As I was writing my remarks above, I thought back to several recent posts containing stylized generative AI or snapshots taken with phone cameras, under less-than-ideal conditions. As often happens with new Contributors, they feel slighted when their "artwork" isn't accepted. When flaws are pointed out, some become incredulous. Stock doesn't appreciate their "artistic vision." Or since all AI contains mistakes, those mistakes don't matter. It's "the artwork itself that counts."
"Artistic vision" is fine for an art exhibition at a gallery, but Stock isn't an art gallery. It's primarily a royalty-free assets service, with some high quality artwork thrown in.
I agree, there are various commercial uses for Stock art including Wall Art/Posters, Calendars, T-shirts and other merchandise sold by Stock's partners. That's a welcome outlet for many photographers & digital artists to reach. But in order to get into a marketplace, first you have to pass Stock's acceptance standards. Right?
Unfortunately, no amount of post-editing can make a silk purse from a pig's ear. But good content can be improved & eventually make sales for the contributor. I'm a firm believer in post-editing when the content is good enough to work with. If it's not, I won't waste my time on it.
... View more