Seems ok to me. Perhaps they want more depth of field? I feel that they should be more specific about rejections like this. I have also encountered some editorial rejections seemingly for no clear reason.

I have the same issue as well. Similar pictures with brand would be accepted couple months ago, but now it is rejected, and I don't know why either

Illustrative Editorial Issue:
    - The file includes identifiable people.
    - The file is news or documentary editorial.
    - The file did not have a strong editorial concept.



Why this pic doesnt have strong editorial concept? Broadcom one of the biggest semiconductor manufacturer in the world. And the pic is visualizing the brand and the hardware

What is wrong with this picture, for example, by definition, no people, brand bold in the foreground.

Images that feature tight crops of copyrighted or trademarked material,

Digitally created or manipulated versions of trademarked logos or other brand content

That's my guess for each of them.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 07, 2024, 13:50

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on February 06, 2024, 16:28

What is wrong with this picture, for example, by definition, no people, brand bold in the foreground.

Images that feature tight crops of copyrighted or trademarked material,


That's my guess for each of them.

Maybe, but last year this stuff was accepted. I hope that Mat can shed some light on the matter.

He's the one!   

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 07, 2024, 13:50

Quote from: rkz91 on February 07, 2024, 05:20

Digitally created or manipulated versions of trademarked logos or other brand content

That's my guess for each of them.

This picture was taken on glass for reflection. And chip was held by black plastic behind it. There was fractional removal of that plastic from picture for aesthetics, but it does not change the  point of picture. It is not manipulation. By the way there were others photos, where was nothing removed from it. Just simple contrast/color edit. But still rejected for same reason...

Just a guess. The reviewer might see this as a Highly Manipulated Image. In the sense that the Logo is artistically reflected with a chip added. Is this an actual Broadcom chip? Is that the actual Broadcom, unaltered logo?

I'm not being critical, it's nice work. I'm just pointing out, that an artful image, using a name and logo with a artist composition, isn't Illustrative of the actual product or company brand name. My impression of illustrative editorial is it's supposed to be the actual items, not creative interpretations.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 07, 2024, 14:21

Quote from: rkz91 on February 07, 2024, 14:06

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 07, 2024, 13:50

Quote from: rkz91 on February 07, 2024, 05:20

Digitally created or manipulated versions of trademarked logos or other brand content

That's my guess for each of them.

This picture was taken on glass for reflection. And chip was held by black plastic behind it. There was fractional removal of that plastic from picture for aesthetics, but it does not change the  point of picture. It is not manipulation. By the way there were others photos, where was nothing removed from it. Just simple contrast/color edit. But still rejected for same reason...

Just a guess. The reviewer might see this as a Highly Manipulated Image. In the sense that the Logo is artistically reflected with a chip added. Is this an actual Broadcom chip? Is that the actual Broadcom, unaltered logo?

I'm not being critical, it's nice work. I'm just pointing out, that an artful image, using a name and logo with a artist composition, isn't Illustrative of the actual product or company brand name. My impression of illustrative editorial is it's supposed to be the actual items, not creative interpretations.

I get your point. This chip is from Intel, but still it was rejected with Intel logo in background as well. But Should I somehow to prove for reviewer that it is actually brand made product? lol it is non sense in my opinion Most microchips look similar

Mine was more of a personal opinion and conceptual reason why I'm guessing at the rejection reason. I have no knowledge beyond what the Adobe site says. I think that anyone, not just you, that does creative versions, and such as close cropped or altered icons or logos, might get a rejection for that reason.

I'm thinking that only original logos, trademarks, icons, Etc. (seems with the exception of social platforms) is allowed. Artistic interpretations are not allowed.

But until Mat says what Adobe says, I'm just writing what I think the cause was. And I have stayed away from editing for art, color, design, or improvements, when uploading anything that's Illustrative Editorial.

I received the answer today, thank you Mat.

In my example, the MGM logo is from the fifties. Today's logo looks different, so it was wrongly assumed that this image was generated with AI. The image is now online.

I think this can also be applied to rkz91's example.

The question is how to deal with this realization in the future. Some of my images are affected.

There you go, something I never thought of. AI thinks that altered logos are AI. Good Luck.