MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Adobe Stock => Topic started by: JustAnImage on August 23, 2023, 14:56
-
Hello Adobe, Hello Mat,
I just found my Adobe Stock account blocked and I am not aware of doing anything wrong.
I am uploading a lot of AI images at the moment and have been trying to stick to the ever changing requirements (which boxes need to be checked/unchecked) all along.
Can anyone tell me what I can do now?
I don't know what to do - please help...
Thanks,
Michael
-
Mat Hayward has posted his address here for people to use if they need him to look into something:
https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-free-collection- (https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-free-collection-)$5-payments-are-back-vector-and-illustration-email-bug/msg588896/#msg588896
I suggest you contact him via email or see if the Adobe Stock Discord forum can help
-
Hello Jo Ann,
thanks for the link!
I'll try that and hope I don't get on Mat's nerves with the problem.... for me this is a very big problem....
Thanks,
Michael
Edit:
Tried the discord, but they "do not discuss blocked accounts there"...
I asked them how long the answer from the contributor support may take - "We've heard anywhere from a few days to a few weeks; there's no way of knowing how long it will take. You just have to be patient and await their reply."
And my income of August is also frozen there... I am simply at a loss
-
Haven't updated Adobe password / ID recently? If so, probably a good idea to clear your browser cookies. And if not, maybe still a good idea to clear your browser cookies anyway. This might not be helpful or even relevant but good to consider all options when troubleshooting.
-
Haven't updated Adobe password / ID recently? If so, probably a good idea to clear your browser cookies. And if not, maybe still a good idea to clear your browser cookies anyway. This might not be helpful or even relevant but good to consider all options when troubleshooting.
Thanks, not the worst idea, but that's what I tried first - on different browsers.
-
I have now spent almost the entire night racking my brains about what I must have done wrong.
The only thing I can think of is that maybe I didn't fill in the AI box correctly on one set of images. That shouldn't happen, but one is not free of mistakes....
I really hope this doesn't cost me my account with a good 30,000 assets.
Hopefully the response from Adobe won't take so long.... Fingers crossed!
-
Same thing happed to me at the same time. I hope it won't ruin my 6 years work of videos and animations. Recently I was also generating AI images, I can't access anything on my account so can't even delete or review any of my images. Interestingly while I'm still blocked my previous submissions have been approved (got e-mail about it)
-
Adobe would probably safe themselves some work if they would just give a short message about the reason why your account was banned instead of having every banned contributor inquire via e-mail.
I suspect your ban has something to so with breaking AI image rules. All of sudden Adobe seems to be very focused on cleaning up the mess they caused with approving AI images left and right without proper review.
But I have heard of enough cases where contributors were wrongly banned and had their accounts restored when they could, for example, prove that images they were accused of stealing were indeed their images. The process is probably time consuming and nerv wrecking enough as it is. The contriburors shouldn't have to spend countless days and e-mails to even figure out in the first place what Adobe thinks they did wrong.
-
Where can i see your AI photos, on another photo agency? Maybe we can find the reason then
-
Where can i see your AI photos, on another photo agency? Maybe we can find the reason then
Thats not easy, as the complete portfolio is only at AdobeStock.
Some of my images can be found at Dreamstime (sorry for the very long link):
https://de.dreamstime.com/search.php?securitycheck=5ae3d5b7bb44cbfd7885da41ed3e3bb2&srh_field=generative-ai&s_all=y&s_ph=y&s_il=y&s_video=y&s_audio=y&s_ad=n&s_sl0=y&s_sl1=y&s_sl2=y&s_sl3=y&s_sl4=y&s_sl5=y&s_orp=y&s_orl=y&s_ors=y&s_orw=y&s_clc=y&s_clm=y&s_rsf=0&s_rst=7&s_sp=piepgras
I always try to remove generated logos, I do not copy prompts, I do not create popular people - I am really trying to be careful, but I seem to have made a mistake somewhere.
@MatHayward:
Please - desperate contributor from Northern Germany calling for help :-)
-
You had some cars in your AI portfolio that are most likely trademarked, but I am not sure if that would justify a complete ban.
-
What about the cars?
I am not a car expert, but could this be considered infringing on some car designs?
https://de.dreamstime.com/ein-sportwagen-auf-dem-mond-der-mit-generativer-ai-technologie-geschaffen-wurde-image285014687
https://de.dreamstime.com/ein-glas-vintage-auto-einer-leeren-straße-die-mit-generativen-ai-technologie-gebaut-wurde-image274347811
https://de.dreamstime.com/ein-schnelles-muskelfahrzeug-einer-wüste-die-mit-generativer-ai-technologie-erschaffen-wurde-sand-image272441835
There are design elements on these phones, I always remove speakers, buttons and notches in photos to make them generic
https://de.dreamstime.com/cloud-storage-konzept-mit-generativer-ai-technologie-image283222144
https://de.dreamstime.com/cloud-storage-konzept-mit-generativer-ai-technologie-image279738389
https://de.dreamstime.com/cloud-storage-konzept-mit-generativer-ai-technologie-image282058248
design elements on computer
https://de.dreamstime.com/eine-rakete-die-von-einem-laptop-bildschirm-aus-mit-generativer-ai-technologie-erstellt-wird-image279738325
https://de.dreamstime.com/ein-laptop-und-analytische-daten-digitale-kunst-mit-generativer-ai-technologie-image277939976
typical apple laptop notch, speakers etc... on the rim
Great work otherwise!
-
Thanks for the tips...
With the cars I always remove the beginnings of logos and then also look if the contours are "too similar" to a model I know.
But of course I'm not a legal expert here....
I really hope to get an answer from Adobe soon, so I can get any problem out of the way as soon as possible...
I just want to get the opportunity and of course I'm ready to clean up according to Adobe's specifications!
-
Very frustrating I can imagine having your account blocked.
But glad I never started with this AI nonsense. It creates only more problems, it seems.
-
Hello Adobe, Hello Mat,
I just found my Adobe Stock account blocked and I am not aware of doing anything wrong.
I am uploading a lot of AI images at the moment and have been trying to stick to the ever changing requirements (which boxes need to be checked/unchecked) all along.
Can anyone tell me what I can do now?
I don't know what to do - please help...
Thanks,
Michael
I'm not sorry to hear that finally something can deter this blind infatuation with AI. Thank you JustAnImage for this post, which brings -[edit:]although I can understand the dismay you express- hope with a subliminal message like: "Mass submit AI images, at your own peril...". Loving to play with fire presupposes the risk of getting burned...
I was so afraid that my Adobe Stock account would be blocked for not uploading AI images... :-\
-
Very frustrating I can imagine having your account blocked.
Oh yes, I can definitely confirm that.
I started generating AI images in April and since then have had about 5,000 images online at Adobe without any problem.
Another 2,500 images are in the queue (oddly enough, a review confirmation for 30 images came in today) and I have yet to keyword 2,000 images.
And before the AI images, there were already about 20k images, 3k videos and 1k illustrations online on my account (uploaded over 5 years)
So the word 'frustrating' doesn't even begin to apply....
-
I am impressed by the amount you have been able to prompt and upload.
I have been doing ai since December and only have 800 accepted file and another 150 in the queue.
And the quality of your work is very, very good.
Must improve my workflow...
With 30k files you must be in the top 2000 on Adobe. Or maybe even top 500...
I am sure your problem can be solved.
However, I do believe Adobe should perhaps make a dedicated copyright blog post, to explain in more detail what is not allowed. Something that the photographers usually already know, like remove all buttons and notches on phones, not uploading cars etc...
And of course the best would be if they don't accept this kind of content on upload, the way they decline it with photos...
-
I only made it through about half of your DT (AI) portfolio, but I'd wonder if the four pink Cadillac images (https://www.dreamstime.com/search.php?securitycheck=8b40e8a84e981ce2af25baaeb6f1e7e0&srh_field=cadillac&firstvalue=generative%20ai&lastsearchvalue=generative%20ai&s_all=y&s_ph=y&s_il=y&s_video=y&s_audio=y&s_ad=n&s_st=wre&s_sl0=y&s_sl1=y&s_sl2=y&s_sl3=y&s_sl4=y&s_sl5=y&s_orp=y&s_orl=y&s_ors=y&s_orw=y&s_clc=y&s_clm=y&s_rsf=0&s_rst=7&s_sp=piepgras&sortcriteria=8)would be a problem
The title names them and the logo is pretty close to the real thing:
https://blog.logomyway.com/cadillac-logo/ (https://blog.logomyway.com/cadillac-logo/)
For contributors who've been with Adobe Stock over a certain time (let's say one year), blocking a whole portfolio over what is, essentially a reviewing error on Adobe's part as well as an error on the contributor's part, seems extreme
I looked at some of the items with piles of boxes on a doorstep to see if there were logos there and didn't see anything I recognized (there was one big black check mark that could perhaps have looked like the amazon prime curved arrow).
I saw an iMac shape with no logo and I think Adobe Stock is allowing those in AI generated images (based on how many there are). A champagne bottle with gibberish text and a logo-like "seal" might have caused trouble - typically stock has to have plain geometric shapes to avoid inspectors seeing a logo.
Good luck figuring this out
-
I only made it through about half of your DT (AI) portfolio, but I'd wonder if the four pink Cadillac images (https://www.dreamstime.com/search.php?securitycheck=8b40e8a84e981ce2af25baaeb6f1e7e0&srh_field=cadillac&firstvalue=generative%20ai&lastsearchvalue=generative%20ai&s_all=y&s_ph=y&s_il=y&s_video=y&s_audio=y&s_ad=n&s_st=wre&s_sl0=y&s_sl1=y&s_sl2=y&s_sl3=y&s_sl4=y&s_sl5=y&s_orp=y&s_orl=y&s_ors=y&s_orw=y&s_clc=y&s_clm=y&s_rsf=0&s_rst=7&s_sp=piepgras&sortcriteria=8)would be a problem
The title names them and the logo is pretty close to the real thing:
https://blog.logomyway.com/cadillac-logo/ (https://blog.logomyway.com/cadillac-logo/)
For contributors who've been with Adobe Stock over a certain time (let's say one year), blocking a whole portfolio over what is, essentially a reviewing error on Adobe's part as well as an error on the contributor's part, seems extreme
I looked at some of the items with piles of boxes on a doorstep to see if there were logos there and didn't see anything I recognized (there was one big black check mark that could perhaps have looked like the amazon prime curved arrow).
I saw an iMac shape with no logo and I think Adobe Stock is allowing those in AI generated images (based on how many there are). A champagne bottle with gibberish text and a logo-like "seal" might have caused trouble - typically stock has to have plain geometric shapes to avoid inspectors seeing a logo.
Good luck figuring this out
Congratulations Jo Ann, you spent all your time pointing out the issues with these AI images that shouldn't be accepted, you got Adobe to react and act in the right way. Carry on!
-
I only made it through about half of your DT (AI) portfolio, but I'd wonder if the four pink Cadillac images (https://www.dreamstime.com/search.php?securitycheck=8b40e8a84e981ce2af25baaeb6f1e7e0&srh_field=cadillac&firstvalue=generative%20ai&lastsearchvalue=generative%20ai&s_all=y&s_ph=y&s_il=y&s_video=y&s_audio=y&s_ad=n&s_st=wre&s_sl0=y&s_sl1=y&s_sl2=y&s_sl3=y&s_sl4=y&s_sl5=y&s_orp=y&s_orl=y&s_ors=y&s_orw=y&s_clc=y&s_clm=y&s_rsf=0&s_rst=7&s_sp=piepgras&sortcriteria=8)would be a problem
The title names them and the logo is pretty close to the real thing:
https://blog.logomyway.com/cadillac-logo/ (https://blog.logomyway.com/cadillac-logo/)
For contributors who've been with Adobe Stock over a certain time (let's say one year), blocking a whole portfolio over what is, essentially a reviewing error on Adobe's part as well as an error on the contributor's part, seems extreme
I looked at some of the items with piles of boxes on a doorstep to see if there were logos there and didn't see anything I recognized (there was one big black check mark that could perhaps have looked like the amazon prime curved arrow).
I saw an iMac shape with no logo and I think Adobe Stock is allowing those in AI generated images (based on how many there are). A champagne bottle with gibberish text and a logo-like "seal" might have caused trouble - typically stock has to have plain geometric shapes to avoid inspectors seeing a logo.
Good luck figuring this out
Congratulations Jo Ann, you spent all your time pointing out the issues with these AI images that shouldn't be accepted, you got Adobe to react and act in the right way. Carry on!
If, for example, the aspects mentioned by Jo Ann play a role, this is absolutely no reason to block a portfolio. That is in a way antisocial, because there are also people who are dependent on the money. Reminds me of the methods of Paypal.
I myself don't do anything with AI, but I can't even count how many images were rejected, for example because I overlooked a stupid logo or I misjudged a copyright - that's what the reviewers are there for and they obviously didn't do their job.
The reviewers should be penalized for this and not the contributors for an unintentional accidental violation.
-
Because so much content with visible copyright issues was accepted, I am sure this encouraged many producers to think that if it is ai, it is ok to upload this type of content.
I hope they work with contributors to quickly solve the issues, especially if it is long time producers with very large ports.
People also need the income, this is not a hobby.
eta
Ralf was faster...
-
I was so afraid that my Adobe Stock account would be blocked for not uploading AI images... :-\
Very funny, thanks for the laugh :)
-
I was so afraid that my Adobe Stock account would be blocked for not uploading AI images... :-\
Very funny, thanks for the laugh :)
It's nice to see that some here have fun with the fact that someone's years of work and commitment may be destroyed and is looking for support and help here.
Oh yes, I remember, SVH, you are already once flown out of the forum. I personally would have fun with a repetition ;D.
-
From the website for contributors:
https://helpx.adobe.com/de/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restrictions.html#design-ip
"Apple logos and product designs are protected. Vector drawings and illustrations are also prohibited."
The AS database is chock full of clearly recognizable Apple product designs. Be it the iMac, the keyboard, the MacBook, the mouse....
For example, if you type in "responsive design", it looks like this:
https://stock.adobe.com/search?k=responsive+design&search_type=autosuggest
I see this crystal clear countless clearly recognizable Apple products. Even if the logo is touched up.
I guess Adobe doesn't make that its problem when there is litigation, but instead passes it off on the contributors.
For example, how is a contributor supposed to ensure that people their AI software creates don't match real-life people? That's not possible! Nobody knows that! Probably not even the producers of the AI software! And AS knows that, too!
-
I got an answer from Adobe, which reads like this:
------------------------
"Your account was blocked after we noticed that you have submitted Generative Ai content that is not within our guidelines.
You have submitted files that refer to famous artists, people, characters from popular culture, and/or other existing subjects such as video games in the image, title or keywords. We take intellectual property rights very seriously and your uploads are a violation of these rights and thus violate the upload guidelines.
Your account will remain blocked until further notice."
------------------------
I have again politely written to the Adobe employee asking to be allowed to remove the problematic material so that my years of work are not destroyed.
Unfortunately, even after Adobe's reply, I don't know what exactly the problem was - maybe I have a wrong keyword in there somewhere that I wasn't aware of - you can't know everything.
I probably violated the guidelines somewhere unknowingly, but in any case never consciously - I really do think about every image and I probably didn't pay enough attention every now and then....
I really hope I get a chance to purge my account of problematic material, so maybe I can at least get my normal photos, videos and illustrations back in the account - that should be possible.
@Adobe, @Mat:
There has to be a way to give a long-time contributor that chance here, doesn't there?
-
Very frustrating I can imagine having your account blocked.
But glad I never started with this AI nonsense. It creates only more problems, it seems.
Same here, considered AI but couldn't get motivated to start. Sooo glad I didn't now. Kind of surprising to me is that my relative small port of images(less than 700) continue to sell very well. Video hasn't been doing great lately but my photos on Adobe are selling. AI image uploads haven't impacted my photo sales on the Adobe platform.
-
Also again a reminder we must have portfolios on many different agencies.
Every agency can at any point just cut us off from our income.
Since Adobe reviewers have let all this content in, I hope Adobe finds a sensible way of dealing with producers, especially people with large ports.
-
@adobe @mat
I know Michael from other German forums as well.
Michael has dealt with the topic of AI intensively - especially with regard to Adobe - and has given many useful tips here on the submission criteria, which, by the way, change every so often.
So he is taking a serious look at Adobe's submission criteria.
In particular, Jo Ann's involvement here on the forum has shown that Adobe itself has created a problem here that it can't get a handle on - Made by Adobe
I would therefore very much welcome Adobe to address Michaeal's problem as soon as possible.
Not only here, but also in other forums, this issue causes great uncertainty and also a certain fear -
Adobe is willing to arbitrarily block contributors that have been reliable for many years without warning or explanation.
Such behavior can also destroy livelihoods under certain circumstances.
This does not reflect well on Adobe - I am very disappointed
-
Naming famous people or characters from pop culture in the title or keywords is just one thing, but in case it's about the image itself only, I'm really wondering how Adobe can even know whether or not the creator actually wrote a prompt referring to those people or characters. Maybe those have simply become THAT popular that the AI considers them the best choice possible for an entire topic? Who knows?
However, I think a long-time contributor who's been with the agency for several years (without causing any trouble at all!) should IMHO at least
- be told exactly what the decision was based on, so they're able to
- review their own images and solve the issues
Termination of their entire account doesn't seem fair to me given the circumstances and all uncertainties as far as AI is concerned - both legally and technically.
People rely on their income - making them literally bet what they might have done wrong really isn't appropriate to the matter, is it?
-
Good point.
I don‘t use the names of artists or famous people in my prompts, but you are right, the ai might give me images with pop culture content because that is what other people are prompting.
Mostly I prompt stuff from genres I know, like christmas, easter…but doing a genre that is new for me, how would I know?
-
Electric guitars are a big copyright no no
https://de.dreamstime.com/eine-futuristische-gitarre-einem-coolen-design-mit-generativer-ai-technologie-image278863535
https://de.dreamstime.com/eine-futuristische-gitarre-einem-coolen-design-mit-generativer-ai-technologie-image278863431
https://de.dreamstime.com/eine-futuristische-gitarre-einem-coolen-design-mit-generativer-ai-technologie-image285014600
I doubt creating futuristic ones with ai helps.
-
Electric guitars are a big copyright no no
https://de.dreamstime.com/eine-futuristische-gitarre-einem-coolen-design-mit-generativer-ai-technologie-image278863535
https://de.dreamstime.com/eine-futuristische-gitarre-einem-coolen-design-mit-generativer-ai-technologie-image278863431
https://de.dreamstime.com/eine-futuristische-gitarre-einem-coolen-design-mit-generativer-ai-technologie-image285014600
I doubt creating futuristic ones with ai helps.
That may be, but Adobe-trained reviewers waved this images through ;)
-
Anyone who has been submitting stock content for a while (since 2004 in my case) has had images rejected for one reason or another. Sometimes one forgets a logo.
Ages ago I uploaded an image including the Pike's Place neon lights not realizing it was protected; another time there was a city shot with a poster that contained someone else's photograph I hadn't cloned out. Those images were rejected, as they should have been, but no one blocked my account over it.
It's fine for Adobe Stock to fix a reviewing mistake by retroactively rejecting an image they accepted in error. I don't know why, especially with established contributors with a track record of solid content and rule following, that wasn't done in this case.
To add insult to injury, on top of blocking the contributor's account, they won't tell him which images are a problem, let him delete them or get access to his account for other purposes - such as to request a payout.
They could block uploads while they investigate; they could send the reviewers who made these mistakes for more training; they could temporarily limit the contributor's upload quota.
Adobe's quarterly earnings will be announced on Sept 14th and I'm assuming they've realized they need to clean this mess up. That's fine, but taking reviewer mistakes out solely on a contributor who uploaded content they shouldn't have seems deeply unfair.
If I were a judge and were to apportion the negligence, I'd say the incorrect content mess is 75% Adobe Stock's fault and 25% contributor's - unless a contributor has been warned a few times and persists in uploading forbidden content in which case take away their upload privileges (but leave the account open).
-
Oh, I agree, Jo Ann and many others have been posting the questionable examples for months.
But Adobe kept taking them.
To now simply cut people off from their income in this way, is simply not right.
Please Adobe, do better.
-
Anyone who has been submitting stock content for a while (since 2004 in my case) has had images rejected for one reason or another. Sometimes one forgets a logo.
Ages ago I uploaded an image including the Pike's Place neon lights not realizing it was protected; another time there was a city shot with a poster that contained someone else's photograph I hadn't cloned out. Those images were rejected, as they should have been, but no one blocked my account over it.
It's fine for Adobe Stock to fix a reviewing mistake by retroactively rejecting an image they accepted in error. I don't know why, especially with established contributors with a track record of solid content and rule following, that wasn't done in this case.
To add insult to injury, on top of blocking the contributor's account, they won't tell him which images are a problem, let him delete them or get access to his account for other purposes - such as to request a payout.
They could block uploads while they investigate; they could send the reviewers who made these mistakes for more training; they could temporarily limit the contributor's upload quota.
Adobe's quarterly earnings will be announced on Sept 24th and I'm assuming they've realized they need to clean this mess up. That's fine, but taking reviewer mistakes out solely on a contributor who uploaded content they shouldn't have seems deeply unfair.
If I were a judge and were to apportion the negligence, I'd say the incorrect content mess is 75% Adobe Stock's fault and 25% contributor's - unless a contributor has been warned a few times and persists in uploading forbidden content in which case take away their upload privileges (but leave the account open).
Yep, exactly.
-
By the way there are loads of electric guitar images in the ai collection.
I remember when all images with electric guitars got removed on istock.
Some people who specialized in music and bands lost half their port.
Really surprised they took so many
https://stock.adobe.com/de/search?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only&order=relevance&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=electric+guitar&k=electric+guitar&get_facets=0
-
first of all i'm sorry for what happened,I hope everything turns out for the best.
I hope Adobe just wants to delete content that violated the terms,because after all it is also their responsibility,let me explain clearly:
I am a creator,an artist,i am not an expert in intellectual property right.
Adobe have their own experts,who are the reviewers,i understand that they can't filter everything 100% perfectly,but as we have seen there were also famous and well-known logos among the accepted content.
so I hope they take their responsibilities too,and I hope they hunt down real thieves instead.
I am glad Adobe take intellectual property rights very seriously,and I am sure they will act for the best.
-
I couldn't help noticing in the related topics below that you have posted about your account being blocked before, about 3 years ago, so maybe there's some sort of two strikes rule?
-
Where can i see your AI photos, on another photo agency? Maybe we can find the reason then
Thats not easy, as the complete portfolio is only at AdobeStock.
Some of my images can be found at Dreamstime (sorry for the very long link):
https://de.dreamstime.com/search.php?securitycheck=5ae3d5b7bb44cbfd7885da41ed3e3bb2&srh_field=generative-ai&s_all=y&s_ph=y&s_il=y&s_video=y&s_audio=y&s_ad=n&s_sl0=y&s_sl1=y&s_sl2=y&s_sl3=y&s_sl4=y&s_sl5=y&s_orp=y&s_orl=y&s_ors=y&s_orw=y&s_clc=y&s_clm=y&s_rsf=0&s_rst=7&s_sp=piepgras
I always try to remove generated logos, I do not copy prompts, I do not create popular people - I am really trying to be careful, but I seem to have made a mistake somewhere.
@MatHayward:
Please - desperate contributor from Northern Germany calling for help :-)
Wow. You are one of the top AI image creator on Adobe Stock, I believe based on the quality of your work. This happening to you is alarming to anybody uploading AI images. I definitely have a second thought about uploading AI images. It definitely isn't a trademark violation. That's Adobe Stock's responsibility to find trademark and reject images.
-
I got an answer from Adobe, which reads like this:
------------------------
"Your account was blocked after we noticed that you have submitted Generative Ai content that is not within our guidelines.
You have submitted files that refer to famous artists, people, characters from popular culture, and/or other existing subjects such as video games in the image, title or keywords. We take intellectual property rights very seriously and your uploads are a violation of these rights and thus violate the upload guidelines.
Your account will remain blocked until further notice."
------------------------
I have again politely written to the Adobe employee asking to be allowed to remove the problematic material so that my years of work are not destroyed.
Unfortunately, even after Adobe's reply, I don't know what exactly the problem was - maybe I have a wrong keyword in there somewhere that I wasn't aware of - you can't know everything.
According to the reason given by Adobe your caddilac images would fall under that category, you did use the word Caddilac in the title. Caddilac is a American automobile manufacturer brand name.
However, if that's really all I find this a bit harsh. Sometimes it's not really clear to many people that something is not simply what you call a certain type of car like a cabriolet, but a brand name. I once had images rejected on SS for using property names in the keywords and then learned that the problem word was "frisbee". I just thought that this was what these things were called, not a brand name! And now I can totally imagine someone being banned on Adobe because he has an Ai image titeled "Children playing frisbee" in his port. Doesn't really seem right.
In this case, if Adobe was aware that Caddilac was a brand name, the reviewers are the ones who screwed up and should not have approved the images in the first place. Isn't this exactly the reviewers' job? Were they fired for not doing their job correctly and breaking Adobe's rules as well or is it just the contributor who gets punished?
And all of this seems like a very extreme action when you consider that even when an account is caught stealing other peope's images, agencies tend to graciously believe that it was just a one-time honest "mistake" and just delete the image and keep the whole account open. But when someone uses a brand name in one image set that leads to an instant banning of the whole account...? Completely out of proportion.
-
Hello fellow contributors, and @MatHayward,
I have had exactly the same experience with Adobe Stock that has left me both surprised and deeply saddened. Without any prior notice, my entire portfolio was banned for a generic AI-related reason, and the specifics remain unclear (got exactly the same reply as @JustAnImage).
I've been a dedicated contributor to Adobe Stock for over six years, building a diverse library of more than 1200 animations and videos. I started creating AI images half a year ago and uploaded with high accept rate. Currently around 1200 AI images has been approved and around other 1200 images were under review. It's interesting that while my account is blocked, I still receive notification emails about my approved images.
My relationship with Adobe has always been positive, and I've actively supported and protected Adobe's value within the community. As the administrator of the Wirestock Creators Facebook group, I've consistently helped fellow contributors and even reported fraud attempts to support Adobe's security.
I reached out to Adobe, expressing my willingness to comply with their guidelines and proposing a solution to disable only the AI-generated content. I emphasized my respect for Adobe's intellectual property rights and assured them of my future adherence to their submission guidelines. I really don't want to ruin my 6 years of hard work.
I'm sharing this here with a profound sense of trust towards Adobe but also a feeling of sadness about how contributors are being handled. My good relationship with Adobe and my consistent efforts to uphold their values make this situation all the more disheartening.
@MatHayward, I appreciate your friendly and helpful presence on this forum, and I hope that you or anyone else from Adobe might provide some guidance or support in this matter.
Best,
Miklos
-
I was so afraid that my Adobe Stock account would be blocked for not uploading AI images... :-\
Very funny, thanks for the laugh :)
It's nice to see that some here have fun with the fact that someone's years of work and commitment may be destroyed and is looking for support and help here.
Oh yes, I remember, SVH, you are already once flown out of the forum. I personally would have fun with a repetition ;D.
Lighten up a bit Ralf. I already expressed my sympathy to JustAnImage. The joke from DiscreetDuck I was laughing about has also nothing to do with his problem directly.
Your remark is a bit uncalled for.
-
As others have said, this matter is being widely discussed in many places.
Ai creators are aware that there is legal uncertainty about what they do. And many people who do ai are completely new talent, who have just started their journey in stock.
Nobody has a problem with removing copyrighted material.
But this way of shutting down entire portfolios, even normal photos and videos and cutting off income entirely for reliable producers and even for the amateurs is not right.
At the same time we can see that copyrighted material is still being accepted and flowing into Adobestock, so the review process has not changed.
At least give people access to their money.
Nothing scares producers more than being powerless.
We are at the complete mercy of agencies, they can close us down whenever they like.
-
I had a brief look at the portfolio on Dreamstime, and did come across a few 'Aperol spritz' images. I didn't know if 'Aperol' was the generic name of a type of drink, or a brand name. It turns out it is a brand name, but I had to look it up to check.
The OP here has clearly made some mistakes, I'm sure we all have, but isn't the point of the review to filter out those mistakes? We've all had images rejected for missing a hidden logo, or using a brand name that we thought was a generic term, but those submissions weren't done with an intent to deceive, and I don't believe that accounts should be closed for honest and unintentional mistakes.
That said, there are a few areas where potential problems, such as the Caddilac and the Aperol brand names, and the Caddilac design and logo are pretty obvious. However, from the Dreamstime portfolio, I'd also add 'grumpy cat, Pennywise from It and Freddy Kruger to that list, along with the house being raised by balloons from the film Up. There is also a vehicle that is very close in shape to a VW Beetle. Less close, but still sufficiently alike to draw comparison, there is Godzilla, (also keyworded as Godzilla), ET, and the Devil character from the film Legend. Is AI just being fed too much on film stills to mean that even generic prompts return potentially infringing images?
https://www.dreamstime.com/evil-clown-doll-dirty-look-created-generative-ai-technology-evil-clown-doll-dirty-look-created-image276424759 (https://www.dreamstime.com/evil-clown-doll-dirty-look-created-generative-ai-technology-evil-clown-doll-dirty-look-created-image276424759)
https://www.dreamstime.com/surreal-grumpy-cat-created-generative-ai-technology-surreal-grumpy-cat-created-generative-ai-technology-image283222237 (https://www.dreamstime.com/surreal-grumpy-cat-created-generative-ai-technology-surreal-grumpy-cat-created-generative-ai-technology-image283222237)
Don't get me wrong, I'm am sympathetic to the contributor concerned, as the degree of 'closeness' should be picked up during review and rejected accordingly, as it would be for non-AI submissions. But I'm also trying to look at this from Adobe's perspective, as we have a joint responsibility as contributors to not submit these problematic images in the first place. Mistakes can happen, and something that resembles a film can be glaringly obvious to some people, whilst others are totally oblivious, but to be oblivious to all of these iconic characters and subjects is unusual - Caddilac, Grumpy Cat, Pennywise, Freddy Kruger, VW Beetle, Godzilla?
I'm sure all of us hope that this case is fully investigated and brought to the right conclusion, whatever that may be.
-
I couldn't help noticing in the related topics below that you have posted about your account being blocked before, about 3 years ago, so maybe there's some sort of two strikes rule?
Yes, that's right - in this case it was about me submitting Kirlian videos.
Being an image processing developer myself, I developed the Kirlian effect a few years ago to simulate aura photography and created and uploaded videos using my own software.
Kirlian image example: https://de.dreamstime.com/dillustration-einer-weiblichen-hand-die-einen-smartphone-mit-kirlian-leuchten-h%C3%A4lt-image193502079
This (if i remember correct 2 video uploads) then caused problems and that was cleared up. I had to confirm at that time that I would no longer upload such content and that was that.
Mat Hayward was kind enough to address the issue then, so I have hope that he might do it again this time.
I still can't believe that they would dismiss my years of work into my AdobeStock here with a short answer sentence and not give me a chance to remove the problem images and thus get my account back.
-
I've been a dedicated contributor to Adobe Stock for over six years... I started creating AI images half a year ago and uploaded with high accept rate.
I've been a dedicated contributor to Adobe Stock for 17 years, only submitting to Adobe stock the cream of the crop, non-AI images that took me sometimes hours of work to complete each one (if not days, Driving long distance, waiting for perfect lights, etc...).
The victims start changing sides (or are now on both sides), we only learn from our mistakes. But I do not rejoice in the misfortune of others. But I won't cry if the invasion of AI images is curbed. I no longer had any motivation to work for hours for nothing, and I had stopped submitting my images. doing work that wasn't worth it, because of thieves, copycats, search engines, dilution, rejections becoming random, and finally, the worst part, AI invasion.
I can understand you, I too know what it is to be depressed, because I forbade myself from making bad choices..
-
Also again a reminder we must have portfolios on many different agencies.
Oh, it reminds me the advices we read on forums 15 years ago. Really, making an update and restarting is always a good idea. But well, you are the teacher, sorry for my insolence.
-
@discreet
I will never go exclusive again, but I keep falling into the trap of falling in love with an agency and then focus on them for months.
So this is a wake up call to do more videos and normal photos that can go everywhere.
But I don't regret my ai experience and hopefully don't have problems in my port because I focussed on genres I know.
Now starting with food and a little bit with people. But the "real" inflow with people should come with firefly.
I hope it comes out of beta soon.
Yes, inspite of it all, I still like Ai.
It is a tool that will never go away again and the sooner I learn what can be done with it, the better it is (for me).
-
I was so afraid that my Adobe Stock account would be blocked for not uploading AI images... :-\
Very funny, thanks for the laugh :)
It's nice to see that some here have fun with the fact that someone's years of work and commitment may be destroyed and is looking for support and help here.
Oh yes, I remember, SVH, you are already once flown out of the forum. I personally would have fun with a repetition ;D.
Here in bold, you want to defend the current or future victims of AI?
However, I pity those who find themselves in this situation and end up with a blocked account for not having measured the consequences.
The disappointments you wish at SVH would make you happy? why so little respect?
-
I have a little request for everyone: Please let's stay objective, thank you very much!
The topic naturally stirs up emotions and fears - especially for me, the person affected by the account loss.
So let's stay calm and hope that Adobe will find a sensible way of proceeding here.
-
If I create and upload AI images, I would create a separate account with separate paypal account so that my entire portfolio with many years of hard work won't be deleted in the worst case scenario. This is scary uploading AI images. You may not be aware of the violation.
-
If I create and upload AI images, I would create a separate account with separate paypal account so that my entire portfolio with many years of hard work won't be deleted in the worst case scenario. This is scary uploading AI images. You may not be aware of the violation.
I'm not really sure, but I think I read that it is against Adobe's policy to run a 2nd account on AdobeStock as the same person.
But maybe I'm wrong here...
What remains to be seen is whether Adobe is in any way "willing to negotiate" on my account.
-
If I create and upload AI images, I would create a separate account with separate paypal account so that my entire portfolio with many years of hard work won't be deleted in the worst case scenario. This is scary uploading AI images. You may not be aware of the violation.
I think pond5 is the only agency that allows a second account.
And many agencies have a ladder structure for royalties, so it will be difficult for a second account to reach a higher level.
Adobe should sort themselves out.
Two years from now, with total Photoshop integration, ai will be as simple as any photoshop effect or tool.
-
Hi All,
If your account has been recently blocked, please write to contributor support via [email protected] for information on your account. The team is currently backed up, but will respond asap.
I can't speak to your account(s) directly, but I did recently post some important reminders about submission policies such as the strict prohibition of using the name of existing artists in generative AI prompts and metadata. Violating generative AI guidelines can lead to possible account suspension or termination.
Please be sure to review them here: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-content.html
Thank you,
Mat Hayward
-
If I create and upload AI images, I would create a separate account with separate paypal account so that my entire portfolio with many years of hard work won't be deleted in the worst case scenario. This is scary uploading AI images. You may not be aware of the violation.
I'm not really sure, but I think I read that it is against Adobe's policy to run a 2nd account on AdobeStock as the same person.
But maybe I'm wrong here...
What remains to be seen is whether Adobe is in any way "willing to negotiate" on my account.
Never used to be the case. One of their replies when contributors complained about having an account in the wrong currency for where they lived was "can't fix it, open another account in the correct currency if you want"
-
At the time, I had only received a detailed explanation from AS after 14 weeks as to why they had blocked my account and that it would remain blocked.
And they allowed me to open a new account, which I did immediately after receiving the message.
This was my thread:
https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-stock-has-locked-my-account/ (https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-stock-has-locked-my-account/)
Was a different reason than AI, but it was also a very annoying experience for me, and I also felt it was disproportionate.
And because AS did not write a reason, I was partly ridiculed here in the forum and considered untrustworthy.
The only thing missing was that someone called me a troll.
Unlike me, you, @JustAnImage, fortunately received an explanation immediately.
I suspect the following possibility : AS makes you wait a few more weeks and then officially locks your account and allows you to open a new account at the same time.
That's how it was with me.
Of course, it can also be completely different.
-
Hi All,
If your account has been recently blocked, please write to contributor support via [email protected] for information on your account. The team is currently backed up, but will respond asap.
I can't speak to your account(s) directly, but I did recently post some important reminders about submission policies such as the strict prohibition of using the name of existing artists in generative AI prompts and metadata. Violating generative AI guidelines can lead to possible account suspension or termination.
Please be sure to review them here: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-content.html
Thank you,
Mat Hayward
I was thinking about jumping on the AI bandwagon myself, but I'll stay away. Too risky. I'll lose only profitable stock photo account if I'm not very careful.
-
At the time, I had only received a detailed explanation from AS after 14 weeks as to why they had blocked my account and that it would remain blocked.
And they allowed me to open a new account, which I did immediately after receiving the message.
This was my thread:
https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-stock-has-locked-my-account/ (https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-stock-has-locked-my-account/)
Was a different reason than AI, but it was also a very annoying experience for me, and I also felt it was disproportionate.
And because AS did not write a reason, I was partly ridiculed here in the forum and considered untrustworthy.
The only thing missing was that someone called me a troll.
Unlike me, you, @JustAnImage, fortunately received an explanation immediately.
I suspect the following possibility : AS makes you wait a few more weeks and then officially locks your account and allows you to open a new account at the same time.
That's how it was with me.
Of course, it can also be completely different.
Have you been able to upload the same photos you had in the blocked account? How many years have you been with Adobe Stock before you got blocked?
-
I was going to upload 1 non-AI photo now, but saw the new disclaimer that scared me and decided not to upload. I don't want to risk myself losing my monthly royalty just because of 1 photo Adobe Stock may think they see recognizable faces or trademark I don't see and am not aware of.
It's Adobe Stock's job to find recognizable faces or trademark/logo and reject photos/clips imo. And in the past, Adobe Stock and all other agencies just rejected those with model release/trademark issues, not ban you and close your account. If they say they'll close your account just because you uploaded photo/clip that contains recognizable face without model release or brand logo/trademark, I can't upload anymore. They got to clarify this. One strike and you lose your account with thousands of photos generating steady revenue?
-
I was going to upload 1 non-AI photo now, but saw the new disclaimer that scared me and decided not to upload. I don't want to risk myself losing my monthly royalty just because of 1 photo Adobe Stock may think they see recognizable faces or trademark I don't see and am not aware of.
It's Adobe Stock's job to find recognizable faces or trademark/logo and reject photos/clips imo. And in the past, Adobe Stock and all other agencies just rejected those with model release/trademark issues, not ban you and close your account. If they say they'll close your account just because you uploaded photo/clip that contains recognizable face without model release or brand logo/trademark, I can't upload anymore. They got to clarify this. One strike and you lose your account with thousands of photos generating steady revenue?
I have the same feelings. In the past, if you sent a photo with a visible logo or potentially infringing copyright, the image was rejected and you either retouched what was needed or did not send similar images. If such windows pop up, I see no point in sending anything at the moment. I don't want to lose my source of income. I am also seriously considering removing my content that is already in the queue for review, these are not AI generated images.
Then why have reviewers if we need to know everything anyway? it's all starting to feel like walking through a minefield.
-
I was going to upload 1 non-AI photo now, but saw the new disclaimer that scared me and decided not to upload. I don't want to risk myself losing my monthly royalty just because of 1 photo Adobe Stock may think they see recognizable faces or trademark I don't see and am not aware of.
It's Adobe Stock's job to find recognizable faces or trademark/logo and reject photos/clips imo. And in the past, Adobe Stock and all other agencies just rejected those with model release/trademark issues, not ban you and close your account. If they say they'll close your account just because you uploaded photo/clip that contains recognizable face without model release or brand logo/trademark, I can't upload anymore. They got to clarify this. One strike and you lose your account with thousands of photos generating steady revenue?
I also saw this last night, and held off submitting one of the images I'd uploaded, (non-AI). Like you, I felt I couldn't take the risk. I submitted it to all my other sites, and the images has been approved commercially elsewhere, but there was a niggling voice in the back of my head that said I'm 99% sure this is OK for a commercial submission, but the 1% won out. In the past, I would have just uploaded and relied on the review to inform me of any potential problems.
-
I think AI is the reviewer of Adobe Stock probably for a while now. That's why they are missing those Apple logos Ford logos on AI images.
-
I think AI is the reviewer of Adobe Stock probably for a while now. That's why they are missing those Apple logos Ford logos on AI images.
With how poorly the review is performed and with how many AI images with very obvious mistakes and logos are accepted I would be inclined to agree - However, an AI would not need 4 weeks to review an image. With an AI image reviewing the images review times should be minutes at best.
-
Hi All,
If your account has been recently blocked, please write to contributor support via [email protected] for information on your account. The team is currently backed up, but will respond asap.
I can't speak to your account(s) directly, but I did recently post some important reminders about submission policies such as the strict prohibition of using the name of existing artists in generative AI prompts and metadata. Violating generative AI guidelines can lead to possible account suspension or termination.
Please be sure to review them here: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-content.html
Thank you,
Mat Hayward
Mat, can you PLEASE take a closer look at this thread? Many people are worried for their accounts. I know I am, even though I know I comply with the AI image rules to my best knowledge - But that doesn't mean something where I simply DO NOT KNOW it could be trademarked could not appear in my images, even when I never used any trademarked words in prompts. Because AI does what AI wants.
-
Anybody knows if AI image generation prompts/keywords are embedded in the jpeg image ?
-
At the time, I had only received a detailed explanation from AS after 14 weeks as to why they had blocked my account and that it would remain blocked.
And they allowed me to open a new account, which I did immediately after receiving the message.
This was my thread:
https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-stock-has-locked-my-account/ (https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-stock-has-locked-my-account/)
Was a different reason than AI, but it was also a very annoying experience for me, and I also felt it was disproportionate.
And because AS did not write a reason, I was partly ridiculed here in the forum and considered untrustworthy.
The only thing missing was that someone called me a troll.
Unlike me, you, @JustAnImage, fortunately received an explanation immediately.
I suspect the following possibility : AS makes you wait a few more weeks and then officially locks your account and allows you to open a new account at the same time.
That's how it was with me.
Of course, it can also be completely different.
And the end was
So. now it's official. My account remains closed.
The reason: I have used some public domain images and created videos from them.
AS says that is against their terms of use.
I'm not even allowed to use my spouse's pictures, only my own.
I have permission to create a new account for uploading my own designs.
And I have already done that.
Pretty Easy
"You must own or control all the rights to the files you submit to Adobe Stock. Don’t submit files that don’t belong to you, such as photos taken by your spouse. Don’t incorporate anything into your content that was created by someone else — not even images you got from a website that allows free downloads — unless you have a complete property release from the owner of the other content."
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/submission-guidelines.html (https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/submission-guidelines.html)
In the case of titles and keywords from the OP, they might not have been enforcing this in the past and now have become strict, since artists names are used, and some people have created AI images, "in the style of..." which uses someone else's identity. But as Mat posted, this has become a recent decision.
I'd think that retroactive banning for doing something that used to be allowed, is kind of harsh. Hopefully AS will allow JAP to go through and remove any offending images, or metadata and move on.
-
I recommend to everyone who is uploading images generated by artificial intelligence to Adobe to thoroughly review their portfolios. Several friends have already told me that their accounts have been suspended recently. It seems that Adobe is on a witch hunt.
-
Hi All,
If your account has been recently blocked, please write to contributor support via [email protected] for information on your account. The team is currently backed up, but will respond asap.
I can't speak to your account(s) directly, but I did recently post some important reminders about submission policies such as the strict prohibition of using the name of existing artists in generative AI prompts and metadata. Violating generative AI guidelines can lead to possible account suspension or termination.
Please be sure to review them here: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-content.html
Thank you,
Mat Hayward
Hello Mat,
since I am the opener of this thread and probably the main person affected here, I will gladly follow your advice of an email to the Contributor Support.
I hope they will give me the chance to remove the problematic images from my account (unfortunately I still don't know which images they are) and hopefully get my account back.
Thanks,
Michael
Edit: The email is on its way and I really hope I get a chance to cleanup the problems in the account and get it back to work
-
Seems to me that Adobe have got themselves into an almighty 'pickle' with this Generative AI stuff.
-
Instead of suspending the entire account, why don't they just remove all the images generated by artificial intelligence from the portfolio and block future uploads of AI-generated images from the contributor?
-
Instead of suspending the entire account, why don't they just remove all the images generated by artificial intelligence from the portfolio and block future uploads of AI-generated images from the contributor?
I would speculate that Adobe are overwhelmed by the number of Generative AI submissions, they are understaffed and/or overworked, review times have become far too long and it's much quicker to suspend an entire account than go to the effort of deciding which images to remove.
-
If I create and upload AI images, I would create a separate account with separate paypal account so that my entire portfolio with many years of hard work won't be deleted in the worst case scenario. This is scary uploading AI images. You may not be aware of the violation.
I'm not really sure, but I think I read that it is against Adobe's policy to run a 2nd account on AdobeStock as the same person.
But maybe I'm wrong here...
What remains to be seen is whether Adobe is in any way "willing to negotiate" on my account.
I know of at least one person who has 5 adobe stock accounts. How do I know? They were dumb enough to make a video about it themselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCqdns9CN80 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCqdns9CN80)
(author of the video: if you ever see this, don't bother taking it down, I already downloaded the video as proof)
Is there an email address we can write to to report such behavior?
-
As mentioned previously, we can't speak to individual accounts directly. However, we are evaluating accounts that were blocked this week for violating our AI submission guidelines, such as our strict prohibition against using the name of existing artists in generative AI prompts and metadata. Please be sure to review these guidelines here: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-content.html. We will be unblocking accounts as we go through our review.
Thank you,
Mat Hayward
-
If I create and upload AI images, I would create a separate account with separate paypal account so that my entire portfolio with many years of hard work won't be deleted in the worst case scenario. This is scary uploading AI images. You may not be aware of the violation.
I'm not really sure, but I think I read that it is against Adobe's policy to run a 2nd account on AdobeStock as the same person.
But maybe I'm wrong here...
What remains to be seen is whether Adobe is in any way "willing to negotiate" on my account.
I know of at least one person who has 5 adobe stock accounts. How do I know? They were dumb enough to make a video about it themselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCqdns9CN80 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCqdns9CN80)
(author of the video: if you ever see this, don't bother taking it down, I already downloaded the video as proof)
Is there an email address we can write to to report such behavior?
No, as Adobe's rules does not forbid having multiple accounts anywhere.
-
As mentioned previously, we can't speak to individual accounts directly. However, we are evaluating accounts that were blocked this week for violating our AI submission guidelines, such as our strict prohibition against using the name of existing artists in generative AI prompts and metadata. Please be sure to review these guidelines here: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-content.html. We will be unblocking accounts as we go through our review.
Thank you,
Mat Hayward
Hello Mat,
of course we can't talk publicly about individual accounts here, I agree.
My problem here also lies essentially in the amount of information that one receives as a "blocked" account. On my first request I only received the statement "there is a suspicion of copyright infringement" and additionally the statement "the account remains suspended until further notice".
For someone like me, who has put a lot of work into the account in the last 6-8 months to make it a financial mainstay, this is catastrophic. I am left completely in the dark about:
- what will happen next?
- in what time frame will the account be checked and the corresponding problem images deleted?
- will I get the account back at all afterwards and will I be allowed to continue selling assets?
- what about the money that is still on the account - it is currently frozen.
- what about the probably soon coming compensation payments for the AI training of FireFly, there my pictures and videos were used too
- etc.
I've already written you directly an email - that was perhaps a bit hasty, I've probably just grasped at straws, sorry for that.
I have searched a large part of my almost 40,000 pictures and videos on my computer in the last 3 days and actually also discovered a few possible files - many here in the forum were so nice to help me with the search, thanks at this point!
So I'm almost certain that some files slipped through my fingers - of course that's my fault, but I must confess that I would have hoped for a little help from the review process here as well, that you would get a hint of name right infringement.
A bit off topic:
As a software developer I can say that here a simple "Contains Brand-Blacklist" function when submitting the images would be enough to prevent 98% of these problems and also with the people who quite deliberately use these brand names, a submission is directly prevented - at Editorial this check just turn off .
Back to the topic:
I have now sent an email to Contributor Support and unfortunately did not even get an acknowledgement of receipt from them as to whether my case has even arrived.
In short, I'm completely up in the air.
I would really like to see some more communication - something like "We received your email, your case number is 12345 and we will reply to you in the next 2 weeks."
You've always kept us well informed here, which is definitely not a given - so I'm hoping for a good run out of problem cases in my account.
Maybe you could tell me if my email even reached Contributor Support and if there are chances to get my account back?
And one thing I can say for sure: I have learned the lesson!
Thanks and best regards,
Michael
PS: And sorry for the very long text - you can probably tell that this is pretty important to me :-)
-
I have had exactly the same questions and feelings as @JustAnImage wrote. I have also really learnt the lesson and I hope we are going to get back our account soon and we can fix any mistake we had and sort this out.
Is multiple accounts legal or illegal on Adobe? Can anyone officially answer it or is there any official information about it?
If I knew that my account might be blocked, because of the new AI images, I would just skip jumping into it and would continue creating 3d animations and videos only. Doesn't worth the risk.
-
Is multiple accounts legal or illegal on Adobe? Can anyone officially answer it or is there any official information about it?
I don't have any official information that specifically state that multiple accounts were allowed, however the Adobe Stock Contributor Agreement simply does not state that it was forbidden anywhere. The Shutterstock contributor agreement for example specifically states "You may not hold more than one Shutterstock account". Such a restriction is missing from the Adobe contributor agreement.
-
No, as Adobe's rules does not forbid having multiple accounts anywhere.
Mat, can we get an official word about this from Adobe?
-
Many of you have given me yes in the search in my portfolio at Dreamstime to look at what copyright infringement it could be. Thanks again, that was definitely instructive for me, as not all of these points were clear to me so far.
In the process, we had gathered the following:
- Cars and their lines
- Lion King (Disney)
- Caddilac
I have thereupon again logged in as a customer and have me a direct search always on page 1 found, to pictures which are on active accounts and exactly these possibilities the reason of a right injury quasi refute... that makes me still more perplexed, what with in the Portfolio probably wrong can be.
Attached are the sample images (see below)
-
Many of you have given me yes in the search in my portfolio at Dreamstime to look at what copyright infringement it could be. Thanks again, that was definitely instructive for me, as not all of these points were clear to me so far.
In the process, we had gathered the following:
- Cars and their lines
- Lion King (Disney)
- Caddilac
I have thereupon again logged in as a customer and have me a direct search always on page 1 found, to pictures which are on active accounts and exactly these possibilities the reason of a right injury quasi refute... that makes me still more perplexed, what with in the Portfolio probably wrong can be.
Attached are the sample images (see below)
So, are these all violation? Let's see what Adobe will do.
https://stock.adobe.com/search/images?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aaudio%5D=0&filters%5Binclude_stock_enterprise%5D=0&filters%5Bis_editorial%5D=0&filters%5Bfree_collection%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only&k=mustang+car&order=relevance&price%5B%24%5D=1&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_type=usertyped&search_page=1&acp=&aco=mustang+car&get_facets=1
-
Many obvious Lamborghini AI images.
https://stock.adobe.com/search/images?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only&k=lamborghini+car&order=relevance&price%5B%24%5D=1&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_type=usertyped&search_page=1&acp=&aco=lamborghini+car&get_facets=1
-
So, are these all violation? Let's see what Adobe will do.
These were just the examples that the readers here suspected as a possible account block cause - but apparently they can't be, or not all accounts were blocked.
So I can't say if your examples are all copyright infringing, since I wouldn't even begin to pass as a legal expert :)
So there seems to be another reason for the block of my account, which I still can't really explain...
-
Seems like a big problem is that Adobe changed the submission process mid-stream. There are many of us that have assets in the queue that were submitted before these new submission checkboxes were implemented.
Accounts shouldn't be banned for these misunderstandings; the assets should just be rejected and given a chance to be fixed.
-
How did a reviewer miss "Lamborghini" in title?
https://stock.adobe.com/images/lamborghini-generative-ai/569535210?prev_url=detail
https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/211208906/sradb?load_type=author&prev_url=detail
-
"Digital illustration in synthwave style of a Lamborghini Countach in a Miami street during sunset vaporwave"
https://stock.adobe.com/images/digital-illustration-in-synthwave-style-of-a-lamborghini-countach-in-a-miami-street-during-sunset-vaporwave/607608626?prev_url=detail
https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/211331823/denizjosue?load_type=author&prev_url=detail
-
"Cinematic Shot of Red Ferrari Testarossa Sports Car Parked on Wet Miami Street at Night"
https://stock.adobe.com/images/cinematic-shot-of-red-ferrari-testarossa-sports-car-parked-on-wet-miami-street-at-night/622545629?prev_url=detail
https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/211257144/jjbqdesignstudio?load_type=author&prev_url=detail
-
"White tesla model is plugged into charging station on blue background. Generative AI"
https://stock.adobe.com/images/white-tesla-model-is-plugged-into-charging-station-on-blue-background-generative-ai/612127881?prev_url=detail
https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/200556584/photo-download?load_type=author&prev_url=detail
-
@blvdone:
One will find very many examples here, probably tens of thousands are included there.
The big question that arises for me in the meantime, why have only some accounts been blocked?!
But maybe that will still turn out with my account - the uncertainty with me rises further, because I really do not understand it due to the abundance of obvious examples in the meantime.
Hopefully we'll have an answer soon, and more importantly, a way to safely upload our work for everyone in the future.
I would wish that for all of us :-)
-
@blvdone:
One will find very many examples here, probably tens of thousands are included there.
The big question that arises for me in the meantime, why have only some accounts been blocked?!
But maybe that will still turn out with my account - the uncertainty with me rises further, because I really do not understand it due to the abundance of obvious examples in the meantime.
Hopefully we'll have an answer soon, and more importantly, a way to safely upload our work for everyone in the future.
I would wish that for all of us :-)
I think the problem is that probably Adobe Stock changed reviewers from humans to AI. And AI started to miss brand logos and brand names in title.
-
Or perhaps a review system where someone just looks at the images, without getting descriptions and keywords.
Sort of a - is it pixelmash? No? then approve and let the algos sort the rest kind of system.
A system based on ai should very easily be able to see the branded keywords and descriptions and reject because of that.
-
https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/star-wars-r2-d2-and-r3-d2-in-the-sand/638596858?prev_url=detail
I cannot understand who looked at this and hit accept
-
The same person who approved this one?
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/15/13/51/240_F_615135178_9LAlsWKjL4T2PtpWD8VzFS5b0UPvy3PF.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/two-r2-d2-robots-standing-in-the-sand-with-blue-sky-in-the-background-generative-ai/615135178)
There is no excuse.
The contributor who produced the two Star Wars images also has this Tesla
https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/white-tesla-model-is-plugged-into-charging-station-on-blue-background-generative-ai/612127881
and these - Mercedes, Jeep, vintage Chevrolet
https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/interior-of-a-mercedes-benz-s-class/627866405
https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/jeep-driving-through-the-desert-at-sunset/633468309
https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/old-blue-car-is-parked-on-a-street-in-havana-generative-ai/597774716
So why is this portfolio still visible while others aren't?
As I've said elsewhere, I think this blocking approach is wrong, but the system is also deeply unfair in that it isn't being applied across the board.
-
I found myself in the same boat. Have been a Fololia/Adobe contributor for 16 years. I had a few AI images accepted, but my portfolio consists mostly of "handmade" photos and videos. Thursday my port was blocked. It's frustrating that there was no warning, no communication, no reply for three days.
-
Very sorry to read this.
They should at least leave access to the income.
If these reviewers make mistakes, are they stopping their salaries while evaluating what they did?
We are freelancers, but for many Adobe is the dominant income.
Also because they are maybe the last agency with a good reputation.
-
Given what's happening, I wouldn't upload any AI-generated images to Adobe for now, and I would delete the existing ones just in case. A portfolio of photos and videos uploaded over the years shouldn't be at risk of being deleted due to reasons that are unclear.
-
I found myself in the same boat. Have been a Fololia/Adobe contributor for 16 years. I had a few AI images accepted, but my portfolio consists mostly of "handmade" photos and videos. Thursday my port was blocked. It's frustrating that there was no warning, no communication, no reply for three days.
So sorry to hear this.
Adobe is wrong in the way they are handling established contributors who made a mistake with AI - and doubly wrong because their review process for AI images is so useless it doesn't catch any of the errors.
This isn't an intractable problem. It requires a bit of attention, possibly some extra staff assigned to the task and possibly some code. When a problem AI image is identified in an account more than one year old:
-Disable AI images temporarily while you investigate
-Email the contributor with the image numbers identified as problems and mark them in the contributor interface. Have a few categories of errors and specify what the errors are with each image number
-Block uploading but leave the account open for the contributor to delete items if that's their choice. Payouts should be available if the balance is sufficient.
-Respond to contributors with disabled images within a week - if their accounts are open, the urgency will be less.
-If the investigation takes longer than a week, allow uploading of non-AI images until issues are resolved.
Established contributors have proved themselves with Adobe Stock. Treating them with respect, even if a mistake has been made (not only by them, but also by the reviewers), is the absolute least they deserve.
-
I found myself in the same boat. Have been a Fololia/Adobe contributor for 16 years. I had a few AI images accepted, but my portfolio consists mostly of "handmade" photos and videos. Thursday my port was blocked. It's frustrating that there was no warning, no communication, no reply for three days.
sorry to hear that it has hit you as well!
Now we sit here in the forum to three in this unfortunately with very little information filled boat.
@Jo Ann:
Thank you for this well thought out post.
I really hope that Adobe will somehow go in this direction and that this will all come to a good end.
Marking the problem images in the portfolio would be great and I would also agree 100% with Adobe deleting the problem images directly - because let's be clear, these images should not have gone through the review successfully imo.
-
I found myself in the same boat. Have been a Fololia/Adobe contributor for 16 years. I had a few AI images accepted, but my portfolio consists mostly of "handmade" photos and videos. Thursday my port was blocked. It's frustrating that there was no warning, no communication, no reply for three days.
That’s horrible. I totally pause uploading to Adobe Stock for now. Too risky.
-
So just started some uploads for the week and for the first time am presented a checkbox with the message 'I understand my account can be suspended if I breach the guidelines.'
Fine, I check the box but sounds like a controlling government-style threat. The stuff up belongs to Adobe with its rushed, reactionary, opportunistic drive to swell its stock content database with AI nonsense, which I'm not part of or have any interest in it.
-
Adobe used to be very lenient with designs, of cars. Like the one with the Tesla that JoAnn referred to. The logo seems to be cloned away. That used to ve enough for Adobe. Shutterstock and Getty are much more strict and would never have approved hat image. Now it seems that someone has taught Adobe a (expensive?)lesson, and they are cathing up on their neglects.
Review is more than pixel peeping. It may be easy enough to get some software to do the pixel peeping, but intellectual property and recognizeable persons is another thing. Mind you that there was some laugh in the istock forum because a creater was prompted for a model release from a spider.
-
I found myself in the same boat. Have been a Fololia/Adobe contributor for 16 years. I had a few AI images accepted, but my portfolio consists mostly of "handmade" photos and videos. Thursday my port was blocked. It's frustrating that there was no warning, no communication, no reply for three days.
So sorry to hear this.
Adobe is wrong in the way they are handling established contributors who made a mistake with AI - and doubly wrong because their review process for AI images is so useless it doesn't catch any of the errors.
This isn't an intractable problem. It requires a bit of attention, possibly some extra staff assigned to the task and possibly some code. When a problem AI image is identified in an account more than one year old:
-Disable AI images temporarily while you investigate
-Email the contributor with the image numbers identified as problems and mark them in the contributor interface. Have a few categories of errors and specify what the errors are with each image number
-Block uploading but leave the account open for the contributor to delete items if that's their choice. Payouts should be available if the balance is sufficient.
-Respond to contributors with disabled images within a week - if their accounts are open, the urgency will be less.
-If the investigation takes longer than a week, allow uploading of non-AI images until issues are resolved.
Established contributors have proved themselves with Adobe Stock. Treating them with respect, even if a mistake has been made (not only by them, but also by the reviewers), is the absolute least they deserve.
Jo Ann, thank you for the well thought and meaningful post. Quite brave of you :-)
-
I found myself in the same boat. Have been a Fololia/Adobe contributor for 16 years. I had a few AI images accepted, but my portfolio consists mostly of "handmade" photos and videos. Thursday my port was blocked. It's frustrating that there was no warning, no communication, no reply for three days.
tut mir leid zu hören, dass es dich ebenso getroffen hat!
Nun sitzen wir hier im Forum zu dritt in diesem leider mit sehr wenig Information gefüllten Boot.
I'm following this thread and I'm very very sorry to hear these extremely unpleasant situations.
Hope that common sense quickly prevails.
-
No, as Adobe's rules does not forbid having multiple accounts anywhere.
Mat, can we get an official word about this from Adobe?
This text (dealing with the same question) is taken from the AdobeStock Discord:
"Adobe does not allow anymore multiple accounts even if you're not banned. If you're banned, you have wait till you get unblocked. Creating a new account will just get your second account blocked too, because you sign TOS as a person, not as an email.
Adobe used to allow making multiple accounts for this, but does not anymore. In the case of blockage, ALL your accounts will be blocked, since you're blocked as a person, not as an account."
A friend was kind enough to post that in a German forum.
-
No, as Adobe's rules does not forbid having multiple accounts anywhere.
Mat, can we get an official word about this from Adobe?
This text (dealing with the same question) is taken from the AdobeStock Discord:
"Adobe does not allow anymore multiple accounts even if you're not banned. If you're banned, you have wait till you get unblocked. Creating a new account will just get your second account blocked too, because you sign TOS as a person, not as an email.
Adobe used to allow making multiple accounts for this, but does not anymore. In the case of blockage, ALL your accounts will be blocked, since you're blocked as a person, not as an account."
A friend was kind enough to post that in a German forum.
I don't think a forum post qualifies as a legally binding document - is there anything in terms of service or contributor guidelines?
I have a few people to report.
-
@Spike:
Just wanted to let you know :-) At least that was a statement from the official AdobeStock Discord channel.
-
@Spike:
Just wanted to let you know :-) At least that was a statement from the official AdobeStock Discord channel.
And apparently this is also from the official Adobe Stock Discord channel. Post from last month.
(https://i.postimg.cc/FHfp0mrX/Adobe-Multiple-Accounts.jpg)
-
I found myself in the same boat. Have been a Fololia/Adobe contributor for 16 years. I had a few AI images accepted, but my portfolio consists mostly of "handmade" photos and videos. Thursday my port was blocked. It's frustrating that there was no warning, no communication, no reply for three days.
So sorry to hear this.
Adobe is wrong in the way they are handling established contributors who made a mistake with AI - and doubly wrong because their review process for AI images is so useless it doesn't catch any of the errors.
This isn't an intractable problem. It requires a bit of attention, possibly some extra staff assigned to the task and possibly some code. When a problem AI image is identified in an account more than one year old:
-Disable AI images temporarily while you investigate
-Email the contributor with the image numbers identified as problems and mark them in the contributor interface. Have a few categories of errors and specify what the errors are with each image number
-Block uploading but leave the account open for the contributor to delete items if that's their choice. Payouts should be available if the balance is sufficient.
-Respond to contributors with disabled images within a week - if their accounts are open, the urgency will be less.
-If the investigation takes longer than a week, allow uploading of non-AI images until issues are resolved.
Established contributors have proved themselves with Adobe Stock. Treating them with respect, even if a mistake has been made (not only by them, but also by the reviewers), is the absolute least they deserve.
Jo Ann, thank you for the well thought and meaningful post. Quite brave of you :-)
Yes, thank you Jo Ann.
Adobe has dropped the ball in so many ways lately. I am borderline terrified to upload there as one never knows what Adobe will do next.
-
@Spike:
Just wanted to let you know :-) At least that was a statement from the official AdobeStock Discord channel.
And apparently this is also from the official Adobe Stock Discord channel. Post from last month.
(https://i.postimg.cc/FHfp0mrX/Adobe-Multiple-Accounts.jpg)
Great, so they said both.
Mat, can we get some clarity?
-
I found myself in the same boat. Have been a Fololia/Adobe contributor for 16 years. I had a few AI images accepted, but my portfolio consists mostly of "handmade" photos and videos. Thursday my port was blocked. It's frustrating that there was no warning, no communication, no reply for three days.
sorry to hear that it has hit you as well!
Now we sit here in the forum to three in this unfortunately with very little information filled boat.
@Jo Ann:
Thank you for this well thought out post.
I really hope that Adobe will somehow go in this direction and that this will all come to a good end.
Marking the problem images in the portfolio would be great and I would also agree 100% with Adobe deleting the problem images directly - because let's be clear, these images should not have gone through the review successfully imo.
Hi Michael,
I hope things will get resolved quickly for you. It should indeed be a warning for people submitting AI content while having also a large non-AI portfolio. But I am just wondering here. You were a devoted advocate for Adobe here (I even called you a groupie once because of your love for Adobe). Whenever Mat came here to give some answer (if it was helpful or not) you praised him and Adobe, even though some of us were quite critical on Adobes actions or Mat answers.
Now that Adobe has put you in this predicament, do you still praise Adobe and think they are so much better then the other agencies?
-
Hi Michael,
I hope things will get resolved quickly for you. It should indeed be a warning for people submitting AI content while having also a large non-AI portfolio. But I am just wondering here. You were a devoted advocate for Adobe here (I even called you a groupie once because of your love for Adobe). Whenever Mat came here to give some answer (if it was helpful or not) you praised him and Adobe even though some of us were quite critical on Adobes actions or Mat answers.
Now that Adobe has put you in this predicament, do you still praise Adobe and think they are so much better then the other agencies?
Hello SVH,
I remember well that you said that. But the phrase "praised" seems to me a bit over the target :-)
Currently there are clear problems with the hardcore blocking of accounts - and it's about a lot of accounts, as you can see in Discord, it goes up to the upper ranks of "Top 500" accounts.
And I certainly don't praise Adobe for blocking the contributors here with a "zero information policy", without leaving any information and fobbing them off with a general sentence on the subject of "infringement" of something.
If there is a problem with images, then they should be deleted with a message about it, as it has done a while ago for example Alamy - at other agencies (and I did not think I would say that...) like 123rf, Dreamstime and even at Shutterstock, images with brand names do not even go to the review (I just checked this in my portfolios).
Obviously these images went through the review at Adobe and yes sure, I (we) should have paid attention myself, but as many others have already written, you shouldn't just dump this on the contributor.
To answer your for me quite provocative question, whether I still praise Adobe to the skies: No, currently certainly not.
However, if the accounts are restored quickly, I maintain that it is currently one of the best agencies for us and will probably remain so.
Michael
-
Hi Michael,
I hope things will get resolved quickly for you. It should indeed be a warning for people submitting AI content while having also a large non-AI portfolio. But I am just wondering here. You were a devoted advocate for Adobe here (I even called you a groupie once because of your love for Adobe). Whenever Mat came here to give some answer (if it was helpful or not) you praised him and Adobe even though some of us were quite critical on Adobes actions or Mat answers.
Now that Adobe has put you in this predicament, do you still praise Adobe and think they are so much better then the other agencies?
Hello SVH,
I remember well that you said that. But the phrase "praised" seems to me a bit over the target :-)
Currently there are clear problems with the hardcore blocking of accounts - and it's about a lot of accounts, as you can see in Discord, it goes up to the upper ranks of "Top 500" accounts.
And I certainly don't praise Adobe for blocking the contributors here with a "zero information policy", without leaving any information and fobbing them off with a general sentence on the subject of "infringement" of something.
If there is a problem with images, then they should be deleted with a message about it, as it has done a while ago for example Alamy - at other agencies (and I did not think I would say that...) like 123rf, Dreamstime and even at Shutterstock, images with brand names do not even go to the review (I just checked this in my portfolios).
Obviously these images went through the review at Adobe and yes sure, I (we) should have paid attention myself, but as many others have already written, you shouldn't just dump this on the contributor.
To answer your for me quite provocative question, whether I still praise Adobe to the skies: No, currently certainly not.
However, if the accounts are restored quickly, I maintain that it is currently one of the best agencies for us and will probably remain so.
Michael
Thanks for your answer and good luck with restoring your account!
-
Thanks for your answer and good luck with restoring your account!
Thanks - I still have some hope left...
-
Moin as they say here in northern Germany,
I'm still searching my database of images and videos for possible copyright issues and after a very long read of many official posts in the AdobeStock Discord I came across that the filename can be a problem.... I probably wouldn't have thought of that, since the customer shouldn't actually be able to see it?!
Anyway, I used "Giger" in the filename of an image series, assuming the filename is "mine" - that was a wrong assumption it seems.
The metadata does not contain anything from "Giger", I always remove names (see picture below).
And the customer gets such filenames during download: "AdobeStock_123456789etc".
So I searched the current AdobeStock collection of AI images for "Giger" and found no image that matches the style of H.R. Giger.
So if the filename is part of the criterion and lead to my account suspensions (and those of many other), it gets much more complicated....
But maybe it's the demon industrial style of the chairs that then counts as Giger imitated... and in case anyone is wondering, I don't use MidJourney's automatic naming but assign file names by hand to make "imitating" images more difficult.
The more I think about it, the more sure I am that this must be the reason for my blocked account.
@Adobe:
I'm happy to remove these images immediately, no problem :-)
Greetings Michael
-
All the story is terrible and I also want to say good luck to Justanimage to clear situation with Adobe.
By the way, I can understand (I know) how a big company have sometimes to struggle with this kind of issue...
Some threatening letters from copyright owners, and the Adobe legal team ask to Adobe contributors team to shut down immediately all the accounts involved...
Usually in a big company it works this way, it doesn't matter who is involved, and the dialogue between departments is usually poor.
Mat is great in communication with contributors and I think he is actually in great great trouble for these reasons; but I have to say, it's true, that the reviewers fault is a big big issue for Adobe.
Hope all of these will be solved in few
-
I have removed various files, that probably could have stayed.
Removed this electric scooter, although I didn't use any brand names in case there is a problem. I am thinking of removing images with vr headsets from the queue. Again, no brand used, but maybe any kind of modern technology is too risky?
https://www.dreamstime.com/abstract-human-electric-scooter-city-using-vehicles-commutes-generative-ai-illustration-image283950089 (https://www.dreamstime.com/abstract-human-electric-scooter-city-using-vehicles-commutes-generative-ai-illustration-image283950089)
Otherwise I mostly have generic easter, christmas, food and simple portraits.
I hope my port is safe.
The process to disable the entire port for weeks and have people hanging in the air who are reliable producers and without access to their income is .... I really don't know what to say.
The problematic content has been online for months and it is the producers who have been pointing it out all the time.
And we are all for cleaning up the database, it is in all our interests to give customers a perfect ai experience.
So what happened that now, very abruptly, the only solution is mass blocking of the entire ports of producers?
Jo Ann suggested a good workflow to deal with the issues.
We are the partners of Adobe, not an enemy.
Please, at least give people access to their income, for many Adobe is the main income for entire families.
Adobe was maybe the last "good" agency for producers to work with. I hope they can find a better way to deal with the problem.
eta
What about the customers?
If a producer has 40k files and only 300 ai images and ten of them are problematic...by removing the entire port the customers who have lightboxed the normal photos/videos/illustrations cannot download the content they have bookmarked for projects.
Or can customers still download if a file is in their gallery?
It should be possible to either just block the ai content of a port, or maybe block ALL uploads to add pressure if that is what you want, but leave the port open for customers to download regular content and for producers to access their earnings.
This is the most important buying season of the year.
There must be a more sophisticated way of handling this problem.
-
... Anyway, I used "Giger" in the filename of an image series, assuming the filename is "mine" - that was a wrong assumption it seems.
The metadata does not contain anything from "Giger", I always remove names (see picture below).
And the customer gets such filenames during download: "AdobeStock_123456789etc".
...
Quoting myself... but to give a complete picture and not hold anything back.... i just found a picture series in my images where i actually included "Giger" as a search word... how did i miss that?!
I use an automated tool for basic keywording, which I then check and correct.
Memo to self, "That was really stupid!" - so i screwed it up myself with - Grmpf!
Now the only thing left to do is hope that AdobeStock will give us the option to remove the images or maybe even move them to the "Rejected" section afterwards, where the images definitely belong.
@Adobe:
Would it be helpful if I approach AS Contributor Support with my findings, even if I have already written there?
Michael
-
Thank you for sharing so openly.
So you created an image without reference to an artist, then used a keyword help and that software assigned a specific artist as a keyword.
An important thing to pay attention too, especially if your first language is not English.
In a different forum I just read that someone had their account blocked for two months...because there was a "suspicious activity". Someone downloaded his files over 100 times and the Adobe algorythm suspected that this was his own fraudulent attempt to raise his rank.
They unblocked the port 8 weeks later.
But no income for two months and you didn't do anything wrong?
This seems very extreme.
Everybody wants to fight fraud, but our portfolios are not a hobby.
-
And where is MatHayward, why doesn't he write anything here? I remember he campaigned for everyone to upload AI images to Adobe. Now adobe bans for it.
So to load AI content on adobe or not to load it?
-
And where is MatHayward, why doesn't he write anything here?
Page 2:
Hi All,
If your account has been recently blocked, please write to contributor support via [email protected] for information on your account. The team is currently backed up, but will respond asap.
I can't speak to your account(s) directly, but I did recently post some important reminders about submission policies such as the strict prohibition of using the name of existing artists in generative AI prompts and metadata. Violating generative AI guidelines can lead to possible account suspension or termination.
Please be sure to review them here: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-content.html
Thank you,
Mat Hayward
-
And where is MatHayward, why doesn't he write anything here?
Page 2:
Hi All,
If your account has been recently blocked, please write to contributor support via [email protected] for information on your account. The team is currently backed up, but will respond asap.
I can't speak to your account(s) directly, but I did recently post some important reminders about submission policies such as the strict prohibition of using the name of existing artists in generative AI prompts and metadata. Violating generative AI guidelines can lead to possible account suspension or termination.
Please be sure to review them here: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-content.html
Thank you,
Mat Hayward
"Never submit content that infringes the rights of third parties, including mimicking or replicating their content. "
How can an author know if someone's AI content has been copied or not?
-
And where is MatHayward, why doesn't he write anything here?
Page 2:
Hi All,
If your account has been recently blocked, please write to contributor support via [email protected] for information on your account. The team is currently backed up, but will respond asap.
I can't speak to your account(s) directly, but I did recently post some important reminders about submission policies such as the strict prohibition of using the name of existing artists in generative AI prompts and metadata. Violating generative AI guidelines can lead to possible account suspension or termination.
Please be sure to review them here: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-content.html
Thank you,
Mat Hayward
"Never submit content that infringes the rights of third parties, including mimicking or replicating their content. "
How can an author know if someone's AI content has been copied or not?
No user of AI can ensure that AI has copied works of other contributors. This is exactly the problem!
Now when you upload an image to Adobe, it says the following:
"Do not submit generative AI content where other artists or artists have been referenced in the submission."
It doesn't say, "Don't submit generative content based on the work of other artists."
Which specifically means: it doesn't matter if the AI copies the work of other artists. But it does matter that the other artists don't readily notice just because their name was used in the copying. Personally, I find this highly questionable.
To me, this notice is dangerous for Adobe from a legal point of view. People will submit works copied by other artists with full knowledge, but delete the hints for it from the IPTC data. Yet copyright law continues to be circumvented.
-
No, as Adobe's rules does not forbid having multiple accounts anywhere.
Mat, can we get an official word about this from Adobe?
Thanks for asking. Here is the official policy:
You may create more than one contributor account if you wish to track different asset types in separate accounts, e.g., video submissions versus image submissions, or generative AI submissions versus traditional photos or illustrations. Also, if your account gets close to an online portfolio of 1 million assets, we recommend to open a new account.
We don’t permit multiple account creations to submit similar or identical content to inflate sales, or to bypass upload limits for generative AI content.
You can view this in our Learn and Support page linked here: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/submission-guidelines.html
Thank you,
Mat Hayward
-
That is a very interesting option, thank you.
-
No, as Adobe's rules does not forbid having multiple accounts anywhere.
Mat, can we get an official word about this from Adobe?
Thanks for asking. Here is the official policy:
You may create more than one contributor account if you wish to track different asset types in separate accounts, e.g., video submissions versus image submissions, or generative AI submissions versus traditional photos or illustrations. Also, if your account gets close to an online portfolio of 1 million assets, we recommend to open a new account.
We don’t permit multiple account creations to submit similar or identical content to inflate sales, or to bypass upload limits for generative AI content.
You can view this in our Learn and Support page linked here: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/submission-guidelines.html
Thank you,
Mat Hayward
If I create an AI generated image only account and that account is somehow blocked, will my other account with years of work also get blocked because I'm the owner of the account too?
-
Good point. Adobe has mentioned several times, they have the contract with us as a person, not with an email address.
So if a problem arises and all ports are blocked while they investigate...then it would not help.
The problem is not having access to income for 2 months or many weeks.
A simple solution could be to stop the upload privilege, but keep access to income until the review of the problem is actually done.
Innocent until proven guilty or something like that.
Also allowing producers to look for potentially problematic files and delete them, could be helpful.
Obviously the best would be a one week turnaround for these reviews. But if that is unrealistic, perhaps please consider a solution that does not stop the income.
-
Adobe have serious issues at the mo, ever since AI was allowed. I dont upload AI but normal photo uploads now get 100% rejection for no reason (Adobe community support agree there is an issue). The sooner Adobe stop rejecting uploads 100% the better or its pointless being their contributor. The 100% rejection doesnt happen all the time but only occured since AI was allowed so from there they must of started using AI to review onagea.
-
Adobe have serious issues at the mo, ever since AI was allowed. I dont upload AI but normal photo uploads now get 100% rejection for no reason (Adobe community support agree there is an issue). The sooner Adobe stop rejecting uploads 100% the better or its pointless being their contributor. The 100% rejection doesnt happen all the time but only occured since AI was allowed so from there they must of started using AI to review onagea.
Good to see Shutterstock joining the conversation!!
-
Good to see Shutterstock joining the conversation!!
Don't be Shuttershocked! ;D ;D ;D
-
Adobe have serious issues at the mo, ever since AI was allowed. I dont upload AI but normal photo uploads now get 100% rejection for no reason (Adobe community support agree there is an issue). The sooner Adobe stop rejecting uploads 100% the better or its pointless being their contributor. The 100% rejection doesnt happen all the time but only occured since AI was allowed so from there they must of started using AI to review onagea.
Unfortunately, this is partly true. I also had two rejections. I admit that there was minimal blurring in the corners of the images, as I noticed after the rejection when I looked closely.
However, when I see that there are obviously masses of faulty AI images being accepted here, I wonder if there are two different tolerance thresholds. Apparently one wants to prefer the AI images.
In any case, I find a lack of depth of field more tolerable than things whose statics are not suitable for gravity. Flying tables, stairs without steps, architectural fantasy constructions seem to make up the new Microstock...
-
Yup review has been inconsistent as of lately, some batches get 100% rejection (and I'm a stock contributor for 15 years now and was in top 100 contributors at one point, so it's pretty strange - maybe I bumped my head against something and forgot everything I knew?), and some AI crap with floating hands passes review.
I don't know the inner workings at Adobe, but something needs to be done about that.
-
Yup review has been inconsistent as of lately, some batches get 100% rejection (and I'm a stock contributor for 15 years now and was in top 100 contributors at one point, so it's pretty strange - maybe I bumped my head against something and forgot everything I knew?), and some AI crap with floating hands passes review.
I don't know the inner workings at Adobe, but something needs to be done about that.
AI knows how to take steal photos
AI prompters know how to control obei AI
Adobe knows doing business in ethic prolific way
-
If you guys want to try to get some insights into why your images were rejected you can join the Adobe Stock Discord server and post up to 3 image ID's in the #rejection-reasons channel before this Sunday, September 3 at 12:00 PT. Adobe Stock will review all those images and select up to ten to talk about them and explain in detail why they were rejected by the moderators.
-
I'm pleased to report that my Adobe Stock account has been restored and is functioning perfectly. However, the restoration occurred without any notice, email, or message from Adobe.
While I'm relieved and grateful that my account is active again, the lack of communication is disconcerting for several reasons:
Uncertainty: Without an explanation, I'm left wondering what caused the issue and how to prevent it in the future. (I got only the same generic reply)
Guidance: Without feedback, I'm unsure how to proceed with my contributions. Shall I delete any assets from my library or shall I change any meta data? What was exactly the reason?
It would be great if Adobe could provide some insights into why this might have happened and how contributors can avoid similar situations in the future?
-
I'm pleased to report that my Adobe Stock account has been restored and is functioning perfectly. However, the restoration occurred without any notice, email, or message from Adobe.
While I'm relieved and grateful that my account is active again, the lack of communication is disconcerting for several reasons:
Uncertainty: Without an explanation, I'm left wondering what caused the issue and how to prevent it in the future. (I got only the same generic reply)
Guidance: Without feedback, I'm unsure how to proceed with my contributions. Shall I delete any assets from my library or shall I change any meta data? What was exactly the reason?
It would be great if Adobe could provide some insights into why this might have happened and how contributors can avoid similar situations in the future?
Thank you for sharing the information!
I'm still sitting here with a blocked account (for 8 days now) and somehow trying to figure out what's wrong and how long I'll probably have to wait until the account is active again - should it become active again, because I don't know that either.
The only official information I have on this so far is: "If the account becomes active again, which is not certain, unfortunately no time frame can be given for this."
So, in short, I currently don't even know if I need to look for a new second job or not....
So I can only agree with your points... this lack of information and the uncertainty that comes with it is definitely grueling.
Have a nice day@All,
Michael
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another small addendum @Adobe:
It would be enough for us blocked accountowners, if someone told us "You will get your account back, but it will take another 2 weeks to check and remove the problem images".
Or something along those lines - just a little more information please and not leave your contributors completely unaware of their future as is currently the case.
Thank you very much!
-
That is fantastic news! Thank you for letting us know.
And the most important sales season is coming, hope your port does well.
-
"Do not submit generative AI content where other artists or artists have been referenced in the submission."
Not in keywords, titles, descriptions or file names. Or you will risk having your account locked. I just wanted to dig the answer out of all the posts and conjecture. There could be other reasons, but this one is clear.
I'm still searching my database of images and videos for possible copyright issues and after a very long read of many official posts in the AdobeStock Discord I came across that the filename can be a problem.... I probably wouldn't have thought of that, since the customer shouldn't actually be able to see it?!
Anyway, I used "Giger" in the filename of an image series, assuming the filename is "mine" - that was a wrong assumption it seems.
The metadata does not contain anything from "Giger", I always remove names (see picture below).
I think you discovered the problem and I'd agree, who would imagine that our file names are a liability?
-
I'm still searching my database of images and videos for possible copyright issues and after a very long read of many official posts in the AdobeStock Discord I came across that the filename can be a problem.... I probably wouldn't have thought of that, since the customer shouldn't actually be able to see it?!
Anyway, I used "Giger" in the filename of an image series, assuming the filename is "mine" - that was a wrong assumption it seems.
The metadata does not contain anything from "Giger", I always remove names (see picture below).
I think you discovered the problem and I'd agree, who would imagine that our file names are a liability?
Thank you - Yes, I never expected that to be a criterion.
Because let's say a file is called "beach in the style of ABC" that's exactly what's in it - so for example I named my files "in Wrendale style" (not in titles or keywords) because "in a watercolor painting style" was too long for me.
To make the assumption that you have copied a style here is a very dubious assumption at best.
In the future (assuming I get my account back) I will use a filename scrambler, a script that makes the filenames unreadable before uploading.
But as I noted above, I did indeed miss a keyword in a series of images when removing the automatically generated keywords, so I'm doing my part to be in this situation.
Now I have to be patient, because I'm sure I've already annoyed Mat and the other Adobe employees from the AS Discord enough with my questions - but I'm sticking to it:
The people with blocked accounts urgently need information on
(a) whether they can get the account back
and
(b) by when this will happen.
-
You have submitted files that refer to famous artists, people, characters from popular culture, and/or other existing subjects such as video games in the image, title or keywords. We take intellectual property rights very seriously and your uploads are a violation of these rights and thus violate the upload guidelines.
I think you are making assumptions about misused keywords and filenames. I think you likely have a bigger problem with images such as these:
-
It's hopeless.... ::)
-
I think you are making assumptions about misused keywords and filenames. I think you likely have a bigger problem with images such as these
Thank you for the examples - I definatly got what you want to tell me, for sure.
But those images where in no way made with prompts to imitate something or someone and this was never my intention:
- Image series (a - the cats) :If you use german (my native language) "Eine surreale mürrische Katze" this translates to "A surreal grumpy cat", which is exactly what my prompt was. I never intended to imitate a famous person/thing, that i didn't even know before. So there is no "in the style of" violation happening - at least the image review should have sorted this out, if it is a problem to show a "mürrische Katze".
- Images series (b - evil clown doll): The prompt was "An evil clown doll in a dirty look", which is just what came to my mind - I think you are referring to the Chucky movie, which i haven't seen by the way. If "An evil clown doll in a dirty look" is a problem, then the review should sort this out, in my humble opinion.
Oops, just saw you didn't mean the movie Chucky, but something from 2017 - my bad, haven't seen that movie.
When making that prompf "Evil clown doll in a dirty look" I was thinking of people dressed like clowns and scared people in the streets...
To be clear: I don't want to absolve myself of blame here - I certainly made mistakes in my images and keywords, because some things were simply not known to me and at some points I was certainly not attentive enough - I don't doubt that.
I am of the opinion that one cannot know everything and mistakes happen from time to time.
These images should simply be deleted in the current situation and the problem is solved - I am also happy to remove anything questionable from my portfolio without hesitation - no problem at all.
If I get the opportunity, I will definitely not upload any even remotely questionable motif - the lesson with the account block was definitely a lesson to me!
Edit:
- Maybe you want to check the search for "A grumpy cat" -> https://stock.adobe.com/de/search?k=a+grumpy+cat&search_type=usertyped with 9k+ results
- Or try "evil clown doll" as a search on stock.adobe.com - you will find lots and lots of similar images to mine
So I would guess those two examples do not seem to be the problem/the reason for the account blocks, if we assume all accounts with the same problematic assets have been blocked.
Don't get me wrong - if those images are a problem for Adobe Stock - let us delete them right away, I am totally fine with that!
-
Since I started the thread, of course I want to tell everything about this case to make it complete:
My account has just been unblocked and I was also told why it was blocked - it was about an artist with a "G" that we suspected much further up - and I had brought the soup on myself, as I had already admitted there.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mat and Mr. Gomez from the support, who patiently dealt with my impatience.
In any case, I learned a lot about copyright, possible copyright and the danger of confusion with styles and other existing things and places.
For me, it means to be more careful with these issues in the future and maybe rather look a second time.
And now I'm going through my portfolio and removing any weak points in it, because I don't want to have that again.
And thanks again to all those who helped with the search in my DT portfolio, that helped a lot.
-
Congrats on getting unblocked so quickly. You must have aged quite a bit.
One problem is that even if you use perfectly innocent prompts, the ai might give you copyrighted material because it is drawing on popular images that people like.
And a lot of people are prompting horror clowns based on movies etc...
So it is up to us to recognize if the result is problematic.
If in doubt, kick it out.
Thank you Mat and Adobe for not keeping the people writing here waiting for two months in the most important buying season.
But the conversation here was very helpful, I removed several images that I would not have considered as problematic before and will be much more careful going forward.
-
For all those to whom this should also have happened with the account block:
When your account is unblocked, be sure to check the images that are currently still in the queue.
I have just found 2 more images from the problem series in my queue with the same unauthorised search term.
The queue was not taken into account during the account check and the deletion of the images - please do this manually (I'm in the process of doing it myself) as soon as the account is released so that you don't run into the same problem again immediately after the account is released!
-
I don't really understand why Adobe would block an account for this. Why not simply reject the images? Seems a bit like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
-
Sorry to hear about your account being blocked. This is very unfair and seems like an overreaction on Adobe's part. I had no plans to create or upload AI imagery and after reading this thread, my feelings on this matter are stronger than ever. It's not worth the risk. I'll stick to traditional photography.
-
I'm still searching my database of images and videos for possible copyright issues and after a very long read of many official posts in the AdobeStock Discord I came across that the filename can be a problem.... I probably wouldn't have thought of that, since the customer shouldn't actually be able to see it?!
Anyway, I used "Giger" in the filename of an image series, assuming the filename is "mine" - that was a wrong assumption it seems.
The metadata does not contain anything from "Giger", I always remove names (see picture below).
I think you discovered the problem and I'd agree, who would imagine that our file names are a liability?
Thank you - Yes, I never expected that to be a criterion.
Because let's say a file is called "beach in the style of ABC" that's exactly what's in it - so for example I named my files "in Wrendale style" (not in titles or keywords) because "in a watercolor painting style" was too long for me.
To make the assumption that you have copied a style here is a very dubious assumption at best.
In the future (assuming I get my account back) I will use a filename scrambler, a script that makes the filenames unreadable before uploading.
But as I noted above, I did indeed miss a keyword in a series of images when removing the automatically generated keywords, so I'm doing my part to be in this situation.
Now I have to be patient, because I'm sure I've already annoyed Mat and the other Adobe employees from the AS Discord enough with my questions - but I'm sticking to it:
The people with blocked accounts urgently need information on
(a) whether they can get the account back
and
(b) by when this will happen.
YUP! :) I feel warned just in case. I could make the same mistake.
-
Just to keep you all up to date:
My account (which was blocked for 8 days) was reactivated late last Thursday evening - 19 images were removed that contained an illegal term/trademark - Thanks again for helping me out here @Mat/Adobe.
Since the account has been reactivated, I have noticed a massive drop in downloads - from an average of 23 per working day (yes, that's not soooo many for some of you) to now 8 per working day on average, a drop to about 35%.
Almost all my images that were doing well before the account are now not selling at all - only one image from my Top20 list had two sales today.
The question I'm asking myself now is: Will the account block also expose you to further mechanisms afterwards that will throw you completely back to the end of the queue (or close to it) in the ranking?
Because before the 8-day block, the account was doing increasingly better.
-
Just to keep you all up to date:
My account (which was blocked for 8 days) was reactivated late last Thursday evening - 19 images were removed that contained an illegal term/trademark - Thanks again for helping me out here @Mat/Adobe.
Since the account has been reactivated, I have noticed a massive drop in downloads - from an average of 23 per working day (yes, that's not soooo many for some of you) to now 8 per working day on average, a drop of about 35%.
Almost all my images that were doing well before the account are now not selling at all - only one image from my Top20 list had two sales today.
The question I'm asking myself now is: Will the account block also expose you to further mechanisms afterwards that will throw you completely back to the end of the queue (or close to it) in the ranking?
Because before the 8-day block, the account was doing increasingly better.
In the AdobeStock Discord I unfortunately only received this very general sentence as an answer to this question:
"Sales are determined by what the buyers are looking for. It's possible that the recent slump was just a temporary one and sales will pick up again based on the changing needs and preferences of the buyers."
That sucks. Hopefully your sales stabilize.
I'm surprised by your average # of sales per day.. your portfolio seems to have more than 100 pages, and most of the content looks like AI (I haven't checked in detail - please correct me if I'm wrong). 23 downloads per day for a port of at least 10k images seems rather low.
Also, a drop from 23 to 8 isn't 35%, it's a 65% drop. Maybe you meant to say your sales are 35% of previous sales (not a 35% drop).
-
If most of the content is ai, then the content is very young. My ai content is just picking up now. Usually it takes 9-18 months, at least with my photos/videos for a series to take off.
So 23 a day on average for young content is probably quite reasonable.
Please let us know when it goes back up.
This week there was a long week-end holiday in the US, my sales have also slowed down.
Hopefully things will pick up again next week.
-
...
Please let us know when it goes back up.
This week there was a long week-end holiday in the US, my sales have also slowed down.
Of course I will keep you informed - maybe sales will come in soon again, we'll see :)
What is interesting are the existing sales, which refer almost exclusively to pictures that were already online before but did not produce any sales.
The tip about the long holiday in the US was also kindly given to me in Discord.
And let's face it - we've all been trying to figure out how "the algorithm" works for years...
Edit: As a mathematician, I am of course always looking for patterns here, but presumably "the algorithm" goes far beyond my horizon ;-)
Have a good night,
Michael
-
Just to keep you all up to date:
My account (which was blocked for 8 days) was reactivated late last Thursday evening - 19 images were removed that contained an illegal term/trademark - Thanks again for helping me out here @Mat/Adobe.
Since the account has been reactivated, I have noticed a massive drop in downloads - from an average of 23 per working day (yes, that's not soooo many for some of you) to now 8 per working day on average, a drop to about 35%.
Almost all my images that were doing well before the account are now not selling at all - only one image from my Top20 list had two sales today.
The question I'm asking myself now is: Will the account block also expose you to further mechanisms afterwards that will throw you completely back to the end of the queue (or close to it) in the ranking?
Because before the 8-day block, the account was doing increasingly better.
Ouch! If your images are punished in search and not presented to the customers somewhere in the first pages, it is not much different from banning the entire portfolio. I really hope that it's not the case and the situation will change to the better.
As my portfolio remains blocked for two weeks now, your case gives me hope and chills at the same time :'(
I would also like to thank you for being so open, speaking out and sharing the important nuances your case, so we have a way to timely learn about the issues and be updated on what to expect. This is the level of communication we would love to see from Adobe.
-
Just to keep you all up to date:
My account (which was blocked for 8 days) was reactivated late last Thursday evening - 19 images were removed that contained an illegal term/trademark - Thanks again for helping me out here @Mat/Adobe.
Since the account has been reactivated, I have noticed a massive drop in downloads - from an average of 23 per working day (yes, that's not soooo many for some of you) to now 8 per working day on average, a drop to about 35%.
Almost all my images that were doing well before the account are now not selling at all - only one image from my Top20 list had two sales today.
The question I'm asking myself now is: Will the account block also expose you to further mechanisms afterwards that will throw you completely back to the end of the queue (or close to it) in the ranking?
Because before the 8-day block, the account was doing increasingly better.
deleted
-
one of the worst UI / UX
-
A has gone crazy. I had image not accepted with Non-compliant Image reason. Picture was of a flower growing in field with Latin name. I guess it is also copyrighted :P :P.
-
maybe add the image number here or in the adobe discord so someone can look into it?
it sounds like some algos going wild, labelling content as ai that is not ai, declining files with latin names...
Adobe is a huge software company. I hope they get things back to normal.
-
A has gone crazy. I had image not accepted with Non-compliant Image reason. Picture was of a flower growing in field with Latin name. I guess it is also copyrighted :P :P.
Was it a rose?
-
No. It was some sort of thistle.
-
No. It was some sort of thistle.
Okay. In that case I can‘t understand why you had troubles!
-
I wonder if there could be any kind of legal issues with editorial images? I have lot of images with big brands, but of course they are are only for editorial use
-
I have an update - my account was unblocked yesterday, which is great, of course.
Unfortunately I got no letter of any kind notifying about it and, most importantly, providing the actual reasons behind the 3-week block, besides one generic response about it being related to AI copyright infringement. I can't seem to find if any images were deleted from the portfolio.
-
@Konstantin:
I'm very pleased to hear that your account has been unblocked again.
I know from my own experience how unsettling such an account block can be, so it's very good that it's now active again :-)
Good sales to you!
-
I have an update - my account was unblocked yesterday, which is great, of course.
Unfortunately I got no letter of any kind notifying about it and, most importantly, providing the actual reasons behind the 3-week block, besides one generic response about it being related to AI copyright infringement. I can't seem to find if any images were deleted from the portfolio.
Glad to see that you are freed from the block, but IMO it is absolutely imperative that you get details on (a) what the suspicion was; (b) how many images were affected; (c) what action, if any, was taken. If the answer is that no action was taken, then (d) there should be a sincere apology. Adobe Stock should remember that 3 weeks of earnings could be several hundred dollars - this is bad in all circumstances, but unconscionable if it was all a "mistake".
Given how broken this process appears to be, it really does bear repeating that a better response would be to suspend upload privileges and leave all images in the portfolio live except for the "suspect" ones (which could be rejected temporarily if the software team can't figure out a quick way to render them offline).
This is people's livelihood in many cases. This is a serious issue for contributors. Adobe Stock needs to improve this process, especially for established contributors who've been with them for (let's say) more than one year.
-
3 week block could be several thousand dollars. But in any case it is nearly one month income missing.
If there really was NOTHING wrong with the port, then Adobe should seriously consider compensation. Because then it must have been their algos that made a very serious mistake.
This is the most important buying season. You don't just lose the sales you also lose on the lightboxing of your files for future sales.
I am amazed that Adobe is not understanding that stock is not a hobby for the producers but actually their main income. At least for the old timers who have been uploading for years.
There must be a different way to handle this problem.
example:
- Notify the contributor that their account is under investigation. Give them a case number and communication place to ask questions.
- Give then a time frame estimate when a human will look into the problem.
- Until then let them access their account, their money and also give them the ability to delete files themselves.
- After the process is complete give them a real report what happened, what the problem was and how it was resolved.
-
3 week block could be several thousand dollars. But in any case it is nearly one month income missing.
If there really was NOTHING wrong with the port, then Adobe should seriously consider compensation. Because then it must have been their algos that made a very serious mistake.
This is the most important buying season. You don't just lose the sales you also lose on the lightboxing of your files for future sales.
I am amazed that Adobe is not understanding that stock is not a hobby for the producers but actually their main income. At least for the old timers who have been uploading for years.
There must be a different way to handle this problem.
example:
- Notify the contributor that their account is under investigation. Give them a case number and communication place to ask questions.
- Give them a time frame estimate when a human will look into the problem.
- Until them let them access their account, their money and also give them the ability to delete files themselves.
- After the process is complete give them a real report what happened, what the problem was and how it was resolved.
Well said and a really good idea. It deserves a thread of its own to be honest with maybe input from Mat. As he's the face of contributor support and has always been really helpful with problems in the past, it maybe something he can feedback on.
At the same time, while the system needs to protect contributors from errors etc, it does need to punish serial offenders so I understand and appreciate Adobes efforts, it just feels like it is a little out of balance at the moment but with a few tweaks it may offer the right balance of protection for both the agency and contributor while not providing a free ticket to deliberate rule breakers.
-
A process like this also empowers the producer as a real partner. And they can go hunting for problematic files to delete.
Many people are not perfect with all the legal stuff around prompting and I am sure most mistakes are unintentional.
Especially if your prompt has no copyright issues, but the ai returns material with copyright problems, for instance "scary halloween clown" can easily return protected clowns from popular movies or toys that you might not be aware of.
In this way, the problematic files might even be removed much sooner and the artist will feel respected.
-
@Konstantin:
I'm very pleased to hear that your account has been unblocked again.
I know from my own experience how unsettling such an account block can be, so it's very good that it's now active again :-)
Good sales to you!
Thank you Michael!
How are your sales, did they pick up to their prior levels?
Do you submit new AI stuff after all this? I feel uneasy about contributing anything AI now :-X
-
3 week block could be several thousand dollars. But in any case it is nearly one month income missing.
If there really was NOTHING wrong with the port, then Adobe should seriously consider compensation. Because then it must have been their algos that made a very serious mistake.
This is the most important buying season. You don't just lose the sales you also lose on the lightboxing of your files for future sales.
I am amazed that Adobe is not understanding that stock is not a hobby for the producers but actually their main income. At least for the old timers who have been uploading for years.
There must be a different way to handle this problem.
example:
- Notify the contributor that their account is under investigation. Give them a case number and communication place to ask questions.
- Give then a time frame estimate when a human will look into the problem.
- Until them let them access their account, their money and also give them the ability to delete files themselves.
- After the process is complete give them a real report what happened, what the problem was and how it was resolved.
Couldn't agree more! An additional negative impact is the lost "search juice": your images will rank deeper because of less downloads in the blocked weeks.
-
I have an update - my account was unblocked yesterday, which is great, of course.
Unfortunately I got no letter of any kind notifying about it and, most importantly, providing the actual reasons behind the 3-week block, besides one generic response about it being related to AI copyright infringement. I can't seem to find if any images were deleted from the portfolio.
Glad to see that you are freed from the block, but IMO it is absolutely imperative that you get details on (a) what the suspicion was; (b) how many images were affected; (c) what action, if any, was taken. If the answer is that no action was taken, then (d) there should be a sincere apology. Adobe Stock should remember that 3 weeks of earnings could be several hundred dollars - this is bad in all circumstances, but unconscionable if it was all a "mistake".
Given how broken this process appears to be, it really does bear repeating that a better response would be to suspend upload privileges and leave all images in the portfolio live except for the "suspect" ones (which could be rejected temporarily if the software team can't figure out a quick way to render them offline).
This is people's livelihood in many cases. This is a serious issue for contributors. Adobe Stock needs to improve this process, especially for established contributors who've been with them for (let's say) more than one year.
Thank you Jo Ann, all good points!
-
3 week block could be several thousand dollars. But in any case it is nearly one month income missing.
If there really was NOTHING wrong with the port, then Adobe should seriously consider compensation. Because then it must have been their algos that made a very serious mistake.
This is the most important buying season. You don't just lose the sales you also lose on the lightboxing of your files for future sales.
I am amazed that Adobe is not understanding that stock is not a hobby for the producers but actually their main income. At least for the old timers who have been uploading for years.
There must be a different way to handle this problem.
example:
- Notify the contributor that their account is under investigation. Give them a case number and communication place to ask questions.
- Give then a time frame estimate when a human will look into the problem.
- Until them let them access their account, their money and also give them the ability to delete files themselves.
- After the process is complete give them a real report what happened, what the problem was and how it was resolved.
Couldn't agree more! An additional negative impact is the lost "search juice": your images will rank deeper because of less downloads in the blocked weeks.
Additional? I'd argue that sinking in the search would have far greater impact on your income than a month or two without pay.
-
3 week block could be several thousand dollars. But in any case it is nearly one month income missing.
If there really was NOTHING wrong with the port, then Adobe should seriously consider compensation. Because then it must have been their algos that made a very serious mistake.
This is the most important buying season. You don't just lose the sales you also lose on the lightboxing of your files for future sales.
I am amazed that Adobe is not understanding that stock is not a hobby for the producers but actually their main income. At least for the old timers who have been uploading for years.
There must be a different way to handle this problem.
example:
- Notify the contributor that their account is under investigation. Give them a case number and communication place to ask questions.
- Give then a time frame estimate when a human will look into the problem.
- Until them let them access their account, their money and also give them the ability to delete files themselves.
- After the process is complete give them a real report what happened, what the problem was and how it was resolved.
That would certainly ease the process if Adobe implemented your suggestions, let alone show a bit of mutual respect and appreciation.
Until then, unfortunately, the way it is handled gives us a reality check that artists are really dime a dozen for a big agency.
After all, why would they still need us if they have Firefly out to do most of our work?
-
Because customers are not prompters. Just like mobile phones didn‘t destroy stock agencies.
Adobe needs a steady stream of useful content. And we provide that.
Plus…we are all their customers.
It should be obvious that treating us with respect is a win win for everyone.
-
Thank you Michael!
How are your sales, did they pick up to their prior levels?
Do you submit new AI stuff after all this? I feel uneasy about contributing anything AI now :-X
My account has been back online for about 2 weeks now and is now at about 45%-50% of the level before the 8-day block - at the current "recovery speed" I would say it could take another 2-3 months to reach the level of say the 2 months before the block, if this very slow increase continues.
Currently, of my previous Top25 images, only a few are selling, the sales since reactivation seem to be mostly images that were never or very rarely sold before.
And yes, I will continue to upload AI images, because this market is currently still very active, but this will probably not last forever - I think "real photos" will become more important again.
However, I am doubly careful about the keywords, titles and filenames I use - everything is now double-checked on my end. Because my account would probably not survive another block like that.
Currently I have about 4300 photos/videos/AI-images mixed in the queue (3001 files - my submission limit - since up to 3 months) and in the upload area and since the account block I have between 5 and 10 checked files per day - so it's going very slowly to maybe boost the account again.
And now I have to make sure I get to the airport - a few days' holiday :-)
-
Thank you Michael!
How are your sales, did they pick up to their prior levels?
Do you submit new AI stuff after all this? I feel uneasy about contributing anything AI now :-X
My account has been back online for about 2 weeks now and is now at about 45%-50% of the level before the 8-day block - at the current "recovery speed" I would say it could take another 2-3 months to reach the level of say the 2 months before the block, if this very slow increase continues.
Currently, of my previous Top25 images, only a few are selling, the sales since reactivation seem to be mostly images that were never or very rarely sold before.
And yes, I will continue to upload AI images, because this market is currently still very active, but this will probably not last forever - I think "real photos" will become more important again.
However, I am doubly careful about the keywords, titles and filenames I use - everything is now double-checked on my end. Because my account would probably not survive another block like that.
Currently I have about 4300 photos/videos/AI-images mixed in the queue (3001 files - my submission limit - since up to 3 months) and in the upload area and since the account block I have between 5 and 10 checked files per day - so it's going very slowly to maybe boost the account again.
And now I have to make sure I get to the airport - a few days' holiday :-)
Thank you for the update. So far I am seeing a number of downloads a day that I normally had on a weekend day before the block :(
Have a great getaway! :)
-
Thank you for the update. So far I am seeing a number of downloads a day that I normally had on a weekend day before the block :(
Have a great getaway! :)
Back from holiday - another week later my account is slowly recovering from the block.
I'm now at about 55-65% of the previous volume (after being active for 3 weeks again) - apparently you have to work your way back up in the ranking (in search), but at least that seems to be working, albeit very slowly.
According to my current calculations, it takes about 10-14 weeks to get back to the results before the block, if the current trend continues.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you that the account recovers quickly!
-
Are you uploading a lot? Perhaps putting two weeks of very hardcore uploads could help?
Maybe editorial that has faster reviews? Just something to give your port a kick?
-
Are you uploading a lot? Perhaps putting two weeks of very hardcore uploads could help?
Maybe editorial that has faster reviews? Just something to give your port a kick?
Yes, I already had the idea to push this with more uploads.
However, my submission limit of 3,001 files is currently fully utilised and in the last 3 weeks since the account was activated, with one exception, only 3-10 files were reviewed per day.
I could take up the very good idea with the editorial images, I still have about 80-100 almost finished images :-) Thanks for the tip!
-
3000 in the queue!! That is more than a 1 year production for me…
I would hope that getting editorials quickly accepted could help.
If so, please let us know. Might be important for others who have to rebuild after a port block.
-
3000 in the queue!! That is more than a 1 year production for me…
I would hope that getting editorials quickly accepted could help.
If so, please let us know. Might be important for others who have to rebuild after a port block.
The 3.000 in the queue are about 50 videos, 200 fotos and the rest is AI Images (about the half with people).
1.250 more are already uploaded and some 600'ish more are keyworded and just need to be uploaded.
I will of course keep you informed how things are going and changing :-)