similar to the Pixie hair girls from Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/517843657173320660/

https://in.pinterest.com/pin/79727855902677629/

[daniellei4510]

Probably because I specifically prompted for a pixie haircut. AI is weird. I once got a result that had a remarkable resemblance to a close friend of mine, even though she had no internet presence. But she had brown hair, and my version was a blond. She liked how she looked and ended up dying her hair.

[daniellei4510]

I said AI is weird. But so is reality: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/i2ze-eM9amg

[AlexBond]

"All girls with pixie haircuts looks similar". You just gave a perfect example of Adobe's logic when they reject uploads. Bravo!

[jie_8284]

"All girls with pixie haircuts looks similar" say that to my new Alien AI Pixie Girl stockphoto:

[Jill_C]

You said "you’ll only get replies from “volunteers” who will try to convince you that Adobe is always right and you’re wrong"...

We are just as frustrated as you about the dramatically increased rejection rates for both similars and quality issues. But unfortunately, Adobe seems to be satisfied with their solution to throttle the flow of new images into the database, so there's nothing we can do about it. Emails and complaints to Adobe on this subject are answered with a canned response.

[daniellei4510]

I try to put a positive spin on it. It might affect me, but it's also affecting others. So In the end, it means less competition. 🙂

[Abambo]

Here on the forum, you’ll only get replies from “volunteers” who will try to convince you that Adobe is always right and you’re wrong

By @AlexBond

Volunteers are real... As long as we are are not marked as being Adobe staff, we are voluteers. No quotes needed.

And nobody will try to convince you that Adobe is always right. 

Today is Saturday. The inspectors are hungover and not in the mood, so they reject anything they simply don’t like, with this "Similar content” reason.

That’s the only explanation I can think of.

By @AlexBond

Moderators reject with the similar content reason, because they have a tool telling them that the asset is similar to other assets in the database. The whole moderation process is optimized on speed, so I even doubt that the moderators look at your assets, when rejecting for similarity, at least not if the tool returns a high similarity score...

But you are right:

• nobody outside of Adobe has a clue how this really works, I just suspect that they are using their standard search tools to get a result.
• no contributor is happy with this, even that we can agree, that some contributors managed to spam the database before this.
• Adobe is happy with this: https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-contributors-discussions/update-on-similar-refusals/td-p/152984...

[AlexBond]

Tell this to newbies.
You come to a topic that has already been discussed and which has a "correct answer" and write there, simply because your reply is missing.
And it goes on like this in every thread. You probably have endless free time and nothing to do. Well, or you will be paid extra - a couple of cents per reply. Choose the option that you like.
Technically, if it weren’t for the pool of "volunteers", this forum would have likely taken a tough — and not unjustified — anti-Adobe stance. obviously, the discontent of contributors has to be managed somehow. So, social management, nothing more.
"The whole moderation process is optimized on speed" - and it should be oriented towards professionalism, quality, adequacy in the end. Because now it turns out that five hand-drawn vector artworks, each of which I spend an hour on, have gone to the trash simply because the moderator doesn't care what he's reviewing. Rejecting is the quickest and easiest way. And appealing the decision is not provided for here. It’s clear that I’m dissatisfied. More than that — I’m angry. And I deeply regret the time I’ve wasted.
Sorry for the harsh response.

[ivank11134774]

That's what I did: contacted the Contributor Support directly when some my images with zero similars (e.g. animal species not presented in the collection and distinct in appearance) were rejected as similars. The reponse was that they do not have contacts with their moderators, and a suggestion to share my regrets at this forum. Here I am, bingo.

[Jill_C]

We "volunteers" who frequent this forum are also of the opinion that Adobe has adopted a flawed algorithm for detecting "similars".  Now that Adobe's database has passed the 800 million mark they seem to have decided that they need to slow down the acceptance of new assets. Similars rejections are sometimes justified, but often make no sense at all. Contributors have tried various strategies to defeat this rogue system, with limited success. 

When it comes to gradients and textures, I'm quite certain that Adobe does NOT need another... Move on to something more unique.

[DaveFX]

It's true: "Now that Adobe's database has passed the 800 million mark they seem to have decided that they need to slow down the acceptance of new assets" ... and to me it means that the "time" to enter this market is now passed ... the market is saturated .... those who started years ago and built a solid portfolio are in perfect timing despite the current high competition ...

[Jill_C]

The current market may be saturated, but there are always developing trends in food, fashion, technology, travel, business, etc.  

[DaveFX]

yes ... right ... new opportunities and trends are always around the corner ....

[DaveFX]

.... but it's harder to start from scratch now than it was years ago ... when the competition was lower ...

[DaveFX]

The gist of the matter from a marketing perspective is that the timing of market entry is what creates the competitive advantage over creators who have recently entered ...

[Nancy OShea]

Old contributors retire. New contributors take their place. 

Each generation brings new ideas that build on top of old ones. 

It's that way in every sector, from space exploration to peanut plantations. 

[daniellei4510]

You have a point. I started submitting two and a half years ago, and I have enough assets accepted that my sales continue to buffer my disappointment over assets being rejected as too similar. But those who continue to be swayed by YouTubers promising big money selling stock assets are likely to be disappointed. It's still possible, but diversity is key. I also submit assets to sites like Redbubble that produce swag like t-shirts, mugs, shower curtains, etc. It's a good feeling when someone drops nearly $100 or whatever for a comforter emblazoned with a photo of one of my dog images that apparently looks just like their own furry friend.

[AlexBond]

Jill, listen — I’m operating under the simple logic that if a work follows Adobe’s guidelines, includes unique graphic elements, and contains no errors, it should be accepted into the database. And if it’s rejected, there should be at least a basic explanation of what’s wrong with it.

In principle, the decision shouldn’t depend on the inspector’s mood or personal preferences.

If there are changes in policy, those should be communicated clearly. At the end of the day, it’s just about normal collaboration and mutual respect.

I’m not sure I understand your point — “Hooray, Adobe has 800 million files in the library.” Okay... and? What’s next — picking which files get accepted like a lottery?

Let’s be honest: the commercial value and relevance of the collection only loosely correlate with size. A billion outdated graphics in the style of 2005 will, oddly enough, still perform poorly in 2025.

And no — just to clarify — this has nothing to do with "gradients and textures." I work in vector, and each submission takes from half an hour to an hour or more to complete. So yes, I do feel frustrated when even a small batch gets rejected without any clear explanation.

But you’re right about one thing — maybe it really is time to switch to a different style.

[jie_8284]

• Where can we see what Adobe considers “already existing” in the library? Simply right click the image in Google Chrome and do "Search with Google Lens".

[daniellei4510 · Accepted solution]

Or you can simply drop your assets on top of a stock.adobe.com page and see all similar examples. But you are never going to NOT find similar. From there, you have to determine if your asset is dissimilar enough to bother submitting. But no matter how unique, chances are good that it may still be rejected as similar. The algorithm or AI that is making these decisions is flawed.

Personally, I think it is related to keywords and possibly titles. If an algorithm is being used and is looking for similar keywords or titles, not similar images, that could be a determining factor. I have since avoided using Adobe's suggestions completely or putting them last in my list of keywords, while also being as unique as I can be with titles while still keeping them related to the subject. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.