Image filtered by Safe Search. Why???

[mars lewis]

Why is Adobe assigning "safe search status" to an image which contains no nudity, sexual, or any violation of content rules? This is a killer for a search of a photo. This is a fantasy warrior princess retreating through a medieval forest why the search restrictions. I might mention they were added AFTER it sold 9 times without any such safe search feature applied to the image. This is not fair to me as a contributor who strives to produced quality images within Adobe Stock Guidelines. I would really appreciate this being remedied. It makes no sense for any artist to produce beautiful and powerful images of women if this is allowed to occur. Shame on the gatekeeper who initiated this.

Why would this get filtered by safe search:

and this not:

This model's closed are PAINTED ON! A REAL GIRL!  My model is more covered AND SHE ISN'T EVEN REAL for god's sake. Cmon Adobe!

Totally inconsistent application of criteria for safe search.

There is nothing offensive about mine or the other contributor example, yet mine gets filtered and is much less explicit - IF EITHER IS.

Very frustrating and unfair for me as a hard working artist trying be part of this enterprise.

No artist on this forum should support such an arbitrary application of the standards.

[Abambo · Accepted solution]

Discussion successfully moved from Adobe Stock to Adobe Stock Contributors

First of all: your girl is not nude but nearly and the clothing is not what girls put on for a walk in the woods. I personally think that the « unsafe search » criteria is correctly applied. There is unfortunately no difference between soft and hard erotic pictures.

The second picture should also get attributed « unsafe search » criteria.

It’s the same discussion that occurs when a picture gets refused. One picture gets refused a different one with the same subject gets not. Moderators are humans and as they have guidelines, they have personal limits to judge or mark pictures the one way or the other.

Use the « contact us » link at the footer of the contributor page to ask Adobe directly for mor information.

[mars lewis]

Well that response seems mildly inappropriate considering it is fantasy art. That's a pretty big leap to make yourself the arbiter of what is permissible for a woman to wear on a "walk" thru the woods. Sounds like some kind of Taliban sentiment. I suppose that the orc she is running from is justified in his attack because "she's just asking for it." Don't be so archaic in your thinking. I assure you that your reply is much more offensive than the photo in regards to a "women's right to dress how she wishes in the woods".

It is a fantasy female warrior image - quite a popular genre. It is erotic to the extent that it excites your sexual sensibilities. God forbid this censorship would flourish and Adobe would allow its contributors to be censored in this manner in the year 2019. Really takes me back to "the good ole days".

Thank You through for caring enough to respond. I am sincerely appreciative.

Both pictures do not cross the line and to not to be censored in this manner.  I hope Adobe will not double down on this with some similar flippant "non-response".

[Abambo]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/mars+lewis  wrote

Well that response seems mildly inappropriate considering it is fantasy art.

Fantasy art does not make it less explicit.

https://forums.adobe.com/people/mars+lewis  wrote

It is a fantasy female warrior image - quite a popular genre. It is erotic to the extent that it excites your sexual sensibilities. God forbid this censorship would flourish and Adobe would allow its contributors to be censored in this manner in the year 2019. Really takes me back to "the good ole days".

There is no censorship involved. Censorship is what happens on fb, where body paint artists get censored.

It’s also not that I disagree with you on the fantasy theme. The fantasy theme lives from nude skin of male and female characters with shining swords and other weapons. Males are muscular and females are nicely proportioned. That’s ok for me.

But looking it from the perspective of a potential buyer, some buyers just do not want to need to skip tons of more or less explicit images.

Images are not censored, they are marked or rated that’s different.

And bear in mind: the stock image business is not about art, it’s about craft.

[mars lewis]

The image ran for a year without benefit of being squelched by "Safe Search" because it was found to be acceptable.. At a much later point in time, someone decided it qualify for the Safe Search button - a recent development. Who's correct in their evaluation. Logic would tell you that with this much confusion in the ranks of the Adobe would probably warrant that they err on the side of the artist.

The image is not explicit   - no nudity - no semi-nudity - no adult content. So someone should not have to disable a "nanny filter" to see this. If you're searching for a "fantasy woman warrior" as your search word criteria chances are you want to see this. Your premise is absurd.

You continue to frame your feeble argument in the weakest of terms using flawed logic, while establishing yourself as the arbiter of what everyone should see.

I will tell you that the score right now is

Censors 3 and Artist 0

You're winning. I hope what you espouse is truly the platform in which you wish to participate.

Cause I am definitely getting no traction here. Luckily you'e just noise in the scheme of this. Maybe the final arbiter is an evolved mind, not something left over from the censorship board of "I Love Lucy".

You protect those delicate little eyes and ears.

[Abambo]

Did you contact Adobe via « contact us »?

[mars lewis]

Yes. I did contact them.

I just want to finish with this.

If an image that shows up in a regular unrestricted search 9 times because subscribers liked it and found it useful and of value - and then it can be diminished by relegation to a restricted search status arbitrarily, by a complaint, or because it was revisited and new eyes find it lacking - then I think no image is safe from such a capriciously critical validation process. This is not good business and certainly not worthwhile for the artist to continue producing obviously commercially successful images within the genre.

My suggestion would be to not make "safe search" the default setting - let it be something the user chooses to activate - and to make safe search criteria more specific to user defined factors.

What is seen with safe search now is defined outside of the artist/subscriber relationship and it appears to be determined by a sole arbiter.

There is a better process available that benefits all while putting the concerns of the subscribers' sentiments and sensibilities soley at the subscribers discretion for images that do not violate Adobe policy but are more a matter of personal taste and preferences.

That is respectful to all. The ADOBE STOCK staff member who would take the time to articulate my suggestions up the hierarchy to the policy makers would be doing the entire creative community as well as the ADOBE shareholders a tremendous service.

These issues that I have raised may not affect you as a contributor now, but I assure that if this can happen to me - it can happen to any contributor.

I value the opportunity to participate in the stock image industry - and this would not have been possible for me without the innovative thinking of ADOBE. I am so very grateful to ADOBE and its stock subscribers.

Thanks for everyone's input. While I found much of the feedback intellectually dishonest consisting of fundamentally bad faith arguments - it was a good debate and an important conversation.

Respect to all.

Let see how it goes now.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi Mars,

To my understanding, your Adobe contact through "Contact us" would go to more or less the same staff members that monitors this forum. If you do not get your desire through that medium, it is unlikely you will through this medium. However, lets see the outcome in the long run.

Another thing, because others do not share your opinion do not make them any more intellectually deficient then you who do not share their opinion. I can understand your anger, and I would be also, but you also need to understand that a company do not arbitrarily make changes. Whatever changes that are made, whatever, regulations laid down, whatever guideline set, it is base on knowledge, and experience.

If I were to analyze your image, I would not see it depicting a strong warier woman; I see it as depicting a silly vulnerable woman entering war without proper gears. Why? Consider these questions: If the opponent from above drops an object on her head, what percentage of chance she would survive?

In a fight a sward launches to her chest, what is the chance it would not puncture her heart? How about other vital organs of her loins? How protected are they from a sward's puncture?

This woman is very brave, braver than men. But then, it's the artists perception of a strong and brave warier woman.

Customers do search the category your image is at. Not everything that looks bleak really is. Where ever this image is placed on Adobe website it will attract eyes. As I said before, it is a nice image.

Best wishes

JG

[Abambo]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/mars+lewis  wrote

Yes. I did contact them.

Then the message goes to the right people for their consideration.

Have a nice day.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi Mars,

Fantasy or not, in the woods or not, these images depict women seminude/nude. The web search is a public platform even as the street is public. Are women walking around on the street dressed as the above images depict? Images are just that, not real people, what goes for one image applies to the other, fiction or photo. However, what is depicted in an image portrays the norm - what is acceptable. Your woman is beautiful but need to be waring a pair of pants or shorts to go public. Because the pubic area is cropped, and the breast painted with black, the other woman is less explicit.

Best regards

JG

[mars lewis]

Wrong Jackie. It doesn't work like that.

And it would serve you well to realize that YOU DO NOT DETERMINE what normal is for me as an artist nor anyone else. There is nothing remotely more revealing in this image than what one would see in a bathing suit at the beach.

Wait 4 it ... wait 4 it.

"This isn't a beach ... this is the woods". There I saved you from appearing more ridiculous.

you retort:

"Because the pubic area is cropped, and the breast painted with black, the other woman is less explicit."

Really?? So in your world paint qualifies as an appropriate covering of the pubic area but a leather panty does not.

"Images are just that, not real people." My God stop.

"Are women walking around on the street dressed as the above images depict?"

Obviously not in your fashion policed society. In mine, women choose their own fashion. The type of logic your using is of benefit only to Berka sales.

The woman is neither nude/or semi nude. That is factual.

Your reply, with all due respect, is premised on complete anti-woman rhetorical absurdities. Plain puritanical totalitarianism antithetical to women's rights.

... and this beautiful image of a powerful woman warrior figure is the trench that you choose to assert yourself in??

Heaven help us.

I might finish with that the image sold and remained in a non-safe enabled search since June 28th, 2019 until just recently. Its inconsistent of Adobe to make this call a year after it was approved for search and sale ... and this should concern every artist who value fairness in the most wonderful opportunity filled arena.

I believe Adobe remedy this in my favor because it is the right thing to do in this matter .. but it might be indeed the case that it only takes a couple of thought police with "a like" to a reply to shut it down.

I really, really need the 33 cents so please don't ruin me with this one.

I think i'll go paint some pants on now and take my daily stroll through the wood.

TA TA

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi Mars,

I believe images are revisited based on feedback from customers. When this is done, it would be reviewed based on current policies and guidelines, and I believe it is on that basis your image was given it's current status. Also keep in mind that policies and guidelines of companies are subjected to change at whatever frequency it is deemed necessary. The forums are monitored, and so if it is that your image was unfairly given its current status, I'm sure it will be once again revised.

Best wishes

JG