How do we report offensive images in Adobe Stock?

[ewanp45722972]

I see multiple posts asking the same question - but the answer is always "pm us" - there is *STILL* no mechanism for reporting offensive images. A clear link at the top of the relevant pages (forums, stock homepage etc), or next to each image is clearly needed.

Whom do I pm to report the image I've seen? And no, just like others have pointed out, I'm not listing it for others to stumble across. Is Adobe Stock a soft porn site now?

Searching for 'Kitchen counter" brings me to a related image of a girl clearly in her teens wearing nothing but boots and a top. The image is marked as 'provocative' - but is clearly far beyond that.

This is offensive. Who is responsible for moderating submissions? Can we have a name?

[joanH]

I believe we need a staff answer on this. Please. JH

Pete.Green​

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi ewamp,

I'd suggest have the ID number(s) of the image(s) ready. Scroll to the bottom of the stock page click on "Learn and support". Scroll to the bottom of the new page. Click on "Contact us", or the speech bubble to the bottom right of the page. Request to speak with someone and state your concern there, including the ID of the image(s) your speak of. You should be directed to the right channel using that medium. I am here assuming the image(s) you speak of is not in "Safe Search".

Best wishes

JG

[Pete.Green · Accepted solution]

Thanks for the ping joanh22203655​, and for the report Ewan p.

I've passed this image onto the Stock team for another review of this photo.

Please feel free to continue bringing your concerns here to the forum!

Regards,

Pete

[ewanp45722972]

Well I can't reply to the supposedly 'correct' answer, as there is no 'reply' except to the original question.

I started an online 'chat' as suggested by forum staff at 9.37pm. By 22.17pm, 40 minutes later, the only answer I was given was to email contributor-support@adobe.com. And only because I asked for a contact method, not because the agent was volunteering any help. The 'agent' made no attempt to proactively help, and did not respond to questions with relevant responses - and at 3 minutes between each agent 'response' of only a half a dozen words, I did not feel they were even paying attention.

Is the agent's answer of 'email contributor-support@adobe.com' something that could have been answered on the forum thread? Because if so, there is little point in chat support.

By marking a thread response of "thanks, kepp telling us" as a correct and final answer, and closing any further replies, you give the impression you want this buried.

I will try emailing the address given, but if get the same runaround as above, the chances of this getting more publicity than Adobe would like is going to be high...

Pete.Green​

[Pete.Green]

Hi Ewan,

Your concern is very much appreciated, I don't want you to feel like your voice hasn't been heard! Absolutely, if you see something on the Adobe Stock site that concerns you, definitely bring it up here to the forum as you have done.

As far as the correct answer being marked, there is nothing to bury here, your concern was aired, and I've sent an email to the team, who have responded and confirmed that the subject in the photo you've referenced is not and was not a minor at the time of this shot.

Regards,

Pete

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi ewanp,

I believe I read at post 3, the same answer marked as correct, that PeteGreen said he has "passed (the) image onto the Stock team for another review of (the) photo". In my opinion that is the only possible correct answer to the question raised.

You may bookmark this thread so that you can always have access to it. If there's any other relevant question, or comment that you may have on the subject.  We will be notified if you update this post. In the case of a question not relevant to this subject, you may start a new post.

To identify staff on the forums you'll see the word "STAFF" in red and white as in the case of PeteGreen. Anyone else are international volunteers. That is the reason I directed you to the "Contact Us" to speak with staff members, since I am not one of them. Many times staff do answer questions when we request their assistance either from the forum, as Joan did, or privately, as I sometimes do.

Regards

Jacquelin

[Abambo]

ewanp45722972  wrote

By marking a thread response of "thanks, kepp telling us" as a correct and final answer, and closing any further replies, you give the impression you want this buried.

Pete expressly tells you to continue to bring forward concerns about images in this forum. That means that you are invited to further report images if you feel that an image is inappropriate. The thread is still open and has not been locked. What happens when people see your question is that they will see Pete's answer first, telling to bring forward complaints. This is clearly an attempt to encourage anyone to report a picture if they deem necessary.

Now for one of your initial questions:

Who is responsible for moderating submissions? Can we have a name?

Adobe has a moderation team that reviews every image that get's submitted for quality, intellectual property and privacy rights. It is not impossible that somewhere a small logo has been overseen, but it is clearly required for each submitter to include a model release if there is a person on the picture. Nudes can only be submitted if the model proves to be 18 or more years old. This is a requirement by law, but for sure, Adobe does neither publish the model release nor any attached supplementary data.

You do not publish the name so I can only guess: it is allowed to post nudes, so the picture is in-line with the stock site's policy.

You can't have a name of the moderators, however. Even contributors do not know who moderated their pictures and issued a pass or fail.

[ewanp45722972]

Thank you for all the polite replies about process - but they still ignore the central issue.

Which is still: Adobe are allowing images of models who *clearly look underage* to be accepted and shown. The image in question crosses a line in my opinion.

When someone - lets say a student for example - searches for "kitchen counter" it is not acceptable for them to be shown a 'teenage' girl wearing nothing but socks and a top on a kitchen sink. Ever. The model might be 18 (did you check?) - but making them look age indeterminate, is not on.

Your 'accepted answer' is, in short, "We'll have another review". Not "We'll have another review and let you know". There is no accountability with your reply.

Especially when you say 'feel free to start a chat' and the 'chat' turns out to be a 40 minute wait for 'Go email support'.

I note you don't comment on that.

If Adobe thinks pictures of young, age-not-quite-determinable girls as that described above make them money, then shame on Adobe. You should remove it.

And if Adobe think it fine, they won't mind it apearing in their twitter feed, I'm sure. Unless social media sites have a more focussed approach to such images and remove it themselves.

Does Adobe have a policy or guidelines about how such decisions should be arrived at, regardles of the actual age of the model? How about publishing it?

[Abambo]

ewanp45722972  wrote

Which is still: Adobe are allowing images of models who *clearly look underage* to be accepted and shown. The image in question crosses a line in my opinion.

All nude models (even partial nudes or only body parts) need to be 18 or above. As for the "look" I did not see up to now pictures of models that where looking underage. 

[osieg48699786]

Hello there, y'all can see who I am 🙂 and what if I don't want my name on a public forum to report something offensive for fear of reprisal....?

[jane-e]

---

@osieg48699786 wrote:

Hello there, y'all can see who I am...

---

This is how we see your name:

~ Jane

[mnp llpl72345819]

Adobe, I think this series of images is culturally inappropriate and suggest that it be removed from your collection.

Thank you.

[WendellaBee]

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I'll pass this on to the appropriate team and they will evaluate the content.

EBQ

[sillycat]

Please pass on this image  and the series to the team. The description includes "minor young girl" and is offensive. It is also triggering for those who have experienced abuse by clergy. This does not belong on Adobe Stock Images.

[WendellaBee]

Thanks for reporting this. I'll forward your request to the appropriate team for review.

EBQ

[jh71466109]

Hi there, I was searching for a vector illustration of a raccoon today and came across a number of problematic images that trivialize Native American cultures. The users I link to below all have several images for sale that fit this description and are labeled as bohemian or boho. Specifically using the phrase "wild and free" or related phrases along with these images is very offensive. You can see more images from each user in the "More like this" feature at the bottom of each of these links. 

"Boho" style raccoon 

Seamless "Boho" raccoon pattern 

Raccoon with feathers 

Another raccoon with feathers 

[WendellaBee]

Hi jh71466109,

Adobe cares deeply about the respect and equal treatment of everyone, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, age, disability, sex-ual orientation, gender identity, cultural background, or religious beliefs. We are continually auditing, evaluating, and improving the Adobe Stock collections to serve our customers’ needs.  We appreciate you sharing your comments and concerns with us.

[lei71377077]

Adobe doesn't care deeply.  Caring is demonstrated by action.  Adobe has taken no action.

This totally repulsive and clearly offensive image (FILE #: 294649262) identified above by @sillycat on March 10, 2020 is still active.  And, as mentioned by countless others, there is STILL NO WAY for users to flag indecent or hateful images.

[PaintedKitty]

It is in poor taste for me as well but when you have a story in a magazine article how else can you add to the story of abuse?

[J E L]

@lei71377077 I understand where you are coming from. The image of the priest you link to is sort of creepy to me but it's illustrating a concept and that is the purpose of stock photography. I could flag images for hours where I think the models look young for such provocative outfits and poses, such as this one (4 Mockups of Women's Underwear Stock Template | Adobe Stock). Even though they may be viewed by me as a bit too sexy for what looks like a young model and not a "woman," as long as the image doesn't violate any legal restrictions (images of minors must have a model release with a parent or guardian signature) Adobe has a right to offer it. I'm certain they reject far more than they accept. I don't think it's a matter of not caring. Censorship is a slippery slope once you start down it. The Internet is rife with sites that host millions of illegal images and Adobe is clearly not one of them. However, I totally agree that there should be a place to report images for review and apparently that is exactly what we have here. So, there is a way to flag images and that's a good thing. (FYI, I am not an Adobe employee but a contributor to this Community and someone who takes protecting children quite seriously.)