"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.

[Nancy OShea]

Yep. That's the gist of it. 😄

Absurdity deserves our laughter, not tears.

[zakir32208234z54q]

But we are in fear, they treat "similar content" as spam, and they can block or permanently close our account!!! Even they can't show specific reason!!!

[daniellei4510]

If Adobe were to close the accounts of everyone getting similar content rejections, they would have no more contributors. There is a very distinct difference between spamming and submitting "similar content."

[ZALEZPHOTO]

"We are all in fear"

whatever prompts you to believe that is wasted energy and wrongful point of focus.

I'm more concerned excited than ever being with Adobe. My sales keep growing and my understanding of the market with it. The commissions I'm getting from Getty are absurdly low, and hardly uploading anything there.

Adobe is having to adapt in real time to a massive amount of people submitting AI work.  Contributing real photos and videos is  the best way to avoid rejections and generating sales.

I'm still new here, but I'm learning not to care anymore about rejected work, even when there's no technical reason for that in my estimation. I just keep creating new work and getting more approved than when I started. 
Like with all goals, mindset is paramount to success here.  
Let's go!

[Abambo]

But we are in fear, they treat "similar content" as spam, and they can block or permanently close our account!!! Even they can't show specific reason!!!

By @zakir32208234z54q

I'm not in that fear. Adobe did rule out, that your refusal rate has a negative influence on your contributor status. It may have an influence on yopur weekly submission rate, however.

[ZALEZPHOTO]

While AI is here to stay, and we may still be blown away by some computer generated work, it is become predictable and no longer unique. AI images are beginning to look all the same or too fake. 
Most brands marketing their products or services don't want  to mark their lasting presence with imagery that looks repeatative or fake.

Adobe like everyone else is adapting to the AI reality,

as we all are. And personally, I welcome taming down the AI creators who seem not willing to put real effort to creating real work.

[Pere Chuliá]

I have been contributing to Adobe since August 2019, albeit with long periods without submitting files. I have 1,930 images in my portfolio; at present I only upload AI-generated images (around 500). Until a few weeks ago, I maintained a very high acceptance rate and then, suddenly, I went to almost total rejection, so I have decided not to invest any more time in work that ends up in the bin.

In 2019, almost anything was accepted: I have photos in my portfolio that I don’t like and wouldn’t upload today. I consider what I’m uploading now to be better and more polished, yet it is still being rejected systematically.

Adobe should acknowledge that its catalogue is oversaturated with images that have no commercial value—some of them mine. The logical solution would be to purge it automatically: delete any file that hasn’t been downloaded in the last X years (for example, two). This would slim down the catalogue and remove material that doesn’t sell, making room for new files that are more in line with current needs.

[daniellei4510]

This is an issue that has been covered ad nauseam. Theories abound, as well as suggestions such as yours, and until and unless the policy regarding similar content is changed or the criteria relaxed, it appears to be something we all have to live with.

[Abambo]

The logical solution would be to purge it automatically: delete any file that hasn’t been downloaded in the last X years (for example, two). This would slim down the catalogue and remove material that doesn’t sell, making room for new files that are more in line with current needs.

By @Pere Chuliá

This is nonsense. Some reasoning why:

First: keeping the assets that have been approved is a cheap operation. Even if the do not sell often, they may do once in a while. It happens to my assets.

Second: the expensive part of all these additional assets is moderation. By using a (in our eyes bad working) tool to detect similar assets according to a secret magic formula will ensure that only the surviving assets will need to get checked for quality, IP and other issues. That makes the moderation job much easier, and from an Adobe point of view, the surviving assets will be enough to handle a permanently growing asset database. 

Third: It has been long before proven that the search algorithms (from the customer side) prefer new entries (from preferably successfully contributors), and additionally assets that have just been sold (the more often the better), regardless of their age. 

We feel that the tool they use is badly working because they filter out our assets that we consider quite unique in the database, but we do know nothing about the underlying data. It may well be, that our rejections are only a colateral to the massive rejections for the submission farms who did clodge the submission queues.