Safety in pictures

[amclain311]

Does Adobe actually check their pictures for safety concerns before they buy the product? As an EHS professional, it's very disturbing to see all the picures that include violations people are using for their company use. With this, an inspection of EVERY picture is required. Safety glasses on a worker in the field should be highly recemmended. Should Adobe hire an editor for this sole purpose? If so, almost 1/2 of the pictures that show employees "working" in a setting are NO GOOD. 

[MatHayward]

Thank you for reaching out to Adobe about your search results. We are continually auditing, evaluating and improving our collection to serve our customers’ needs and we appreciate you bringing these search results to our attention.

[John2250660051gy]

Thanks for mentioning this amclain311, I'm on Adobe Stock continuously looking for people in high visibility apparel and hard hats.  I conservatively estimate 85% of the images available are useless because people aren’t wearing safety glasses.  I’m unaware of any industry that would require an employee to wear a hard hat, but not safety glasses.  Its extremely frustrating how many images I can't use because of this.

[Abambo]

Just for the record: I work in an industry where the safety requirements change from country to country and from customer to customer. In addition to that, we have our own safety requirements as an equipment builder. And, in addition, they also change during the time. So, I'm pretty aware of what is required and what not. Pictures we took years ago but still fresh, can't be used because of missing helmet, gloves, glasses… That's normal.

When taking pictures of workers in a specific situation, I always ask the "models" to adhere to the PPE rules. But that are the then current rules.

This said, not all PPE are required in all situations. It's pretty impossible for a moderator to know the correct setting in each situation. If you need a specific setting, you need to select the correct pictures for your setting.

And also not to forget: I quite often search for images where the safety requirements are not met. I require those images.

[Test Screen Name]

I'd disagree, personally, that Adobe should filter only for the highest regulatory/safety requirements.

1. The photos are used around the world, where entirely different and possibly contradictory requirements apply.

2. Many people need to publish pictures of poor practice as part of their safety literature.

3. The cost of Adobe training people in the safety requirements of all industries and countries seems an excessive overhead for photos that may make a few dollars or never sell at all.

[John2250660051gy]

I think the idea is to pass the information on to photographers.  If you look through series with high visibility apparel you can easily tell which sets are models, their apparel is always clean and new.  If I was taking the time to produce a photo shoot, I would want to know that missing PPE is preventing people from purchasing my work. Adobe and other photos selling platforms must have some sort of guidelines, or the photographers must spend time on these community boards.

You are correct about the pictures being sold worldwide.  Again, its pretty easy to identify the sets take in North American which are the ones I’m looking for and should be in line with North American standards.

[Abambo]

I think the idea is to pass the information on to photographers.  If you look through series with high visibility apparel you can easily tell which sets are models, their apparel is always clean and new.  If I was taking the time to produce a photo shoot, I would want to know that missing PPE is preventing people from purchasing my work.

By @John2250660051gy

That's the difference between a professional industry photographer and a fashion photographer.