The image below shows a comparison between assets that were rejected due to similar content and those that were accepted. These were all reviewed within the last couple of months, and after the similar content rejection became an ongoing issue. I believe it is apparent in these examples that the reasoning behind the rejected assets vs. the accepted ones is seemingly quite random. I have also stated for some time that titles and keywords may have some bearing on whether assets are accepted or rejected due to similar content. However, in these cases, I made a concerted effort to choose unique titles and keyword and to place the keywords in an order such that the more generic ones appear last in the list. This may or may not have less bearing on whether assets are accepted or rejected that I originally felt. Or perhaps something has changed, since a couple of these images were resubmitted with changes and variations to titles and keywords and were still rejected a second time for similar content.
Next, on the matter of quality issues. Except for the last image (similar content), the assets on the left were originally rejected for quality issues, a few of which were noticeable upon inspection and others...well...not so much. Enough so that I get the feeling they are becoming even more stringent than usual when it comes to quality issues. Their equivalent assets on the right were "re-imagined" using Gemini 2.5 Flash (i.e., Nano Banana) available within Adobe Firefly. I attempted via prompts to give them more context or to replace objects, change style or mood, experiment with lighting, etc. They were all accepted. Of course, I only submit AI, so photographers using AI to make such changes to their work would or at least might require submitting their assets as AI, depending on the degree to which the originals were manipulated. But if, as we suspect, that metadata is added to a file to indicate that AI was used to edit the asset, then it would be a must to tag the asset as AI.
Anyway, for contributors facing issues with similar content or questionable quality rejections...use--or don't use--this information going forward. But I hope it helps.
1
Reply
AdChoices