Author Topic: Account blocked - I need help please (Read 18390 times)

Pacesetter · « **Reply #25 on:** August 24, 2023, 15:57 »

Quote from: SVH on August 24, 2023, 10:44

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.

cobalt · « **Reply #26 on:** August 24, 2023, 16:08 »

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.

RalfLiebhold · « **Reply #27 on:** August 24, 2023, 16:11 »

@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

Anja_Kaiser · « **Reply #28 on:** August 24, 2023, 16:19 »

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?

cobalt · « **Reply #29 on:** August 24, 2023, 16:40 »

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?

cobalt · « **Reply #30 on:** August 24, 2023, 16:52 »

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.

RalfLiebhold · « **Reply #31 on:** August 24, 2023, 16:59 »

Quote from: cobalt on August 24, 2023, 16:52

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

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #32 on:** August 24, 2023, 17:14 »

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).

cobalt · « **Reply #33 on:** August 24, 2023, 17:45 »

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.

Anja_Kaiser · « **Reply #34 on:** August 24, 2023, 17:52 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on August 24, 2023, 17:14

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.

cobalt · « **Reply #35 on:** August 24, 2023, 18:10 »

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

Injustice for all · « **Reply #36 on:** August 24, 2023, 18:29 »

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.

synthetick · « **Reply #37 on:** August 24, 2023, 19:07 »

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?

blvdone · « **Reply #38 on:** August 24, 2023, 21:03 »

Quote from: JustAnImage on August 24, 2023, 08:46

Quote from: biibii on August 24, 2023, 08:22
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.

Her Ugliness · « **Reply #39 on:** August 25, 2023, 00:47 »

Quote from: JustAnImage on August 24, 2023, 15:23

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.

korner83 · « **Reply #40 on:** August 25, 2023, 02:10 »

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

Just_to_inform_people2 · « **Reply #41 on:** August 25, 2023, 02:58 »

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on August 24, 2023, 15:07

Quote from: SVH on August 24, 2023, 14:44
Quote from: DiscreetDuck on August 24, 2023, 12:14
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 .

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.

cobalt · « **Reply #42 on:** August 25, 2023, 03:02 »

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.

kuriouskat · « **Reply #43 on:** August 25, 2023, 03:47 »

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/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.

JustAnImage · « **Reply #44 on:** August 25, 2023, 04:03 »

Quote from: synthetick on August 24, 2023, 19:07

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.

DiscreetDuck · « **Reply #45 on:** August 25, 2023, 04:22 »

Quote from: korner83 on August 25, 2023, 02:10

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..

DiscreetDuck · « **Reply #46 on:** August 25, 2023, 04:32 »

Quote from: cobalt on August 24, 2023, 16:08

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.

cobalt · « **Reply #47 on:** August 25, 2023, 04:39 »

@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).

DiscreetDuck · « **Reply #48 on:** August 25, 2023, 04:55 »

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on August 24, 2023, 15:07

Quote from: SVH on August 24, 2023, 14:44
Quote from: DiscreetDuck on August 24, 2023, 12:14
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 .

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?

JustAnImage · « **Reply #49 on:** August 25, 2023, 05:26 »

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Account blocked - I need help please (Read 18390 times)

Pacesetter

cobalt

RalfLiebhold

Anja_Kaiser

cobalt

cobalt

RalfLiebhold

Jo Ann Snover

cobalt

Anja_Kaiser

cobalt

Injustice for all

synthetick

blvdone

Her Ugliness

korner83

Just_to_inform_people2

cobalt

kuriouskat

JustAnImage

DiscreetDuck

DiscreetDuck

cobalt

DiscreetDuck

JustAnImage

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors