MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Adobe Illustrative Editorial - Somehow I'm too stupid for that  (Read 1212 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 06, 2024, 16:28 »
+1
At one point I thought I had understood their Illustrative Editorial system. No significant problem over the years.
For months now, I've been receiving a hail of rejections :

Thanks for submitting your file for review.

Unfortunately, during our review we found that this file does not meet the Adobe Stocks Illustrative Editorial Guidelines.


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





wds

« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2024, 18:20 »
0
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.

« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2024, 18:40 »
0
Hi Ralf,

I've just had a look at the Adobe "Illustrative editorial" page.
German page: https://helpx.adobe.com/de/stock/contributor/help/illustrative-editorial-content.html

The only point I could think of is this line:
"The following is not accepted for illustrative editorial content: Images with tight cropping of copyrighted or trademarked material, such as stamps, art, or other content that may violate privacy rights"

Is M.G.M possibly subject to a special copyright?
Otherwise, I really have no idea...


« Reply #4 on: February 06, 2024, 18:49 »
0
In addition to what has already been said:

I also had a number of rejected editorial images and the rejection note lists several possible reasons, one of which may be relevant:

"- Die Datei hatte kein starkes redaktionelles Konzept."

(The file did not have a strong editorial concept)

Of course this is highly subjective. Perhaps the reviewer did not recognize MGM as an important brand.

« Reply #5 on: February 07, 2024, 05:20 »
+1
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
« Last Edit: February 07, 2024, 05:39 by rkz91 »

« Reply #6 on: February 07, 2024, 06:08 »
+1
I'm not sure on this one Ralf. What is the image number? I'll look into it.

-Mat

Thank you Mat, I have just sent you a PM.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #7 on: February 07, 2024, 13:50 »
0


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.

« Reply #8 on: February 07, 2024, 13:55 »
0


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.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #9 on: February 07, 2024, 14:00 »
0


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!   ;D

« Reply #10 on: February 07, 2024, 14:06 »
0





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... :)

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #11 on: February 07, 2024, 14:21 »
+1





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.

« Reply #12 on: February 07, 2024, 14:47 »
0





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

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #13 on: February 08, 2024, 12:11 »
0





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.


« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2024, 05:29 »
+1
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.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2024, 11:15 »
0
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.

« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2024, 18:38 »
0
Now to the next rejections, which I don't understand.

I had already contacted support with specific questions, and after several weeks all I received was a reference to the relevant link for illustrative Editorial. Not really helpful.

Here is a Pink Floyd cover and the cover of a book with the Pschyrembel brand, a medical reference book used in Europe and therefore also a strong brand.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
47 Replies
27395 Views
Last post September 05, 2019, 11:55
by MatHayward
35 Replies
18649 Views
Last post January 26, 2020, 08:13
by ouatedeP
1 Replies
4440 Views
Last post October 09, 2019, 05:47
by Niakris
2 Replies
3293 Views
Last post March 02, 2020, 14:15
by MatHayward
2 Replies
891 Views
Last post September 26, 2023, 08:50
by John W.

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors