Generative AI Exclusion Filter still not working

[Steampunk Explorer]

A while back, Adobe announced that it would allow AI-generated content in Adobe Stock. “We believe that generative AI tools can help our contributor community continue to create amazing content,” Adobe stated, “and we believe in transparent, clear labeling for customers when it comes to this content.”
The promise of "transparent, clear labeling" has not been fulfilled. Even when the new Generative AI exclusion filter is enabled, lots of AI-generated images continue to show up.
I've posted a couple of recent examples, using a search for steampunk imagery. Note that "Exclude Generative AI" is checked in both cases. In the second screenshot, the label is obviously a prompt used to generate the image. In the first, one of the images shows what appears to be a steampunked version of Robert Downey Jr.'s Iron Man character. The IP lawyers for Downey and Marvel Studios would have a field day if an Adobe Stock customer tried to use that image.
Every business makes choices. Adobe has clearly chosen to put enormous resources toward adding generative AI capabilities to its software. Is it asking too much for Adobe to steer some of those resources to AI search filters that actually work? How hard can it be to develop an algorithm that would identify the label in the second image as an AI prompt?
Kickstarter just announced that it will allow projects that incorporate AI-generated content, but with a requirement for transparency. On the surface, it appears to be similar to what Adobe is doing. But Kickstarter's guidelines have real teeth. Submitted projects are reviewed by human beings before they appear on the site, and creators can be banned if they violate the rules. In contrast, Adobe appears to be paying lip service to the concept of transparency without doing much about it.
My annual subscription to Adobe Stock comes up for renewal in a couple of days and I'm ready to throw in the towel. I'm fortunate in that I've reached retirement age and will not have to bear the brunt of the fallout from the emergence of this technology. But I fear and grieve for all the younger artists who will have to deal with this.

[Jill_C · Accepted solution]

I agree with you that the AI filter doesn't seem to catch all occurrences of AI assets, and it certainly does a disservice to Buyers who don't want to utilize AI assets in their designs to have to wade through this stuff. The Moderators should be catching and rejecting the majority of the submissions on which the Contributors have not checked the "Created using generative AI tools" checkbox, especially for such egregious violations as you have cited. However I believe that they should also be blocking the Contributors who are "forgetting" to check the box and banning them from future Submissions. The Adobe Stock database is polluted with low-quality AI assets, and every attempt should be made to prevent further incursions of such assets and to identify and delete mislabeled and flawed assets.

I suppose @Contributor1 can have the Adobe Moderation team take another look at the specific asset you mentioned.

[Steampunk Explorer]

I agree 100%.

[Abambo]

This contributor clearly violated the terms for submitting generative AI assets (the asset did get uploaded after March 2023), and the AI to detect unmarked generative AI did not flag this one. And it is a problem for customers. BTW: the filter will fail for all assets not marked as generative AI, as this is basically, what the filter uses as an indication. There is no analysis of the asset at this point.

There also seems to be a loose moderation standard regarding to PNG files, as some peple upload PNG without transparency, which is prohibited by the rules. They should be rejected systematically.

Mederation is done by humans, but I have tge feeling, that not all moderators are doing their job as it should be done, respectively have a huge pressure to moderate many assets. On the contributor side, we see, however, an increased number of contributors complaining that the rejection rate has increased. When they post their rejected pictures, we see that they have been rightfully rejected. This may be just a coincidence, but it's noticeable.

As for IP rights, if you see pictures violating third party IP rights, it is not easy for the moderators, behind the classic Disney figures and Marvel comics to know about all characters out in the wild. I suppose that either @Contributor1 can handle claims like that, or you can report such assets via https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/how-to-report-suspected-misuse-of-your-intellectual-p....

(I agree, it's not the customer's task to do that, but it will help us all to keep the database clean.)

[Contributor1]

Hello @Steampunk Explorer, I've reported this contributor for some IP concerns and it should get looked into soon. Thank you for the report and sorry for the problem with the images.