Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I have just had a number of photographs declined due to 'Non-compliant content'. Among them was this pic of a Hereford Cow
The puzzling thing for me is the pic of a Hereford Calf (below) was submitted at the same time and was approved. The keyword tags were almost identical, so I am baffled as to why one was accepted and the other declined. Any ideas?
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
What about the keywords?
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Keywords were virtually identical in the two photos yet one was accepted and the other declined. AS
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
https://forums.adobe.com/people/eCLICKtique+Photography wrote
Keywords were virtually identical in the two photos yet one was accepted and the other declined. AS
You should not tend to take the acceptance of one picture as a general stand for acceptance of the other picture. As moderation is done by humans, 2 moderators may decide differently.
There are also a lot of possibilities this can go wrong:
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hi eCLICKtique Photography, Perhaps this photo is NonCompliant by identification of the property and owner via the ear tag. The animal in the photo has unique coloring also and could identify this one animal. It appears that you rubbed out the numbers on the tag. However, the reviewer might think the placement and double tags are part of the identification too. At cattle auctions, the owners can identify their stock from a long distance not just by numbers. Love the photos. Can you block out the tags? Or, get a model release? Best regards, JH
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hi Joan, yes I could understand that if it wasn't for the fact that the cow and the calf were photographed at the same time and had similar ear-tags. As you say, I removed the numbers from the tags and I gave the photos very similar keywords yet one was accepted and the other wasn't. I hope it doesn't come down to identifying individual animals otherwise photographers soon wont be able to photograph anything without the permission of owners! It would be helpful if the Adobe panel could just give a bit more info sometimes, then contributors could learn from their mistakes. I still have no idea what was wrong with this and another four photos they declined so I could well make the same mistakes again. Thanks for your response anyway. Regards. Alan (eCLICKtique photography)
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
https://forums.adobe.com/people/eCLICKtique+Photography wrote
I hope it doesn't come down to identifying individual animals otherwise photographers soon wont be able to photograph anything without the permission of owners!
No, that's not the case. I have plenty of pictures in my portfolio, where the owner, in occurrence mostly me, can identify the location, the subject and the object. It's not that you (owner) is able to identify, but it's more if someone else can identify the subject.
BTW: you are not allowed to photograph anything without the approval of the owner.
And in addition: the rules here are Adobe's rules, very similar to other stock providers but not exactly the same. And those rules are floating. What is true today could be wrong tomorrow. Adobe needs to comply to all the laws in all the countries where Adobe stock is operated. That is what makes it so complicated and restrictive.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I don't think the ear tags are an issue as you have taken out the numbers. However, if it were me I would remove the ear tags altogether.
It is hard to say what the issue is when it comes to non-compliance - esp. from our end as fellow contributers. Usually it's keywords -
Perhaps MatHayward​ could help here.
Reasons content is rejected at Adobe Stock
Have you read the conributer agreement?
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Thanks Ricky, I'm beginning to think it must be keywords, though I cant think what. Thanks for the advice about Mat Haywood, I'll give him a try
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Look at the keywords and/or post them here. I would not assume that Hereford is a protected name. But it may well be...
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hereford is surely not protected but a reviewer could easily mistake it.
Or it could be something completely different.
I have images of cattle approved, appart from the ear tags, there was never a problem.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
That's correct. I got once (not with Adobe) coke refused... as with coking coal, not the black sugary drink...
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Yes I've got other pictures of cattle approved, thats why I was surprised about this one. All helpful stuff. Thank you
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Getting a picture approved does not guarantee to get exactly the same picture again approved (after deletion of the first one...). That's the human factor and the changing rules.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Did you use the race "herford" as a keyword?
I would try to resubmit. Maybe without the race.
On the other hand a poodle is a poodle and not just A dog.