Rejected for similar when I have no other pictures of that species

[Starsphinx]

I do quite a lot of plant and flower photography - and have just had an image rejected for it being "similar to other images I already have".  My problem is that this is a species I have never photographed before let alone submitted.
I appreciate that many plants and flowers can look sort of similar at a distance to many people but those knowledgeable about them can tell the difference - and in this case, I do not have a close relative of the plant either.  
My images are all keyworded and titled with the correct Latin name as well as the common name - I am concerned that this is going to cost me sales because I simply do not have any photos of this species in my portfolio so will not appear in search results at all (which is obviously how it should be)
Is there any way to appeal and say look I know I have lots of yellow flowers but none of my other yellow flowers is remotely similar to this one in species?

[Test Screen Name]

Adobe's moderators are not botanists, and they aren't creating a taxonomic catalog. If you have one picture of purple flowers and another of similar looking purple flowers, they will reject it; indeed the AI may reject it without needing a moderator's input. They are looking for photographic variety. This may not be right, but it's what they do; it's a problem for specialist photographers. There is no appeal. They have to process tens of thousands of images a day, and appeals would slow the process down.

[Starsphinx]

It is titled, described and keyworded totally differently and does not (to me at least) bear much resemblance to my other shots.  The closest shot I have appearance-wise

is Mahonia Japonica which is a garden shrub, the one rejected is a scrubby perennial on a hillside (and bears no relation to Mahonia - totally different continent of origin)

[Nancy OShea]

Duplicate content often refers to what Stock already has in their inventory from other contributors.  Maybe it's unique to you but not unique enough for Stock.

Skip it and move on.  As @Test Screen Name said, there is no appeal process.

[Starsphinx]

Except for the problem that it is not - if it was a daffodil I would not be that confused, but it is a species that has a comparatively small number of available shots from the whole of Adobes catalogue.   There were other images accepted of subjects I do already have in my portfolio and which are way more common in Adobes catalogue.

My issue is consistency - I have no problem with whatever rules a place wants to set but I do get confused and grumpy when the enforcement seems to have no rhyme or reason - a relatively uncommon subject of which I do not have any other examples rejected while common subjects I do have examples are accepted.

I mean if they had put down technical reasons or whatever I would not have worried about it.  It was them putting the rejection reason as "similar" when it demonstrably is not.

[Abambo]

(...) indeed the AI may reject it without needing a moderator's input. (...)

By @Test Screen Name

According to Adobe, it's a human taking the decision. However, I also suspect Adobe doing research for similar images and if they find an abundant number of such images, they will issue a rejection, if the image itself is not standing out in quality.

[Starsphinx]

Yes that would make sense - BUT they do need to add an examination of keywords/descriptions into such an algorithm because with the natural world (which is huge) there are an awful lot of unrelated things that do look similar.  Someone wanting a picture of an echidna is not going to use a porcupine or hedgehog because they look similar and there are tens and thousands of images of them while not so many of actual echidnas (that is a made up example).

If there were abundant images of the plant rejected I would not be trying to find out more, but there are not and it does not make sense.

[Nancy OShea]

Without seeing your image, I can't say much except that Plants & Flowers are the most well-represented subject in Stock's inventory with well over 25 million assets.  This is a fiercely competitive category.  So even if yours gets accepted, it's unlikely to make much in sales. 

To be successful at Stock photography, find categories that haven't been over-saturated with content. For example, Adobe Stock are in short supply of images that depict human diversity, real people in real situations, climate & environment, health, aging, religion, culture...  If any of these subjects interest you, use that as a starting point. 

Better luck next time.

[Starsphinx]

A big portion of my sales is from plants and flowers - this is partly why I am a bit confused by this rejection.  Both on Latin name and common name the whole of adobe returns under 1000 in search results - and I am making front page on searches for species returning over 26,000 results.  Any flower species returning under 1000 results is far from saturated.  

As for real people in real situations - Adobe do not take editorial, and anything with model releases is not real either people or situations.

[Nancy OShea]

I think you need to educate yourself more about what Stock Photography is all about. 

Editorial Content is restricted for news & journalism use only and mainly sourced from trusted partners and news agencies, not individual contributors.  Anything you submit to Stock has to be legally free and clear for commercial use. 

A model is ANY person in a photo.  A random person on the street, a friend/family member or hired talent.  Makes no difference.  Carry model releases with you when you take pictures. 

A diverse portfolio contains content in a variety of different keyword categories to reach the widest range of customers. If you think you can make a good side-income from flowers alone, more power to you.  IMO, it's too competitive to make it worth my time.  Ditto for pets, plants, sunsets and clouds.  

Good luck!

[Starsphinx]

I have been doing this for a few years now - and am also a nationally published freelance photojournalist.  Adobe is not the only agency I submit to and I am well aware of all the differences in agency definitions of what is and is not acceptable.

At the end of the day if Adobe is refusing images of things it does not have a huge number of (less than 1000) because they bear a vague resemblance to other things it may or may not have a huge number of, it is not just going to be contributors missing out but Adobe themselves.  When that scout group, local nature reserve, eco group, grandmother go looking for a specific plant for their next newsletter or to create a card or whatever and they find that Adobe has many less than other agencies (and quite a few incorrectly labelled - but that is another story and I am not expecting any stock agency to manage that one lol) they are much more likely to buy from another agency.

Whether Adobe is using humans or AI to say "that image is vaguely similar to other images in that portfolio" it should be simple to run a check across title/description/keywords to see if they also are similar.  The type of contributor who sends in 30 photos of an orange is highly unlikely to describe and keyword each image separately and similar images will have similar keywords and descriptions.

[Test Screen Name]

It sounds as if you have a succesful commercial strategy - providing a path between specialists despite, rather than because, of Adobe's policies. So to keep working this strategy, you just need to be sure your photos are varied from an uniformed point of view, as well as clearly labelled for your niche (but large) audience.

[Abambo]

As for real people in real situations - Adobe do not take editorial, and anything with model releases is not real either people or situations.

By @Starsphinx

You never watched one of Mat Hayward's videos where he explains how to photograph authentic scenes, I suppose. Replace "real people in real situations" with "authentic" and @Nancy OShea is correct.

[Starsphinx]

Sure - authentic and real are not the same.  Reality is generally not as pretty as authentic lol.

[Abambo]

My images are all keyworded and titled with the correct Latin name as well as the common name - I am concerned that this is going to cost me sales because I simply do not have any photos of this species in my portfolio so will not appear in search results at all (which is obviously how it should be)

By @Starsphinx

As bitter as this may be to you, that's not Adobe's concern. You always need to consider that the main aim of Adobe stock is to provide Adobe customers with high-quality images, and it's irrelevant if they came from your portfolio or from someone's other. So chances to get your image accepted are higher if you provide "unique" content.

From my personal experience in such cases:

Let it rest for some time, then resubmit the picture. You may also find the time to tune some parameters with the picture. A different moderator may not be as stringent as the previous one. Don't abuse this, however, because spamming the database may get you banned.

[Starsphinx]

I am trying to provide high-quality images - and high-quality images of stuff that is not massively oversupplied in the catalogue.  I am exasperated because this is an image of a species that is not massively represented in Adobes catalogue,  I would get it if there were hundreds of thousands of other examples but there are not - there are under 1000 which is low for a plant in a stock search.

[Abambo]

I understand what you are saying and trying to do; however, there is no other solution as to wait and resubmit after a while. The way stock is organized, it's organized for stock buyers and not user-friendly for contributors. I would also like a kind of appeal for some of my refusals, but I also understand Adobe for not providing such an option. Every scrap image that got refused would land in appeal. We see numerous scrap images here that got rightfully refused. That would cost Adobe a fortune to reconsider the refusal. Some people don't even get the message, when they get lengthy explanations.

The few times when the moderator is wrong, the contributor has to grit his teeth and accept the rejection and resubmit the picture later. As I said, there are no consequences as long as you don't exaggerate.

[Nancy OShea]

Adobe Stock may have reason to believe that customer demand for that flower is sufficiently represented at this time.  You can't fight it.  So just submit it to another Stock agency and see what happens.