Typically I take rejections and move on.  My acceptance rate is 95-100% with different agencies.  My acceptance rate from AS was closer to 100% than 95%.  Suddenly, out of the blue I am receiving rejections of images that are accepted EVERYWHERE else.  Bogus mark of technical issues.  Focus at 100% (even at 200%!) and exposure etc are perfect.  Same studio.  Not like suddenly all is changed. No noise.  Shot at 100 ISO on tripod.   

So we all know AS rejection categories are not that specific. 
Not similar subjects.  Not subjects that have tons of images already there but not niche area either.
Not even that not of commercial value.  Of course the images DO sell with other agencies.

Beyond frustrating.  Yes move on, wait til the new reviewer(s) move on. 

It seems like there is a reviewer or three that move between agencies that just reject things because.  A year or so it was SS and then stops just as suddenly.  Just frustrating.

i get rejections too but i dont let these annoy me anymore specailly for the amound of money we are paid for our photos
its not like after all you are a photographer for vogue magazine and you earn 1000 dollars lol
anyhow 2 cases
they use an AI like shutterstock and ai in the end of the day is just a dumb machine that sees technical problems in an image everywhere
second .. the reviewers are also contributors and when they review fantastic images they dont wanna compete with the fellow artists, so they press the reject button
even dt with a very good acceptance lately rejecting some of my images but like i said i dont care anymore

One wonders if the vague category technical issues encourages bogus reviews... not like reviewer has to actually identify why/show knowledge of technical standards.

AI might be better except that/if it does not take into account what is main subject if not in typical place (like ones with copy space to left or right when blurring background with open aperature is nice).

It is just annoying to waste time uploading images -- esp when paid so little -- when an agency goes through these cycles.

Something is not right when one has very high acceptance rate and then suddenly a batch or two are mostly rejected esp if studio conditions same (but NOT similar subjects).

I don't post very much but just had 4 out of 4 rejected for "quality issues". That's a first, for me, as my acceptance rate is well over 90%. Frustrating to say the least.
 

Agree, too many rejections at Adobe lately. It happens with every agency once in a while.

Well, there's a simple thing to do: stop uploading for a couple of months and wait for things to return to normal. This is what I always do.

Yep.

The acceptance rate is generally very high at Adobe Stock.

True. My acceptance used to be over 95% until a few months ago.

This thread would be much more helpful for analysis if some or all of you were willing to share examples of the rejected content.

Sorry, but some of us (including me) may wish to stay anonymous here, for a series of reasons not related to this particular thread.

Please show us Adobe's all-time average approval/rejection rates compared to year 2022 instead. We are wondering whether it's a deliberate change or a few rogue reviewers or so-called AI.

Generally, the moderation team is looking for a reason to approve content.
In my experience, if a file is refused, there is almost always a good reason.

Not when the rejection rate changes suddenly from 5% to over 50%. It may be good but it's not a reason, I'd call it a change of policy on your part.

If you decided to refuse a lot of pictures because you already have too many, fine, but please just say "low commercial value" instead of stating some generic "quality issues" that leave me wondering whether I became totally dumb overnight.

Quote from: MatHayward on August 03, 2022, 12:42

The acceptance rate is generally very high at Adobe Stock.

True. My acceptance used to be over 95% until a few months ago.

Quote

This thread would be much more helpful for analysis if some or all of you were willing to share examples of the rejected content.

Sorry, but some of us (including me) may wish to stay anonymous here, for a series of reasons not related to this particular thread.

Please show us Adobe's all-time average approval/rejection rates compared to year 2022 instead. We are wondering whether it's a deliberate change or a few rogue reviewers or so-called AI.

Quote

Generally, the moderation team is looking for a reason to approve content.
In my experience, if a file is refused, there is almost always a good reason.

Not when the rejection rate changes suddenly from 5% to over 50%. It may be good but it's not a reason, I'd call it a change of policy on your part.

If you decided to refuse a lot of pictures because you already have too many, fine, but please just say "low commercial value" instead of stating some generic "quality issues" that leave me wondering whether I became totally dumb overnight.

Fair enough, please email me directly with your Adobe ID and a list of files you are referring to here and I will give you an honest critique. My email address is [email protected].

Thank you,

Mat Hayward

I also uploaded some "watercolor paintings" done in photoshop using some old photos of mine and the images were rejected - "PROPERTY RELEASE MISSING" ??!?.....

 

My acceptance rate has been 95-100% for many years, now this week 80% is rejected for 'quality problems'.

This is not a 'quality' issue.

Yup. Same Same.

AS the new SS.

I also experience a much higher rejection rate and for 'technical issues' . It started about a month and a half ago.  Before that, rejections received were tipicaly more explicit and in most cases I agreed with the review. I hope its not a layer of AI that was added and that systematically rejects images with the focus off the center, like they seem to use at SS.

Only Mat knows for sure but let me say, when I upload four images and one gets rejected in an hour and the other three takes a few days to get reviewed, I'd suspect you have made a good assumption, that some know of pre-review or AI is looking at our images.

Just for the sake of accuracy, the rejection reason that seems to be a catch all and becoming more and more common, is:

Quality Issues

Thanks for giving us the chance to consider your image. Unfortunately, this image doesn't meet our quality standards so we can�t accept it into our collection.

And in my opinion, that is one the vaguest rejections anyone could come up with. Quality Standards? What is the reason, it's not some kind of guessing game is it? Something helpful would be, WHY

Common issues that can impact the technical quality of images include exposure issues, soft focus, excessive filtering or artifacts/noise. Learn more about our technical requirements Which one?

So I follow the link and learn:


Image Quality

If we determine your file to have technical issues other than focus, exposure, or artifacts, which we call out specifically or if the file is determined to not meet our overall quality standards the "Image Quality" rejection reason is selected by moderation. 
Photography and video technical issues include but aren�t limited to (I added that underline)

White balance: The white balance may be too warm or too cool.

Note:

When you shoot in raw formats, you have great flexibility to adjust the white balance in your post-processing workflows.

Contrast: There may be too much or not enough contrast.

Saturation: Oversaturation may give your file an unnatural look, but under-saturated or spot color can also result in technical decline.

Note:

You may want to try the Vibrance slider instead of Saturation in Lightroom.

Selections: Editing must be done inconspicuously. Selecting objects out of their backgrounds (or masking) to composite into new images requires time, patience, and care. Do not submit images that have been poorly selected or look like they are not a natural part of the scene.

Chromatic aberration: Refers to color fringing around objects in the image.

General composition: Is your horizon straight? Have you cropped the image too much? Consider leaving a designer room to add their own text or objects.



So the rejection is for any of those and either or on most of them. Thanks a bunch for the helpful rejection so I won't continue to send in images that will fail, which wastes your review resources and my time as well.

Hey Adobe, throw me a bone or can I buy a clue? 

Be glad that AS only rejects your media.
AS deleted my portfolio after 3 years for no apparent reason and they do not respond to my email questions.
THAT is annoying.

I came searching for "rejections from AS"  because some photos I submitted at the beginning of August had rejections for Quality Issues.  It seemed odd to me that the rejections were a wide range of subjects, dates taken and different camera/lens combinations. They were photos from shoots of recently approved similar photos, studio lighting, outdoors, and some isolated on white. No other rejection reason.  It stood out enough for me to go looking in the forums for answers. Typically I also have a high acceptance rate.

after I read here it turns out that I am not alone, usually almost 90% of photos are accepted but this week nothing was received at all. and the reason for refusal is also a quality problem. 

Same here for photos.  Suddenly mostly rejected for "QUALITY ISSUES".

Maybe new Adobe Stock wants to reject all similar photos they already have to save data storage expense to squeeze profit in this uncertain economy when many are predicting recession going deeper later this year and into next year?  Or maybe simply they adopted Shutterstock AI.

I really don't want to rant about Adobe. But I've also been getting an unusually high number of rejections lately. Some batches are rejected completely. Something has changed here.

Hahaha rejection for similar. Sigh how pathetic.

I have about 3 or four images that have autumnal and jave autumn leaves. A lake with trees in colour. Bright yellow leafs, red leafs and another. Different trees compositions entirely. I uploaded some gorgeous autumnal tree shots last year ... rejected for similar in my port. NSS but then I have landscape photos that have a sky in it ... should we stop. Careful ... you have a person on a path and a person on a beach. It's a nonsense.
Rejecting similars is not a fault or a crime or an offence. What it actually is, is this:
1. Poor search algorithms and criteria that cannot bring back a decent collection. So you get pages and pages of generic qualifying images that cannot be whittled down enough.

2. Concern over data bloat. Well guess what, when you have a photo of a tree that's a tree. Want an oak well here's an oak. An oaks an oak isn't it?

No of course not. Like faces, hands, sunsets, clothes, events, clouds and water and expressions and colours.

Adobe we take probably 20 to 30 photos of each thing. Typically I'll select one from that I'm happy with or maybe two. And ill submit 1. It's already been through a review process.  But I've stepped away from submitting because I jave new ideas or interpretations of similar objects, landscapes etc but why bother. Set it all up, take the shots, self review, process and upload for 'similar' ...  good grief. If it ain't on the shelf it can't sell Adobe. You need bigger shelves, and a better search tool else why would you reject various angles of the same thing, dog, tree, house, subject ....

... oh that's right. You don't. Until you do for a bit.

they simply looking the theme of the photos you are sending.if its not some AI doin the dirty work
you said it your shelf close up of trees and onions and stuff like that? they either  dont have a big market for it or they have too many of these images so they reject them. so instead of tellin the photographer that they give a bogus rejection reason and have the photographer scratching his head 
just say it dammit
we only want pics with people in it.period

Ok, this is also part of the truth. All rejected images are approved in the second attempt. I do not think you have to understand this 

On Adobe? I generally take a rejection as, pretty sure that someone looked and I'd expect the next review on AS to be the same. Not so on SS of course where the bots do the reviews.

Should I be sending things in a second time to AS?

Quote from: Uncle Pete on August 16, 2022, 12:59

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on August 16, 2022, 11:13

Ok, this is also part of the truth. All rejected images are approved in the second attempt. I do not think you have to understand this 

On Adobe? I generally take a rejection as, pretty sure that someone looked and I'd expect the next review on AS to be the same. Not so on SS of course where the bots do the reviews.

Should I be sending things in a second time to AS?

Pete, in my experience, it has always made sense to try a second submission with Adobe as well.
For me, most of the images go through after all. If not, they are really crap 
The same is true for editorials. The reviewers seem to have some leeway here.

Thanks, I guess I was giving up too easily.

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on August 14, 2022, 12:32

I upload here regularly, several images per week. Last week various close-ups of trees with ripe fruit and onion field.
All images so far completely rejected because of quality problems. I haven't changed anything myself and this high rejection rate is new to me - it's been going on for weeks now.
The complete series, on the other hand, was completely accepted by Shutterstock. So it can't be due to focus and image noise 

I never had a complete batch rejected. A single image every now and then? Yes. But at acceptable terms for me. Editorial issues? Also yes. Multiple. 
But maybe I was just lucky the past few weeks.

These complete batch rejections are new to me and unfortunately are happening more often lately.
It is interesting that these rejections of all images occur in one go. With the second submission, the review is then usually done in batches, sometimes over several days, and the images then go through.

Quote from: Roscoe on August 16, 2022, 13:39

Reviews are definitely done by bots. That's what I learn from the intellectual property rejection of a simple nature shot.
Title or keywords probably goofed the system.

While the answer might be the keywords were the reason for the rejection, it's still interesting that nature can get an Intellectual Property rejection. Maybe you could send the image and everything to Mat and get a real answer, WHY?

I can understand pre-qualifying images, using computers, before review, and in the past the answer has been, a human looks at every image that is reviewed, I wonder if Mat can confirm this?

Are all image reviews still viewed by a human? I suppose a way around that would be, the Bots do the reviews and a human takes a look to see if they got it right, which isn't really Human Review.

Content is (still) reviewed by actual human beings.

thanks,

Mat Hayward

Quote from: Uncle Pete on August 18, 2022, 10:22

Quote from: Roscoe on August 16, 2022, 13:39

Reviews are definitely done by bots. That's what I learn from the intellectual property rejection of a simple nature shot.
Title or keywords probably goofed the system.

While the answer might be the keywords were the reason for the rejection, it's still interesting that nature can get an Intellectual Property rejection. Maybe you could send the image and everything to Mat and get a real answer, WHY?

I can understand pre-qualifying images, using computers, before review, and in the past the answer has been, a human looks at every image that is reviewed, I wonder if Mat can confirm this?

Are all image reviews still viewed by a human? I suppose a way around that would be, the Bots do the reviews and a human takes a look to see if they got it right, which isn't really Human Review.

Content is (still) reviewed by actual human beings.

thanks,

Mat Hayward

Thanks for stepping in and correcting my statement Mat. 
Human errors can happen too of course.

@Pete, it was just a simple nature shot which I didn't necessarily took to upload to stock agencies. I was testing/practicing my skills. I don't want to waste anyone's time to look further into the topic as I consider it as an anecdotal mistake rather than a structural issue (as mentioned earlier, I don't seem to experience a lot of unfair rejections by Adobe). And the shot itself has low commercial value.

But of course, if @Mat wants to chase it, I'm happy to provide him the details.

Hi everyone,

This thread has triggered a deeper look into rejection rates by our team. During this process we identified an issue that may be impacting some of you. There was a recent update that impacts how thumbnails are generated. The thumbs are now dependent on the art board size. Those of you setting your art board too small (below 1000 pixels) are likely seeing rejections on content that is similar in quality to what you had previously had approved.

To avoid this while we�re working on a fix, please set your art boards at >1000px, ideally ~10MP area.

For those of you that took me up on my offer and sent some example image ID numbers, thank you very much. This information was very helpful. In future posts, if you are comfortable sharing, please be sure to include image ID numbers.

thanks again,

Mat Hayward

And this, dear other agencies than Adobe, is how you do your PR.
Well done Mat!

Came here to provide feedback about my little experiment where I uploaded 10 rather rejection sensitive images.
Three of them were abstract deliberate out of focus shots, bokeh balls to be used as background or in layered compositions.
The other ones were a mixture of selective focus close-up shots and wide angle landscape shots with and without a clear subject.

Shutterstock rejected 4 out of 10. Bokeh balls were accepted, but landscape shots with foliage were rejected due to so-called focus issues.
Adobe Stock accepted 10 out of 10.

Hi everyone,

This thread has triggered a deeper look into rejection rates by our team. During this process we identified an issue that may be impacting some of you. There was a recent update that impacts how thumbnails are generated. The thumbs are now dependent on the art board size. Those of you setting your art board too small (below 1000 pixels) are likely seeing rejections on content that is similar in quality to what you had previously had approved.

To avoid this while we�re working on a fix, please set your art boards at >1000px, ideally ~10MP area.

For those of you that took me up on my offer and sent some example image ID numbers, thank you very much. This information was very helpful. In future posts, if you are comfortable sharing, please be sure to include image ID numbers.

thanks again,

Mat Hayward

Mat. I have been submitting images to AS for quite some time without any real issues.
My question is: What the heck is an "Art Board"?

Hi everyone,

This thread has triggered a deeper look into rejection rates by our team. During this process we identified an issue that may be impacting some of you. There was a recent update that impacts how thumbnails are generated. The thumbs are now dependent on the art board size. Those of you setting your art board too small (below 1000 pixels) are likely seeing rejections on content that is similar in quality to what you had previously had approved.

To avoid this while we�re working on a fix, please set your art boards at >1000px, ideally ~10MP area.

For those of you that took me up on my offer and sent some example image ID numbers, thank you very much. This information was very helpful. In future posts, if you are comfortable sharing, please be sure to include image ID numbers.

thanks again,

Mat Hayward

Quick question... How does one get to artboards to change the setting? Until now I have never heard of art boards.

Quote from: MatHayward on August 19, 2022, 10:59

Hi everyone,

This thread has triggered a deeper look into rejection rates by our team. During this process we identified an issue that may be impacting some of you. There was a recent update that impacts how thumbnails are generated. The thumbs are now dependent on the art board size. Those of you setting your art board too small (below 1000 pixels) are likely seeing rejections on content that is similar in quality to what you had previously had approved.

To avoid this while we�re working on a fix, please set your art boards at >1000px, ideally ~10MP area.

For those of you that took me up on my offer and sent some example image ID numbers, thank you very much. This information was very helpful. In future posts, if you are comfortable sharing, please be sure to include image ID numbers.

thanks again,

Mat Hayward

Quick question... How does one get to artboards to change the setting? Until now I have never heard of art boards.

On pg 2 of this thread, there are screenshots of how to change the artboard size.

The comment from Mat relates to recent vector rejections.
The "Art Board" size (also called canva size) is the area that defines the space around your vector.
Recommendation: Aim at a ~10MP area, with the vector taking most of the place in it.

Disclosure: I'm a Product Manager working on Adobe Stock. My name is Morgan David de Lossy, I used to be a stock photo contributor, now fighting from inside the machine . Mat taking some well deserved time off, I'm jumping in to avoid having him looking at his phone again! I'll do my best to help out until he comes back.

Thanks Morgan for your reply and thanks for being so kind to Mat who was actually on a break as he said he was.
However, since Mat did not succeed in getting the message across to the division manager or at least your operations manager I would kindly suggest you might try it. For me, speaking very personally and not for all contributors here, allthough lot of people complain, it would be very welcome if the revision crew would get a somewhat larger list to choose from when they reject a photo (or vector or video for that matter). I know this will make your workflow less productive but as explained it will give Adobe benefits in the future when we, your suppliers, understand why you don't want specific material. If you leave us clueless (apart from crap that some people will feed you) we have no way of understanding how to do things differently. Be truthful as well. If you already have enough material of say a picture of a rose just bring it like that instead of saying it's rejected for technical reasons. Maybe the person will stop submitting material of roses and goes shooting something else instead of trying to puzzle out how to shoot the rose properly, right?
Good luck and eager to hear if this has landed with your management.

Quote from: morganddl on August 19, 2022, 14:32

The comment from Mat relates to recent vector rejections.
The "Art Board" size (also called canva size) is the area that defines the space around your vector.
Recommendation: Aim at a ~10MP area, with the vector taking most of the place in it.

Disclosure: I'm a Product Manager working on Adobe Stock. My name is Morgan David de Lossy, I used to be a stock photo contributor, now fighting from inside the machine . Mat taking some well deserved time off, I'm jumping in to avoid having him looking at his phone again! I'll do my best to help out until he comes back.

Thanks Morgan for your reply and thanks for being so kind to Mat who was actually on a break as he said he was.
However, since Mat did not succeed in getting the message across to the division manager or at least your operations manager I would kindly suggest you might try it. For me, speaking very personally and not for all contributors here, allthough lot of people complain, it would be very welcome if the revision crew would get a somewhat larger list to choose from when they reject a photo (or vector or video for that matter). I know this will make your workflow less productive but as explained it will give Adobe benefits in the future when we, your suppliers, understand why you don't want specific material. If you leave us clueless (apart from crap that some people will feed you) we have no way of understanding how to do things differently. Be truthful as well. If you already have enough material of say a picture of a rose just bring it like that instead of saying it's rejected for technical reasons. Maybe the person will stop submitting material of roses and goes shooting something else instead of trying to puzzle out how to shoot the rose properly, right?
Good luck and eager to hear if this has landed with your management.

Thank you for the feedback! We're looking into this. As you mentioned it's a tough balance between reviewing the files in reasonable time vs. providing granular reasons. We can do better and I hear you on how this would benefit our agency too.

Hi everyone,

This thread has triggered a deeper look into rejection rates by our team. During this process we identified an issue that may be impacting some of you. There was a recent update that impacts how thumbnails are generated. The thumbs are now dependent on the art board size. Those of you setting your art board too small (below 1000 pixels) are likely seeing rejections on content that is similar in quality to what you had previously had approved.

To avoid this while we�re working on a fix, please set your art boards at >1000px, ideally ~10MP area.

For those of you that took me up on my offer and sent some example image ID numbers, thank you very much. This information was very helpful. In future posts, if you are comfortable sharing, please be sure to include image ID numbers.

thanks again,

Mat Hayward

If this is related to artboard then Adobe needs to fix it. As a designer, we prepare files months before any event. Now, how to re-fix all the files again, it will be huge time consuming.

The rejections at AS for photos is getting a bit ridiculous.

The same photos are accepted every other agency but not on AS. I am not clear what is going on but this is a completely new trend at AS. My entire last batch was rejected for "quality standards" which is very odd considering I use a high end camera with the best glass and always on a tripod.

I have resubmitted some of these again and they all get accepted and sell.

The reality is having to resubmit is a waste of time for everyone as we are all doing twice the work. I can understand being rejected for 'too similar' I can understand 'not meeting editorial guidelines' but this 'quality standards' is just wrong on every level.

Just had a couple of rejections for photos that had been accepted by the - allegedly - stricter Shutterstock. Quality Issues was the reason given. I'm not going to bother resubmitting. Hopefully they will sell over at SS.

I had on batch 100% rejected on AS and 100% accepted in multiple other agencies. I resubmitted the same images again and 100% accepted. That has happened to me twice now.

Interesting enough my poor quality images that got rejected then accepted have sold multiple times since being uploaded.

Not sure what is going on but it is a lot like spinning the roulette wheel these days at AS.

There is too much variability among reviewers.  I have been submitting PNGs with transparent backgrounds of JPEGs that were submitted years ago.  On my last two batches, one was accepted 100% and the second was 90% rejected for "Quality" - even though the actual quality was very similar in both batches, all were accepted as JPEGs originally, and many of those that were rejected have sold very well as JPEGs so clearly don't have any quality issues.  The real problem seems to be in finding quality reviewers.  If they were JPEGs with embedded keywords I might resubmit, but with the PNGs, having to paste in the title and keywords manually it is too much trouble to bother.  I'll go through my whole collection of PNGs, but only once - it is just too bad that likely good sellers get rejected because of poor-quality reviewers.  On the bright side, it kind of proves that they aren't relying exclusively on AI for reviews.

You should be able to embed metadata in PNG's. That has been my experience with Lightroom.

I've never been able to embed metadata in PNGs in PS and don't use LR.  Maybe some day.

You embed metadate in PNGs in PS the same way you do it for jpgs.
Open your png, click on File -> File info, fill out the form that pops up with yout metadata and then go to File -> Save as copy and select png in the drop down menu below the name field. Do not use the export feature to save the image, that will remove the metadata.

Quote from: Firn on September 11, 2022, 01:39

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on September 10, 2022, 21:14

I've never been able to embed metadata in PNGs in PS and don't use LR.  Maybe some day.

You embed metadate in PNGs in PS the same way you do it for jpgs.
Open your png, click on File -> File info, fill out the form that pops up with yout metadata and then go to File -> Save as copy and select png in the drop down menu below the name field. Do not use the export feature to save the image, that will remove the metadata.

Maybe it is a version issue.  All of my PNGs are made from JPEGs that already have the metadata included.  When I save them as PNGs the metadata does not get included.  Canva used to let you upload the JPEG versions so they could extract the metadata - that was a nice way to do it.  I am still using PS4 so maybe that was changed in later versions.

My feeling is there is a "quality issue" with the reviewer. Again, my entire batch was rejected for quality and the exact same images were all accepted at multiple other agencies. This anomaly is only somewhat recent in the last 4-6 batch submissions. For now I will hit the brakes on submitting anything to AS.

Quote from: Firn on September 11, 2022, 01:39

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on September 10, 2022, 21:14

I've never been able to embed metadata in PNGs in PS and don't use LR.  Maybe some day.

You embed metadate in PNGs in PS the same way you do it for jpgs.
Open your png, click on File -> File info, fill out the form that pops up with yout metadata and then go to File -> Save as copy and select png in the drop down menu below the name field. Do not use the export feature to save the image, that will remove the metadata.

Maybe it is a version issue.  All of my PNGs are made from JPEGs that already have the metadata included.  When I save them as PNGs the metadata does not get included.  Canva used to let you upload the JPEG versions so they could extract the metadata - that was a nice way to do it.  I am still using PS4 so maybe that was changed in later versions.

When you save the file as a PNG in Photoshop, perhaps there is a checkbox to include metdata?.....I know they have several checkboxes in the save dialog box.

I opened a new AS account two months ago and in the first few days I was able to upload about 500 videos without any problems and very quickly.
But since about four weeks almost no video is accepted from me. Mostly 10/10 media end up in the "data problem" folder. Sometimes only 9/10 and sometimes only 6/10.
I can upload almost no more video.
SS accepts the same videos all. They are technically ok.
Have already written to support twice, but they won't tell me what this "data problem" is : "Unfortunately I cannot provide you with specifics on each rejection."
Can anyone tell me what this means?

I have 3 images rejection today. They are images about only roses, but AS need PROPERTY RELEASE. Do I need model release or personal property for rose image?

Do I need model release or personal property for rose image?

No.

i have the rejection photo from AS too, i don't know why. sometime i send it again and approved. LOL

Upload with FileZilla.
What do you mean by streams? I don't understand that.

Quote from: Findura on November 04, 2022, 09:08

I opened a new AS account two months ago and in the first few days I was able to upload about 500 videos without any problems and very quickly.
But since about four weeks almost no video is accepted from me. Mostly 10/10 media end up in the "data problem" folder. Sometimes only 9/10 and sometimes only 6/10.
I can upload almost no more video.
SS accepts the same videos all. They are technically ok.
Have already written to support twice, but they won't tell me what this "data problem" is : "Unfortunately I cannot provide you with specifics on each rejection."
Can anyone tell me what this means?

With what program do you upload the video and in how many streams? Upload videos in no more than 3 streams.