the second image has people in it. they might also not like the visible artwork above the door.

illustrative editorial is a weird thing.

Possible;  but I had images where people were more recognizable accepted on AS.  Artwork - I had whole bunch from Sagrada Familia in Barcelona accepted (as Editorial).  So it's not clear at all, at least to me. 

This will be a test - conceptually almost identical, just different museum;  now waiting for review


Likely rejected, lol

But illustrative editorial on adobe will take time to understand.

I have lots of experience shooting editorial. Years worth. I have shot for some major magazines and too many inflight magazines to list. I know what editorial content is.

I upload my content of a niche subject matter that is editorial to multiple sites apart from Istock. Istock always rejects them based on needing a property release as they deem so, and their reason is so crystal clear that I don't even bother submitting that content to them. Again, crystal clear.

Enter Adobe "Illustrative Editorial". Their guidelines are very clear and concise and no people at all. The only problem is their roulette rejections are just that, a gamble of my time and effort. I get entire batches accepted, entire batches rejected, and some images from the same batch accepted and the rest rejected. The only common denominator for the rejection is my content does not meet their "Illustrative Editorial Guidelines". I never get similar rejections or quality issue rejections on editorial. Never.

Interestingly the content they do accept sells very well.

I would not waste too much of your time trying to understand Adobe and editorial.

[snip]

@wendy

again, thank you. the whole upload process is on istock is very painful compared to other places. but with the coming merger they should be able to increase sales, so habing content there should help my monthly income.

@cobalt
I do not like the ESP process, I find that using DeepMeta certainly streamlines the process.
Having content should definitely help.

Their submission torture chamber has not really changed in 20 years.

If the merger allows content from pond5 to be mirrored on istock/getty and has the same sales success as submitting via istock, then I will upload from pond5.

On the other hand in the current climate, the torture chamber helps to repel spammers.

Still, they should have improved their system a longtime ago. And being partnered with nvidia should give them enough software power to not just codevelop ai but also improve their system.

I have no idea what Adobe Stock is thinking about the management (curation?) of their collection. It's growing like a weed and the amount of AI slop still being accepted - including apple logos on computers, whacko fingers, stairs that would be lethal in real life, places/animals/tools that aren't even close, etc. etc. etc. - should be an embarrassment to them.

It'd be funny if it didn't annoy buyers (which some forum comments suggest it has been). Last week I noticed that the royalties on custom sales were going up - which means the number of downloads overall was dropping. Mid April it was $0.91 / 0.46/ 0.33. Last week it was $1.01 / $0.53 / $0.34

In addition to the AI slop, as others have noted there's masses of repeated themes even in recent works, so this vague PR-speak new policy about similars is clearly not guiding whatever it is that's acting as gatekeeper to the collection.

The video collection has been shrinking - or at least the stated count is - which is odd. This evening the count is 11,667,066. On April 28th it was 16,341,876 (it was just over 9 million May 15). Have they lost a partner's collection?

On a separate topic: iStock as a safe haven.

Look at Getty's Q1 earnings report from last week before getting too excited. You can find the earnings transcript online. Creative was down 4.8% and editorial up 4%. Paid downloads decreased 2.7%. They seem to be positive about the growth in subscription revenue as a percent of total - 57.2% up from 54.7% the year before.

Although creative was down overall, they said "Within creative, we saw strength across our premium access subscriptions, demand for video, and continued growth in Unsplash Plus. ...our agency business, which is accounted for entirely within creative, was down high single digits, due primarily to declines at the large network agencies. Being an almost entirely a la carte business, agency is where we usually see a slowdown in spending and investment as agency customers navigate periods of potential macroeconomic uncertainty." I'm not sure, but I think that translates into more of the very low royalty sales and fewer of the big ones that helps pull up the RPD.