MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Apparently they can just block you without further notice...  (Read 3092 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: July 09, 2019, 05:51 »
+6
Hi there Rasika,

I think a support case came through that is probably yours.  I have responded to Adobe support and they will no doubt get back in touch with you but let me try to provide some guidelines for the future here as well.

in general, we want to provide you the contributor as much opportunity and creative expression as possible and provide the creative customer with a large and high quality library where they can easily find the perfect clip to add to their project.

As the content lead for motion, I have provided our moderation team guidelines for accepting similar clips.  In general, I have loosened those guidelines because a different take, magnification/zoom/focal length or other factors can result in a clip that a customer wants.  It's tricky though - there are always going to be grey areas and opinions on what constitutes a unique clip or not.

However, it doesn't make sense for us to have both an ungraded file and a graded file of the same clip.  Especially if the files are 8bit color where the idea of "raw" isn't really applicable.  Once you get to 10bit color or greater with cameras such as a RED, ARRI and some others, then the idea of a RAW version may be very appealing to some.  As Adobe Stock develops, we may be able to offer a customer a choice of a raw clip versus a graded one.  The team here certainly have discussed many ideas and we hope to bring them to our users in the future!  ;)

Today, I like to suggest to contributors is to submit a lightly graded version of your clip.  This means that it isn't flat like a clip shot in log might be and it brings out the luma range (black to white) and lightly touch the color (based on your preference).  The end goal is that the novice buyer will see a beautiful clip and the experienced editor/buyer will see a clip that fits and provides enough latitude for them to push the color to whatever the need is.

I hope that this provides some guidance and if you (or others) have any questions please feel free to hit me up with them here.  Please note that I'm technically on holiday so my response to answer may be a bit slower than normal.

Thanks and happy shooting!
Dennis


« Reply #26 on: July 09, 2019, 06:05 »
+13
As a full time contributor myself, I do hope agencies don't block us without warning or talking to us first. This kind of "immediate block" has always been the biggest nightmare to any contributor. I do hope agencies will review case by case. For those who are confirmed violators (thief) should be banned immediately, but for case like this one, they should be given a chance to redeem themselves first at least. Just my 2 cent.

« Reply #27 on: July 09, 2019, 07:02 »
0
After reading billions of posts here with contributors telling that agency did not make their work refusing or ban users that send thousand of similar subject... Now Adobe is working on this, and many of you have to say that is not right???

Well I'm happy that agency is doing good job on content.

« Reply #28 on: July 09, 2019, 07:09 »
+2
I am not submitting images for 2 years, so we are talking about footage. And I have about 10,000 videos in my Adobe stock portfolio, so there is no way I can know which of the files they found to be problematic.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am not insisting I am right. The problem is they can at least let you know, something is not fit for them, or any other issue.
If you don't want it, you can just reject it and say "sorry, this is similar" etc. I wrote them 3 days ago asking to work this out/show me where is the problem/have any communication, but no replay so far.


You dont know which files you just made color changes to, or you just dont want to be bothered sorting them out? And they did let you know, before you even starting uploading! You are learning the hard way, unfortunately.

Do you know the difference between graded footage and raw footage?


Im with you. People talk without not knowing nothing. Offering a graded and a non graded is a smart move and not spamming at all. Tjose who want a graded version and not want to work on ungraded are served and those who knlw hkw to grade buy the ungraded. Tjis is not spamming at all i simply the fact that most agency and reviewers, followed bh many amatuer contriboutor with basic portfolio, dont have a clue what they talk abiut.

« Reply #29 on: July 09, 2019, 07:15 »
+2
Hi there Rasika,

I think a support case came through that is probably yours.  I have responded to Adobe support and they will no doubt get back in touch with you but let me try to provide some guidelines for the future here as well.

in general, we want to provide you the contributor as much opportunity and creative expression as possible and provide the creative customer with a large and high quality library where they can easily find the perfect clip to add to their project.

As the content lead for motion, I have provided our moderation team guidelines for accepting similar clips.  In general, I have loosened those guidelines because a different take, magnification/zoom/focal length or other factors can result in a clip that a customer wants.  It's tricky though - there are always going to be grey areas and opinions on what constitutes a unique clip or not.

However, it doesn't make sense for us to have both an ungraded file and a graded file of the same clip.  Especially if the files are 8bit color where the idea of "raw" isn't really applicable.  Once you get to 10bit color or greater with cameras such as a RED, ARRI and some others, then the idea of a RAW version may be very appealing to some.  As Adobe Stock develops, we may be able to offer a customer a choice of a raw clip versus a graded one.  The team here certainly have discussed many ideas and we hope to bring them to our users in the future!  ;)

Today, I like to suggest to contributors is to submit a lightly graded version of your clip.  This means that it isn't flat like a clip shot in log might be and it brings out the luma range (black to white) and lightly touch the color (based on your preference).  The end goal is that the novice buyer will see a beautiful clip and the experienced editor/buyer will see a clip that fits and provides enough latitude for them to push the color to whatever the need is.

I hope that this provides some guidance and if you (or others) have any questions please feel free to hit me up with them here.  Please note that I'm technically on holiday so my response to answer may be a bit slower than normal.

Thanks and happy shooting!
Dennis

Even 8bit file non graded are much easier to color matches inside a timeline compared to
Graded files.

« Reply #30 on: July 09, 2019, 07:23 »
+2
Thanks Dennis and Mat for jumping in here! That clarifies a lot!

I think it would be really reasonable if in cases which are not clear Adobe first could just send a warning or shoot a mail before closing a entire account. I mean, everybody will agree that true and obvious spammers and/or thieves should be blocked immediately, but just as Dennis points out himself, it is not always clear:

It's tricky though - there are always going to be grey areas and opinions on what constitutes a unique clip or not.

I mean, it is not a nice feeling if you sit in front of the screen contemplating if you should offer the customer a alternate version, upload a additional shot which is different but maybe not different enough or if this will get your account blocked and your income destroyed.


« Reply #31 on: July 09, 2019, 07:35 »
0
Hi there Rasika,

I think a support case came through that is probably yours.  I have responded to Adobe support and they will no doubt get back in touch with you but let me try to provide some guidelines for the future here as well.

in general, we want to provide you the contributor as much opportunity and creative expression as possible and provide the creative customer with a large and high quality library where they can easily find the perfect clip to add to their project.

As the content lead for motion, I have provided our moderation team guidelines for accepting similar clips.  In general, I have loosened those guidelines because a different take, magnification/zoom/focal length or other factors can result in a clip that a customer wants.  It's tricky though - there are always going to be grey areas and opinions on what constitutes a unique clip or not.

However, it doesn't make sense for us to have both an ungraded file and a graded file of the same clip.  Especially if the files are 8bit color where the idea of "raw" isn't really applicable.  Once you get to 10bit color or greater with cameras such as a RED, ARRI and some others, then the idea of a RAW version may be very appealing to some.  As Adobe Stock develops, we may be able to offer a customer a choice of a raw clip versus a graded one.  The team here certainly have discussed many ideas and we hope to bring them to our users in the future!  ;)

Today, I like to suggest to contributors is to submit a lightly graded version of your clip.  This means that it isn't flat like a clip shot in log might be and it brings out the luma range (black to white) and lightly touch the color (based on your preference).  The end goal is that the novice buyer will see a beautiful clip and the experienced editor/buyer will see a clip that fits and provides enough latitude for them to push the color to whatever the need is.

I hope that this provides some guidance and if you (or others) have any questions please feel free to hit me up with them here.  Please note that I'm technically on holiday so my response to answer may be a bit slower than normal.

Thanks and happy shooting!
Dennis

Even 8bit file non graded are much easier to color matches inside a timeline compared to
Graded files.

Very true. I'd almost say that a log version might even be more important for 8 bit vs 10 or 12. Even light grading with 8 bit in the wrong hands can quickly destroy any hope of recovery. Also, I don't think Dennis's compromise of grading lightly would work out too well in terms of sales. I could be wrong, but it seems to me the vast majority of buyers in that category are attracted to the finished product. Period. If there are two similar clips side by side and one is bright, vibrant and pops while mine might be technically better but is comparatively flat and muddy looking I am pretty sure I know where the sale is going.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 07:38 by DavidK »

« Reply #32 on: July 09, 2019, 09:08 »
0
I am not submitting images for 2 years, so we are talking about footage. And I have about 10,000 videos in my Adobe stock portfolio, so there is no way I can know which of the files they found to be problematic.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am not insisting I am right. The problem is they can at least let you know, something is not fit for them, or any other issue.
If you don't want it, you can just reject it and say "sorry, this is similar" etc. I wrote them 3 days ago asking to work this out/show me where is the problem/have any communication, but no replay so far.

You dont know which files you just made color changes to, or you just dont want to be bothered sorting them out? And they did let you know, before you even starting uploading! You are learning the hard way, unfortunately.

Do you know the difference between graded footage and raw footage?

Im with you. People talk without not knowing nothing. Offering a graded and a non graded is a smart move and not spamming at all. Tjose who want a graded version and not want to work on ungraded are served and those who knlw hkw to grade buy the ungraded. Tjis is not spamming at all i simply the fact that most agency and reviewers, followed bh many amatuer contriboutor with basic portfolio, dont have a clue what they talk abiut.

Actually, it wasnt a smart move, because it went against Adobes policies. It has nothing to do with whether you think I am stupid or not. The whole problem could have been avoided if only the contributor would have read the agreement in the first place. 😃


But great that Mat and Dennis came here and got it sorted.

« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 09:38 by cathyslife »

« Reply #33 on: July 09, 2019, 09:48 »
+2
Hi there Rasika,

I think a support case came through that is probably yours.  I have responded to Adobe support and they will no doubt get back in touch with you but let me try to provide some guidelines for the future here as well.

in general, we want to provide you the contributor as much opportunity and creative expression as possible and provide the creative customer with a large and high quality library where they can easily find the perfect clip to add to their project.

As the content lead for motion, I have provided our moderation team guidelines for accepting similar clips.  In general, I have loosened those guidelines because a different take, magnification/zoom/focal length or other factors can result in a clip that a customer wants.  It's tricky though - there are always going to be grey areas and opinions on what constitutes a unique clip or not.

However, it doesn't make sense for us to have both an ungraded file and a graded file of the same clip.  Especially if the files are 8bit color where the idea of "raw" isn't really applicable.  Once you get to 10bit color or greater with cameras such as a RED, ARRI and some others, then the idea of a RAW version may be very appealing to some.  As Adobe Stock develops, we may be able to offer a customer a choice of a raw clip versus a graded one.  The team here certainly have discussed many ideas and we hope to bring them to our users in the future!  ;)

Today, I like to suggest to contributors is to submit a lightly graded version of your clip.  This means that it isn't flat like a clip shot in log might be and it brings out the luma range (black to white) and lightly touch the color (based on your preference).  The end goal is that the novice buyer will see a beautiful clip and the experienced editor/buyer will see a clip that fits and provides enough latitude for them to push the color to whatever the need is.

I hope that this provides some guidance and if you (or others) have any questions please feel free to hit me up with them here.  Please note that I'm technically on holiday so my response to answer may be a bit slower than normal.

Thanks and happy shooting!
Dennis
Thank you for your comment.
My uploads are 10bit h265 raw from mavic2 pro hasselblad camera + 8bit h264 graded for stock.
My adobe stock sales are only 5% of my general sales from all stock websites, so I can't afford myself doing another version of grading for few thousands of clips. You do whatever you consider is best for you, but please, give your contributors clear guidelines. And again, please, you have all our mails, we are people, you can talk to us in case if anything isn't ok. That will be human and nice.

« Reply #34 on: July 09, 2019, 10:00 »
0
Regarding Ungraded vs graded - I have about 3-5 inboxes every month from buyers on pond5 (the only place that allows inboxes, if SS and VB had them, I believe it was much more), requesting a raw version of a file. Luckily I have them all uploaded to pond5, so I can simply point where to d/l.

« Reply #35 on: July 09, 2019, 10:10 »
+2
It's a bit worrying that Adobe would deactivate someone's account without giving some kind of warning first. Especially when considering that Adobe hasn't seemed to be that strict about similar images/videos in the past. https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-similar-content/

« Reply #36 on: July 09, 2019, 10:20 »
+1
Hi there Rasika,

I think a support case came through that is probably yours.  I have responded to Adobe support and they will no doubt get back in touch with you but let me try to provide some guidelines for the future here as well.

in general, we want to provide you the contributor as much opportunity and creative expression as possible and provide the creative customer with a large and high quality library where they can easily find the perfect clip to add to their project.

As the content lead for motion, I have provided our moderation team guidelines for accepting similar clips.  In general, I have loosened those guidelines because a different take, magnification/zoom/focal length or other factors can result in a clip that a customer wants.  It's tricky though - there are always going to be grey areas and opinions on what constitutes a unique clip or not.

However, it doesn't make sense for us to have both an ungraded file and a graded file of the same clip.  Especially if the files are 8bit color where the idea of "raw" isn't really applicable.  Once you get to 10bit color or greater with cameras such as a RED, ARRI and some others, then the idea of a RAW version may be very appealing to some.  As Adobe Stock develops, we may be able to offer a customer a choice of a raw clip versus a graded one.  The team here certainly have discussed many ideas and we hope to bring them to our users in the future!  ;)

Today, I like to suggest to contributors is to submit a lightly graded version of your clip.  This means that it isn't flat like a clip shot in log might be and it brings out the luma range (black to white) and lightly touch the color (based on your preference).  The end goal is that the novice buyer will see a beautiful clip and the experienced editor/buyer will see a clip that fits and provides enough latitude for them to push the color to whatever the need is.

I hope that this provides some guidance and if you (or others) have any questions please feel free to hit me up with them here.  Please note that I'm technically on holiday so my response to answer may be a bit slower than normal.

Thanks and happy shooting!
Dennis

While this might be good advice in an ideal world, we the contributors also need to earn money, and if you lightly grade your clip, it will probably not stand out in a sea of vibrant clips, won't get picked up, and will end up in the 0 downloads abyss.

Extremes, on microstock, always perform better than something closer to "normal". And I can say that just based on my portfolio (around 50k assets).

So if the contributor submits "normal" clips (lightly graded), they won't be picked up, and the people who decided to go all-out on their grading (think of orange-teal, crushed blacks, heavy vignetting, cheesy stuff like that) will reap the rewards. Then you'll get a feedback loop of contributors trying to out-compete each other in terms of grading, and the actually good and usable footage for further post will be buried on page 27... if anyone even decides to submit usable footage, given their lower "sales potential". Just my take on it.

I used to upload my drone footage in dlog and heavily graded versions, and the graded versions outsold the "raw" by a factor of more than 10. And I bet the "raw" would outsell the "lightly graded" version because the "raw" is only gonna get downloaded by someone looking for footage shot in log, but the lightly graded version will not be downloaded by anyone... because it won't be seen by anyone.

I understand what you're trying to do, but what's good for the platform isn't necessarily good for the contributors. In other words, if you apply game theory principles on this issue, submitting lightly graded versions doesn't confer an advantage and is not an evolutionary stable strategy, as a "parasite" (heavily graded clips) can abuse the propensity of customers to notice bright vibrant assets first.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 10:28 by spike »

« Reply #37 on: July 09, 2019, 10:26 »
0
It's a bit worrying that Adobe would deactivate someone's account without giving some kind of warning first. Especially when considering that Adobe hasn't seemed to be that strict about similar images/videos in the past. https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-similar-content/
I am even more confused now.

« Reply #38 on: July 09, 2019, 10:29 »
+1
I think submitting graded and non graded should be ok. It's not spamming in my opinion.

« Reply #39 on: July 09, 2019, 11:19 »
+1
As a full time contributor myself, I do hope agencies don't block us without warning or talking to us first. This kind of "immediate block" has always been the biggest nightmare to any contributor. I do hope agencies will review case by case. For those who are confirmed violators (thief) should be banned immediately, but for case like this one, they should be given a chance to redeem themselves first at least. Just my 2 cent.


Its simple, dont upload many versions of the same file, videos or images, and you have nothing to worry about. If you have a question, ask first.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #40 on: July 09, 2019, 11:24 »
+1
After reading billions of posts here with contributors telling that agency did not make their work refusing or ban users that send thousand of similar subject... Now Adobe is working on this, and many of you have to say that is not right???

Well I'm happy that agency is doing good job on content.

I'm all for banning thieves and confirmed spammers, but false positives can also happen. If it takes a big fishing net to catch thieves and spammers, I wouldn't want to accidentally get caught in it as well. So, there should be an opportunity for contributors to appeal their case and not get cut off from earning money when they did nothing wrong.
We don't know enough details to judge this case but it could be this ban may have been a misjudgment.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #41 on: July 09, 2019, 11:59 »
0
It's a bit worrying that Adobe would deactivate someone's account without giving some kind of warning first. Especially when considering that Adobe hasn't seemed to be that strict about similar images/videos in the past. https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-similar-content/

Well the 'warning' is in the terms and conditions to be fair. I agree that it should be possible to sell flat versions and graded/colour corrected versions... but until Adobe change the rules, we're not allowed to.

Offering a graded and a non graded is a smart move and not spamming at all.


It's a smart move and not spamming if you're selling them on a site that allows duplicates... if you're selling them on a site that doesn't allow duplicates (like Adobe) then it's most definitely not a smart move. You can't seriously be saying that doing something which is likely to result in, and in this case has resulted in, your account getting blocked... is a smart move?

People talk without not knowing nothing.

Indeed. I think.

« Reply #42 on: July 09, 2019, 12:25 »
0
After reading billions of posts here with contributors telling that agency did not make their work refusing or ban users that send thousand of similar subject... Now Adobe is working on this, and many of you have to say that is not right???

Well I'm happy that agency is doing good job on content.

selling two version of a video is not at all spamming and can have a market.....the point is they have lot of works to do especially hopefully stop accepting every crap uploaded in these days before occupying of people uploading two versions of the same files.

« Reply #43 on: July 09, 2019, 13:05 »
0
As a full time contributor myself, I do hope agencies don't block us without warning or talking to us first. This kind of "immediate block" has always been the biggest nightmare to any contributor. I do hope agencies will review case by case. For those who are confirmed violators (thief) should be banned immediately, but for case like this one, they should be given a chance to redeem themselves first at least. Just my 2 cent.


Its simple, dont upload many versions of the same file, videos or images, and you have nothing to worry about. If you have a question, ask first.

Two clips is not: 'many versions'.

« Reply #44 on: July 09, 2019, 13:33 »
+3
A) Why not update Adobe Stock so contributors can upload both graded and ungraded at the same time and have those two files linked together as one, so the buyer can see both versions when they click into the landing page for that video. This would reduce search clutter and increase options, win/win.

B) Obviously a warning should have been sent out first by Adobe Stock. Just because someone is breaking a policy doesn't mean they understood they were blocking a policy. Adobe spends a lot of time building out and maintaining a stock marketplace, and contributors spend a lot of time creating sellable content. Each party benefits from the other. Many years ago, I too was breaking a (different) policy of a stock website, I didn't know any better at the time, I was sent an email warning, my account was suspended for a week. I wrote back and apologized for my ignorance and I haven't had a problem since. In addition, it isn't as if policies at stock websites don't evolve over time, they do. Anyway blocking without sending a warning is too heavy handed, it gives Adobe Stock a bad reputation. iStockphoto developed a bad reputation a long time ago, and many contributors actively worked to drive sales to other stock websites.   
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 13:36 by charged »


« Reply #46 on: July 09, 2019, 13:50 »
+5
A) Why not update Adobe Stock so contributors can upload both graded and ungraded at the same time and have those two files linked together as one, so the buyer can see both versions when they click into the landing page for that video. This would reduce search clutter and increase options, win/win.

As I alluded to in my post, we've had many discussions about these sorts of ideas.  I'd like to think that this will be an option some day, but until then, I think our current offering is addressing most customers needs.  Besides, I think there are some other ways to do this that are even cooler than what you're describing.  ;)  Nope, I won't tell...

B) Obviously a warning should have been sent out first by Adobe Stock. Just because someone is breaking a policy doesn't mean they understood they were blocking a policy. Adobe spends a lot of time building out and maintaining a stock marketplace, and contributors spend a lot of time creating sellable content. Each party benefits from the other. Many years ago, I too was breaking a (different) policy of a stock website, I didn't know any better at the time, I was sent an email warning, my account was suspended for a week. I wrote back and apologized for my ignorance and I haven't had a problem since. In addition, it isn't as if policies at stock websites don't evolve over time, they do. Anyway blocking without sending a warning is too heavy handed, it gives Adobe Stock a bad reputation. iStockphoto developed a bad reputation a long time ago, and many contributors actively worked to drive sales to other stock websites.

Fair point and we'll try to improve our communication in an ongoing fashion.  This is part of why I'm viewing these boards even on vacation.  A lot of our communication though does just that - provides some amount of warning or information that contributors will find helpful.  We're not perfect though and I get it.

Dennis

« Reply #47 on: July 10, 2019, 04:38 »
0
Nobody is perfect, nobody will ever be!
But there is always the competition and comparisons.

Dennis it is kind of hard to assume that one contributor have to become an MSG member and post to grab Adobe's attention. Perhaps I misunderstood your saying. If i can make a rough but friendly comment the communication channels must be first direct with the company and secondary in related forums or whatever. Even if your previous post had to be in a monthly Adobe newsletter to all contributors.
I have menntioned e.g. an Adobe rejection on intellectual property violation on a cherry blossom close up and still laugh on it, searching the Adobe forum to just read similar stories never answered (ok, frustration passed). In contrast, i have uploaded clips of money bills, got rejected, email asked and got my answers and guidance all those in the same working day in other agency.

EDIT correction, not same working day but within 20-24 hours.

Communication perhaps must be direct, personal and fast.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2019, 05:21 by georgep7 »

« Reply #48 on: July 10, 2019, 08:41 »
+4
Nobody is perfect, nobody will ever be!
But there is always the competition and comparisons.

Dennis it is kind of hard to assume that one contributor have to become an MSG member and post to grab Adobe's attention. Perhaps I misunderstood your saying. If i can make a rough but friendly comment the communication channels must be first direct with the company and secondary in related forums or whatever. Even if your previous post had to be in a monthly Adobe newsletter to all contributors.
I have menntioned e.g. an Adobe rejection on intellectual property violation on a cherry blossom close up and still laugh on it, searching the Adobe forum to just read similar stories never answered (ok, frustration passed). In contrast, i have uploaded clips of money bills, got rejected, email asked and got my answers and guidance all those in the same working day in other agency.

EDIT correction, not same working day but within 20-24 hours.

Communication perhaps must be direct, personal and fast.

Yup, we're not perfect that's for sure!

To answer briefly, we are communicating on a variety of methods and will continue to build and expand upon those. 

As for your past or current issues - please feel free to message Mat or I directly with your account information and we're happy to try and address concerns.

For money, we've recently loosened restrictions but essentially there is a IP problem on currency that is 100% readable.  You can find the specifics under the general section of our known image restrictions page: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restrictions.html  If your image/clip wasn't that, then again contact me directly.

At the end of the day, Adobe is likely to be the most conservative with regards to intellectual property and I'm 100% okay with that as it protects customer, contributor and Adobe alike.

Best,
Dennis

« Reply #49 on: July 10, 2019, 11:48 »
+2
Nobody is perfect, nobody will ever be!
But there is always the competition and comparisons.

Dennis it is kind of hard to assume that one contributor have to become an MSG member and post to grab Adobe's attention. Perhaps I misunderstood your saying. If i can make a rough but friendly comment the communication channels must be first direct with the company and secondary in related forums or whatever. Even if your previous post had to be in a monthly Adobe newsletter to all contributors.
I have menntioned e.g. an Adobe rejection on intellectual property violation on a cherry blossom close up and still laugh on it, searching the Adobe forum to just read similar stories never answered (ok, frustration passed). In contrast, i have uploaded clips of money bills, got rejected, email asked and got my answers and guidance all those in the same working day in other agency.

EDIT correction, not same working day but within 20-24 hours.

Communication perhaps must be direct, personal and fast.

Yup, we're not perfect that's for sure!

To answer briefly, we are communicating on a variety of methods and will continue to build and expand upon those. 

As for your past or current issues - please feel free to message Mat or I directly with your account information and we're happy to try and address concerns.

For money, we've recently loosened restrictions but essentially there is a IP problem on currency that is 100% readable.  You can find the specifics under the general section of our known image restrictions page: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restrictions.html  If your image/clip wasn't that, then again contact me directly.

At the end of the day, Adobe is likely to be the most conservative with regards to intellectual property and I'm 100% okay with that as it protects customer, contributor and Adobe alike.

Best,
Dennis

Being able to contact the likes of yourself and Mat is great... whenever I've been in contact with Mat it has always been quick and easy process.

I do think Adobe are missing out on a proper forum. I can understand the desire to have everyone post in one place in their own language but, for me anyway, it just feels a bit of a mess. The translation of the posts is not very good and in the end, you end up copying and pasting into google for a slightly more accurate result. Just makes it a drawn out process when often you just want to quickly read through what's been happening, post or whatever and get back to work. In the end I just stopped visiting... I might use it once every 6 months or so... if that.

"Adobe is likely to be the most conservative with regards to intellectual property"

I've always found Adobe to have the right balance and, more importantly, they're consistent with in their approach. Makes it easy to know what to send.

I agree with the warning email before banning/blocking... with all the small print for each agency being different (and plenty of it) it can be very easy to miss something or, fail to spot a change to policy. Most of us are here to make a living and wouldn't intentionally jeopardise it.

Anyway, good to hear from you about this... especially on holiday! with a beer by the pool 😉


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2291 Views
Last post November 02, 2006, 03:59
by CJPhoto
25 Replies
6736 Views
Last post August 28, 2011, 06:51
by jsmithzz
11 Replies
2125 Views
Last post November 16, 2012, 00:43
by enstoker
0 Replies
1232 Views
Last post May 13, 2017, 20:41
by Danybot
21 Replies
1522 Views
Last post June 09, 2019, 23:49
by Niakris

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results