Where is the line between similar content and spam in generative AI?

[Ars_Nova]

Hi everyone,

I've been contributing AI-generated assets to AS since August 2023 and my acceptance rate is around 85%, which I would guess is not terrible, although I don't have a lot of examples to compare it to. I am now in the process of uploading my next big batch of assets and I am curious about the spam policy as I tend to upload many similar assets.

I've read various articles on Adobe, including "Similar content versus spam" and I feel like I still don't have a good answer on this policy, at least in terms of AI-generated content. I've noticed that different AI-generated motifs are treated differently in the review process. For example, abstract assets may be accepted in bulk, even in batches of 20 or 50, but "realistic" or "photo-like" ones tend to get rejected for looking too similar. More confusingly, some abstract assets may be rejected in bulk, even though in their nature they are identical to those which were accepted, just with a different style, or flavor, if you will.

I do see value in uploading many similar assets, at least in the abstract category, as a customer may want to download multiple different variations of the asset they like, which has happened to me a few times, and was a pleasant surprise. However, I've read horror stories of contributors getting suspended or their accounts terminated citing this exact issue.

I am conflicted on this topic because, on the one hand, the review period for AI-generated assets takes up to two months, barely leaving any space for productive experimentation or safe trial and error, and on the other hand, I do see the value in similar assets in my portfolio, so I tend to upload many variations of the same prompt, which are hopefully different enough, to increase my portfolio size and earning potential.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Cheers

[Jill_C · Accepted solution]

Rejections based on similars are among the most perplexing Moderator decisions to understand. The simplest approach is to cull your assets to eliminate "variations on a theme" that really are not varied enough. I know it's difficult to "kill your darlings" after you've invested work in them, but you really should strive to provide unique and different assets to Adobe's Buyers. Additionally, spread your "variations on a theme" among different submission batches. For instance, if you generated 4 similarly-themed images, spread them across 4 different batches and don't submit all 4 batches on one day. Rather than one massive submission for which you might have to wait up to 2 months for approval, submit 10-20 per day every day. 

[Ars_Nova]

Thank you for your suggestions.

If I upload similar images in smaller, more spread-out batches, do they have a higher chance of not being considered too similar? I've had large amounts of my submitted images accepted at once, suggesting that they have all been reviewed at the same time, even though they were uploaded on different days.

[Abambo]

You should not submit similar assets above what is tolerated by Adobe. If you submit regularly similar assets, at some stage someone will block your account.

[daniellei4510 · Accepted solution]

My assets are 100% AI. But I upload like many photographers probably do: maybe 4 to 12 images at a time (which coincidentally is approximately what I have reviewed per day), and I seldom do more than 3 or 4 of the same subject or style. I have never had a "too similar" rejection and my rejection rate as it stands today is .05, with the majority of those images affecting my rejection rate being early on when I will still getting the hang of things. If I did the math based on the last 8 to 9 months, my rejection rate would probably be more like .02 percent.

Stock is a race (particularly when submitting AI) when slow and steady wins.

j
 

[Ars_Nova]

Thank you for your reply, your acceptance rate seems to be exceptionally healthy.

Would you be comfortable sharing the size of your portfolio and the percentage of how much of it has downloads? In my case, the downloaded assets take up around 12% of the portfolio, and assets that have more than one download take up just about 1%, so there is space for improvement and optimization.

On the subject of similar assets, I noticed that if my files get rejected for being too similar, around 4-12 assets from that batch get accepted as being different enough. Do you think that uploading around 10 assets of a similar nature would be safe, or should I stick with 3-4 assets per theme for better results?

Cheers

[Abambo]

If you have read the Adobe guidelines of “Similar vs Spam”, you have got all the information that you need. Unfortunately, similar is not an absolute value, as is spam. If you follow the guidelines, that also apply to generative AI (why should generative AI be different in this regard?), you should limit the similar assets to 4 to 5.

[Ars_Nova]

Thank you for your reply.

If you have read the Adobe guidelines of “Similar vs Spam”, you have got all the information that you need.

By @Abambo

I would disagree. The guidelines, while very helpful in gauging Adobe's general attitude towards their policies, and having a few examples for them, do not reflect reality accurately, or give precise answers to questions that someone generating large amounts of assets might have. There's also a contradiction in the article where it says "Don’t send images with minimal differences, such as different image filters or background colors" and then follows an example of a vector image with the only changes being hue or negative filters added and, comically, a background change, citing "the mood and spirit are different in each". If there's a way to measure "mood" and "spirit", please explain how that can be done, otherwise, I wouldn't be so sure that this article provides all the information a contributor might have about Adobe's spam policy.

If you follow the guidelines, that also apply to generative AI (why should generative AI be different in this regard?), you should limit the similar assets to 4 to 5.

By @Abambo

I would argue, that guidelines in the article for AI-generated assets should be highlighted separately. This is because the process of creating these assets is entirely different from all the other formats and requires nuance when reviewed. For example, I've seen somewhere that we should not upload more than 3 assets from one prompt. However, when I'm prompting, I can use a parameter such as "--chaos 60" to achieve wildly different results from one prompt. It gets especially tricky with abstract assets because their similarity or variance is to be viewed subjectively almost by definition.

If we were to treat AI-generated assets the same as, for example, photo assets, none of the AI-generated content would be accepted in any microstock agency simply because every single asset has artifacts and texture imperfections which is a footprint of AI-generated content.

[Abambo]

I would disagree. The guidelines, while very helpful in gauging Adobe's general attitude towards their policies, and having a few examples for them, do not reflect reality accurately, or give precise answers to questions that someone generating large amounts of assets might have.

By @Ars_Nova

As a general rule, don’t submit more than three significant versions of a single motif.

So as a general rule, sending in a fourth asset could be considered as spam. So if you generate “large amounts of assets” you are spamming if there are no significant differences in the image.

Therefore, a portrait of a person: from the left, from the right, from the front. Over. If you have three different people, that will be acceptable.

There's also a contradiction in the article where it says "Don’t send images with minimal differences, such as different image filters or background colors" and then follows an example of a vector image with the only changes being hue or negative filters added and, comically, a background change, citing "the mood and spirit are different in each". If there's a way to measure "mood" and "spirit", please explain how that can be done, otherwise, I wouldn't be so sure that this article provides all the information a contributor might have about Adobe's spam policy.

By @Ars_Nova

OK, let's take this example:

And the negative:

You see that it is not simply a filter that has been applied. If you were a vector artist, you would know that changing the colours in such an asset is not a simple task. It's not just flipping a point of red colour into a point of green colour. And they stick with 3 assets, not four or more… So these 3 variations would be accepted, a fourth would be rejected for being similar. But it may also be that the moderator would accept a fourth, a fifth, or a sixth asset. But at some point you would get a similar refusal, and at some point Adobe would consider you to be a spammer. You will need to find out the “at some point” limit for yourself. (As a side note: spammers get banned, so that would not be a good idea for your portfolio's availability.)

The mood and the spirit will be up to the moderator to judge, I couldn't find a mood meter. If you are unsure about the mood and the spirit, don't submit because they are not different enough.

It's a guideline, it's not a legally binding text. Legally binding is your contributor agreement, where it is stated that at all moment, Adobe can close your account for no reason. They close accounts for reason, but this stipulation helps that you can't really contest their reason. Their reason will be on a commercial basis, if you are not violating IP laws: are your assets profitable, or does it cost more in moderation and client refund as it brings in? So keep your refusal rate low and submit only good assets. And don't think that when a bad asset slips through that that is Adobes issue only. You are still responsible for what you offer through Adobe stock.

I would argue, that guidelines in the article for AI-generated assets should be highlighted separately. This is because the process of creating these assets is entirely different from all the other formats and requires nuance when reviewed.

By @Ars_Nova

No. This attitude is very arrogant. Why should the criteria suddenly be different from those for classic settings just because you use a different method to generate images?

If we were to treat AI-generated assets the same as, for example, photo assets, none of the AI-generated content would be accepted in any microstock agency simply because every single asset has artifacts and texture imperfections which is a footprint of AI-generated content.

By @Ars_Nova

That is a non-argument. If every single asset has artefacts, you should correct every single asset, as we do with classical photography. You are allowed to submit generative AI assets, if they meet the quality requirements that are well established and that are true for all of us, photographers and illustrators. 

As a side note: with photography, there are also different issues with some cameras, notably phone cameras, that don't produce the same quality assets than the “real” cameras. The credo was always that phone camera pictures get accepted when they meet the same quality criteria as established.

The customer pays the same price for your assets than for mine, so the customer could expect the same quality. 

[Ars_Nova]

As a general rule, don’t submit more than three significant versions of a single motif.

So as a general rule, sending in a fourth asset could be considered as spam. So if you generate “large amounts of assets” you are spamming if there are no significant differences in the image.

By @Abambo

This is the reason I came to the forum. Because this general rule is enforced inconsistently by Adobe themselves, teaching contributors to break this rule without even noticing before it's too late. Hundreds of similar assets with different motifs are accepted and sold, and a few are rejected for assumingly breaking this rule, leading to a conclusion "well, what I'm doing is right, these few assets were just probably unlucky". It's especially tricky with abstract assets, as I do consider them to have significant differences and complex enough to have more variations than 3 or 4, and customers seem to agree by downloading them in bulk. I'm not saying that what I'm doing is right, and I worry that continuing with this strategy might have unfortunate consequences. What I'm saying is that if Adobe has these general rules, they should be first of all, precise and clear, without vague terms such as "mood" or "spirit", and they should be enforced consistently, so contributors learn early on to plan their strategy that would comply with the rules, especially when the review times barely leave any space for trial and error.

OK, let's take this example:

And the negative:

You see that it is not simply a filter that has been applied. If you were a vector artist, you would know that changing the colours in such an asset is not a simple task. It's not just flipping a point of red colour into a point of green colour. And they stick with 3 assets, not four or more… So these 3 variations would be accepted, a fourth would be rejected for being similar. But it may also be that the moderator would accept a fourth, a fifth, or a sixth asset. But at some point you would get a similar refusal, and at some point Adobe would consider you to be a spammer. You will need to find out the “at some point” limit for yourself. (As a side note: spammers get banned, so that would not be a good idea for your portfolio's availability.)

The mood and the spirit will be up to the moderator to judge, I couldn't find a mood meter. If you are unsure about the mood and the spirit, don't submit because they are not different enough.

By @Abambo

I'm not a vector artist, but I am a photo editor and I know full well how easy it is to change color with a clipping path in a photo editing software. As you demonstrated, it was not a negative filter that was used here, but rather a hue and saturation effect if I had to guess. I don't think I need to delve deeper as it's not even the point that I'm making. The article contradicts itself, uses vague terms to describe the difference between variation and spam, does not provide "all the information you need to know" and I stand to be corrected.

I would argue, that guidelines in the article for AI-generated assets should be highlighted separately. This is because the process of creating these assets is entirely different from all the other formats and requires nuance when reviewed.

By @Ars_Nova

No. This attitude is very arrogant. Why should the criteria suddenly be different from those for classic settings just because you use a different method to generate images?

By @Abambo

If there's any arrogance in this post, it is in your suggestion that if I've read an article from Adobe, I should not be asking any questions or wasting people's time here, to paraphrase what you meant by saying that. The world is not black and white and there are nuances, as I'm sure you understand, but pretend not to for some unexplained reason.

Adobe already took an entirely different approach to AI-generated content than any other format. A few examples: AI content cannot be uploaded with an editorial license. When uploading AI content, you have to categorize it either as an illustration or a photo asset. When using unrecognizable models or properties, you have to mark them as fictional. Every AI asset in the database is marked as AI-generated.

AI-generated content is very different from any other asset in the database in terms of its creation process, copyright laws, aesthetics, technical parameters, and so on. It would help to have separate and highlighted guidelines for these assets. There are already separate general guidelines for uploading such content, but it wouldn't hurt to have them address the "similar vs spam" issue as well.

If we were to treat AI-generated assets the same as, for example, photo assets, none of the AI-generated content would be accepted in any microstock agency simply because every single asset has artifacts and texture imperfections which is a footprint of AI-generated content.

By @Ars_Nova

That is a non-argument. If every single asset has artefacts, you should correct every single asset, as we do with classical photography. You are allowed to submit generative AI assets, if they meet the quality requirements that are well established and that are true for all of us, photographers and illustrators. 

By @Abambo

After reading your reply I assume that you have never tried to generate and upscale an AI image. Correcting artifacts in every single AI asset is impossible just as correcting artifacts in one single AI asset. The artifacts will be there for a while, as the technology is not advanced enough to get rid of them entirely. The only way to get rid of them entirely is to vectorize them which in most situations is not as helpful as you might think.

[Abambo]

@Ars_Nova,

The guidelines are there to be followed. Nobody forces you to break the rules, and when you break the rules, you should be aware, that you can be banned. If Adobe does not enforce the rule, that does not mean that they can't do at a further stade. The anti spam recommendation is a recommendation with a soft limit. It will be enforced sometime.

There are specifc rules for generative AI, but asking for lesser quality standards is not what I agree upon, when buying generative AI stuff.

If you can't fix it don't submit it. Instead of submitting 500 assets per day, you could also submit 12 good ones. It is not to be expected of the customer to have to improve the pictures, and it is simply outrageous when contributors think that certain rules are not for them. Of course, you could make two categories: bad pictures and good pictures. But why should you do that?

I have generated assets, and I do so sometimes, but it is not what inspires me.

So to conclude: Quality requirements for generative AI are the same as for other submissions. There are no specific generative AI exceptions. The spam rules are the same for generative AI and there are no specific exceptions. 

[Jill_C]

I suppose that as the assets in the database approach 400 million they may decide to enforce this guideline more consistently.

[Ars_Nova]

@Jill_C 

It's a good time to ask for guidance and learn from experienced contributors now, in that case. I've noticed that the numbers climb "inhumanly" fast.

[Ars_Nova]

@Abambo,

I am fully aware that breaking the rules can and in the long run most likely will result in suspension or termination of the account and I try to be careful about it. I turned to the community forum because my own experience with accepted and rejected images left me confused and unsure of how to strategize my workflow going forward. The suggestions here made it a lot more clear on how to change my strategy, so I'm thankful for the input.

I don't think that certain rules do not apply to me. However, in reality, sometimes they do not, and that is very dangerous as it can foster wrongful habits and strategies in the long run of being a contributor., I think we can all agree on that. It's especially unhelpful if the rules are somewhat vague and leave too much space for interpretation and do not address nuances of which there are many.

In terms of quality requirements for AI-generated assets, they are simply not the same as for photos, for example, if we are being realistic, and not living in a fairytale. If they were the same, I would have to repeat myself, none of the AI-generated content would be accepted in any agency due to its nature of having AI-specific artifacts. As of today, you cannot "fix" it, you can only minimize it to an extent. You should know that if you buy AI-generated assets or generate them yourself. In a few years, you might be able to have AI assets that look as clean as photos when zoomed in, but that is not the reality of today.

[Abambo]

I don't think that certain rules do not apply to me. However, in reality, sometimes they do not, and that is very dangerous as it can foster wrongful habits and strategies in the long run of being a contributor., I think we can all agree on that. It's especially unhelpful if the rules are somewhat vague and leave too much space for interpretation and do not address nuances of which there are many.

By @Ars_Nova

Where are the rules vague? Submit 3 variations of each and move on. If you stay with that, there is no problem.

If there is an asset not as it should be, you will earn a refusal, and you will analyse that refusal.

You (and others) think that when they submit 20 or 100 variations of the same asset, and the moderators let it pass, that this is acquired. It is not.

You (and others) think that they may submit bad assets, as the previous bad assets got accepted. You shouldn't.

Stick to the quality requirements and you will be fine.

NB: There are people who got blocked after having submitted 60k of assets in a few months. If you need to redress 60k assets, you are well occupied.

[Ars_Nova]

Where are the rules vague? Submit 3 variations of each and move on. If you stay with that, there is no problem.

By @Abambo

Was it not 4 to 5 similar assets in your first reply? You must be breaking the rules by uploading two more assets than what is suggested in the general rules, and you should know that people get banned for that.

How about 10 to 20 similar assets that are complex and vary significantly from each other even though they have the same motif? Who is to determine when this exception is applicable and when it is not if it is not elaborated on in the rules and there are no examples of it? How about avoiding small changes like the background color, but also allowing it as a significant change sometimes because the "mood" is different? How about even considering AI-generated assets as a different form of asset from photo, vector, or video, where the same motif and even the same prompt can produce wildly different and unique results?

You seem to have all the answers (even though some of them changed in the span of this discussion) and are looking at the world through a monochrome lens, I'm afraid I can't help you here.

You (and others) think that when they submit 20 or 100 variations of the same asset, and the moderators let it pass, that this is acquired. It is not.

You (and others) think that they may submit bad assets, as the previous bad assets got accepted. You shouldn't.

By @Abambo

Of course, me (and others) would think like that according to you. There's no nuance or variance whatsoever because me (and others) probably belong to some sort of secret underground group and we can only have a one-sided perspective, the one that fits your view of the world where there's only one simple answer for everything.

Me (and others) are planning our monthly meeting this Friday where we discuss the strategies of spamming as many bad assets to microstock agencies as we can, but I'm afraid only the inner circle is invited.

[Abambo]

Where are the rules vague? Submit 3 variations of each and move on. If you stay with that, there is no problem.

Was it not 4 to 5 similar assets in your first reply? You must be breaking the rules by uploading two more assets than what is suggested in the general rules, and you should know that people get banned for that.

So submit 4 to 5. People won't get banned for uploading 2 more. They may get a similar refusal.

And btw, I didn't ask fir guidance here.

Me (and others) are planning our monthly meeting this Friday where we discuss the strategies of spamming as many bad assets to microstock agencies as we can, but I'm afraid only the inner circle is invited.

By @Ars_Nova

Do as you want. This discussion is answered and locked.