Unclear reason for rejection

[Max Valdarno]

Hello everyone!

The attached image was rejected with the following "Possible reasons":

- Non compliant use of another artist’s name.

- Undeclared Generative AI Content.

- Content not compliant with overall guidelines

And yet I declared the Generative AI Content (even if it's only a part of the process), and I didn't use any artist's name (except mine) in the description.

Could it be that the image may LOOK AS if it was by another artist? E.g. "Ah, that looks like an Escher work! Rejected!" Could some sort of AI guess a prompt from the image and decide it contains an artist name?

Or am I missing some other overall guideline?

Thank you!

[Abambo · Accepted solution]

No, it looks as if you signed your work:

That's a non-compliant refusal.

The stock text only shows some of the possible reasons.

[Max Valdarno]

Really? An in-image signature is non-compliant?

Wow, I could look for this reason forever...

Thank you!

[Jill_C]

It's in this page:

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/photography-illustrations.html

Don’t: Add text or watermarks.

[Abambo]

Yes. Your signature is considered to be a "watermark".

[Ricky336]

You can't put your signature on assets for Adobe Stock! You will have to remove yours!

[Max Valdarno]

Hello everyone!

The attached image was rejected with the following "Possible reasons":

- Non compliant use of another artist’s name.

- Undeclared Generative AI Content.

- Content not compliant with overall guidelines

And yet I declared the Generative AI Content (even if it's only a part of the process), and I didn't use any artist's name (except mine) in the description.

Could it be that the image may LOOK AS if it was by another artist? E.g. "Ah, that looks like an Escher work! Rejected!" Could some sort of AI guess a prompt from the image and decide it contains an artist name?

Or am I missing some other overall guideline?

(last time I was said in this forum that the issue was the signature inside the picture, but I removed it and the rejection has the same reasons)

Thank you!

[daniellei4510]

Using even your own name may have been the reason for rejection.

[Max Valdarno]

I don't understand.

[Abambo]

You need to read your text. Even if you say "it's a Valdarno", that would be enough. We do not know your keywords or the title.

[Max Valdarno]

I think I wrote it right. Unfortunately I can't recover the text of a rejected picture, but here's one that's still pending:

Media type: Illustrations

Title: Nude Portrait of Attractive Woman outdoors

Keywords language: English

Keywords: hair, glamour, sensuality, body, sensual, painting, art, nude, aphrodite, maxval, portrait, goddess, sexy, allure, breast, nudist, woman, beauty, naked, person, bare, curly, redhead, ginger, outdoor, garden, lust, blue eyes, languid, figurative

Category: Lifestyle

Maybe the keyword "maxval"??

[Abambo]

Sure, maxval is problematic. 

[daniellei4510]

You mentioned in your post that you used your own name. I wasn't sure if you were referring to having signed the image, or if you used your name in the title or keywords. I suspect it's possible that the moderators, in order to avoid any possible favoritism, do not see the contributors' names. If you used your name in the title or as a keyword, the moderator would interpret that as using the name of another artist. Just conjecture on my part, as t has already been determined that signing your image would also result in a rejection.

[Abambo]

I'm convinced that keywords get checked against dictionaries and databases. In this case, however it would be an IP violation:

https://www.maxval.com

[Abambo]

I merged this post with your prior one. 

I fear then that Adobe does not like this as a nude. Nudes are allowed, but not all nudes pass. I would have guessed, that this one could pass.

The moderator also could have choosen quality issues, as there are some.

[Max Valdarno]

What quality issues do you see?

[Abambo]

I've had a quick look around the shoulders.

[oleschwander]

Nice picture, but as Abambo mentions, Adobe is probably not enthusiastic about nudity (it's the US after all..!). Also, there are a few problems with the picture. The 'warts' on the breasts are different and the nails too - maybe also problems with the hair.

[daniellei4510]

Do a search for nudes on Adobe Stock, @oleschwander. There is no shortage of nudes to be sure. 🙂

As hard as Adobe has been coming down on rejections these days, even a few of the "dust spots" in the image could get it refused.

[oleschwander]

Yes you're right. Sorry. I checked .. :0) But they don't show the 'private parts' except for one famous painting by Goya (I didn't run through all the pages).

By the way - I wonder how anybody can get famous paintings accepted ..? Anybody with knowledge about that?

[Jill_C]

I'm assuming it was rejected because of exposed genitalia, though that might just be an artifact in the blue paint... It's a pretty image, so I think that if that area was corrected to obscure everything, it would be accepted.

[Abambo]

I'm assuming it was rejected because of exposed genitalia, though that might just be an artifact in the blue paint... It's a pretty image, so I think that if that area was corrected to obscure everything, it would be accepted.

By @Jill_C

Yes.

[oleschwander]

There are still flaws in it. But if it is regarded as 'art' - maybe ..?

[Abambo]

By the way - I wonder how anybody can get famous paintings accepted ..? Anybody with knowledge about that?

By @oleschwander

If they are in the database…they got accepted. Sometimes it's that easy.  

[oleschwander]

I didn't think Adobe accepted public domain images. But now I'm wiser :0) But then it beats me why they are editorial.