MicrostockGroup

Agency Based Discussion => Adobe Stock => Topic started by: Shuttershock on September 15, 2024, 10:17

Title: Adobe Re-Reviews
Post by: Shuttershock on September 15, 2024, 10:17
When you thought Adobe couldn’t get any lower due to the 10 week plus review durations and length of wait for payments they are re-reviewing existing content and removing it after previously approving it :-) I had an email today removing one image due to the re-reviews taking place. Wouldn't suprise me if they were spending more time removing mages than approving new images.
Title: Re: Adobe Re-Reviews
Post by: wds on September 15, 2024, 13:37
When you thought Adobe couldn’t get any lower due to the 10 week plus review durations and length of wait for payments they are re-reviewing existing content and removing it after previously approving it :-) I had an email today removing one image due to the re-reviews taking place. Wouldn't suprise me if they were spending more time removing mages than approving new images.

That sounds a bit scary. If you don't mind my asking, was it a technical issue or an intellectual property issue that cause them to remove an image?
Title: Re: Adobe Re-Reviews
Post by: DiscreetDuck on September 15, 2024, 13:46
The new generation of employees or procedures at adobe: PITIFUL!, incompetence and incapacity, but self-confidence as high as mountains
We have entered the era of mediocrity.
Title: Re: Adobe Re-Reviews
Post by: zeljkok on September 15, 2024, 14:17
When you thought Adobe couldn’t get any lower due to the 10 week plus review durations and length of wait for payments they are re-reviewing existing content and removing it after previously approving it :-) I had an email today removing one image due to the re-reviews taking place. Wouldn't suprise me if they were spending more time removing mages than approving new images.

That sounds a bit scary. If you don't mind my asking, was it a technical issue or an intellectual property issue that cause them to remove an image?


Very good question. I'd like to know the answer as well.   If I had to take a guess, it would be intellectual property. 
Title: Re: Adobe Re-Reviews
Post by: Shuttershock on September 15, 2024, 14:59
When you thought Adobe couldn’t get any lower due to the 10 week plus review durations and length of wait for payments they are re-reviewing existing content and removing it after previously approving it :-) I had an email today removing one image due to the re-reviews taking place. Wouldn't suprise me if they were spending more time removing mages than approving new images.

That sounds a bit scary. If you don't mind my asking, was it a technical issue or an intellectual property issue that cause them to remove an image?


Very good question. I'd like to know the answer as well.   If I had to take a guess, it would be intellectual property.

It is difficult to know “incompatible with terms” it stated with a link to their terms without saying which term. Photo of sports grounds.
Title: Re: Adobe Re-Reviews
Post by: WendyT on September 15, 2024, 16:50
I had one removed a while back for that reason, but they didnt tell me which one fell foul of the "new" restrictions so I have no idea which one it is or what was wrong with it.
Title: Re: Adobe Re-Reviews
Post by: gnirtS on September 15, 2024, 17:20
Could be like Shutterstock where policy changes around IP/private grounds or in response to someone like National Trust where they scan through the existing library looking for and removing specific locations, items or keywords.
It happens occasionally.

If its more than that and actual re-reviews id have to say "what"..  They cant even review the first time in any sane timeframe currently yet along twice.
Title: Re: Adobe Re-Reviews
Post by: SuperPhoto on September 16, 2024, 10:28
Eh, probably an automated process - they did send out an e-mail to the effect that they were reviewing previous images that were 'incompatible' - i.e., like referencing other artists names (i.e., 'vangogh'), using specific places (i.e., 'eiffel tower'), etc... quite possibly you referenced that in the title/keywords, hence it was removed...