These Ai images of mine were rejected. I hope is not about the lighting. Because it is the concept.

AI is imperfect and will never replace real artists. At best, AI is a tool. But tools don't make quality artwork, people do.

Examine work closely at 100-300% magnfication and fix all errors if you can or discard them and start over.

Compare your best work with current Stock inventory. See examples.

https://stock.adobe.com/search?k=argue%20couple

https://stock.adobe.com/au/images/young-couple-having-quarrel/238431483

• Is yours better than what Stock has or about the same? 
• How can you improve yours to make it stand it out from all the rest?
• Will yours work equally well in print and digital projects?
• As a customer, would you buy yours?

I see this happen a lot with AI, where you can almost imagine what the bot is thinking or trying to comprehend, while doing its best to follow instructions but ultimately getting it all wrong. "Let's see...they're moving in, so I'll want to add some moving boxes, so I'll have the woman holding a purse that looks like a moving box."

I once asked my bot to "imagine an image of two beautiful twin sisters" and it gave me a pair of identical siamese cats. Giving instructions to a text to image AI bot is sometimes like trying to communicate with a five year old. 

Your first is clearly missing contrast.

Blacks are mission (left), but also whites (right). That might give you that nice flat look, but it is difficult to correct afterwards.

Just taking out a small part of the asset at 100%:

1) fake face.

2) no details.

3) rendering error on the windows handle.

4) shadow, you get such structures with high noise reduction.

5) flat clothing structure (you may argue that that is by design)

Artefacts in the plants and windows:

What is this?

The cupboard down is missing legs.

Again: what is this?

The shelf has drawing errors.

Next image:

You'll also locate multiple other rendering issues:

(Basically, you generate an image, you do your scaling and you submit. As a customer, I couldn't use any of these pictures.)

If you are new to stock, you should consider these resources: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/tutorials.html
Please read the contributor user manual for more information on Adobe stock contributions: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html
See here for rejection reasons: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
and especially quality and technical issues: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html

Hi @eurosGRAPHIX ,

The first file is too blue. 

The blown out highlight and the halo might contribute to the second files refusal.

The third file has a problem with the lady's face.

There's an issue with the lady's hand plus it is entangles with an element on the wall.

Overall I believe the images are not sharp enough.

Best wishes

Jacquelin

Lots of rendering errors, as mentioned by others. Yes, some bad AI has been accepted in the past and some (but not nearly as much) still make it through on occasion. And if they get purchased, and someone complains, that could lead to problems. In any case, the fact that some bad assets get through is no reason to except that your should get through as well when the assets contain obvious issues. Faces matter, hands matter...and objects and surroundings matter. Everything matters.

There are drawings errors in each of these. I've highlighted onky a few, but there are others. From the thumbnail print screen it also appears that you've submitted too many similars. 
in this image, the leaves are malformed - just a messy blob of green:

The soft lighting and soft focu in some of the images may be a problem but there are several rendring errors. look closely at connecting lines, angles, shapes. For instance the shelves on the left wall and the middle light bulb in the first image.