MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Adobe Stock => Topic started by: Pacesetter on April 10, 2025, 18:40
-
I've noticed one file was removed yesterday and another today from my Adobe port. That's only 2 files for now but how far and deep is this purge going to?
Yeh I read the email several week ago and so this should not be too much a surprise but personally I'm tired of the way all agencies are treating contributors now. Your mileage may vary but I'm no longer pursuing stock with anywhere near the dedication I use to.
-
I've noticed one file was removed yesterday and another today from my Adobe port. That's only 2 files for now but how far and deep is this purge going to?
Yeh I read the email several week ago and so this should not be too much a surprise but personally I'm tired of the way all agencies are treating contributors now. Your mileage may vary but I'm no longer pursuing stock with anywhere near the dedication I use to.
If they go big on the new rejection of too many similar to others in the entire collection and then badly AI automate this check then a ton of people will lose a large chunk of their portfolio.
Given how badly it's screening similars already for new submissions it could be a total disaster.
-
I had 30 removed, and since we can''t filter on date, I have no idea which ones, but strangely I've found a bunch of weird one, including my bunny because an INTERNAL AUDIT something something.
-
I received an email with one file removed, incompatible with terms - It says it violates the content submission guidelines. It's a vector image of ribbon banners, submitted six years ago.
-
Adobe has complete faith in the ineptitude of machines, into which they have programmed faulty algorithms. What contempt, what disrespect... And our submission doesn't bother them.
-
Today I received an email showing a specific file as having been removed. It came with the usual inane link, "review and learn why," which in fact cannot find the supposedly removed file.
However, when I searched for it in my portfolio using keywords, it turned up as still being there.
The odd thing is that it was marked as "editorial use only," but this is a file that's more than 10 years old, before Adobe/Fotolia allowed editorial files. I'm thinking that they just reclassified it, rather than removing it, and the email message is simply an inaccurate notification of that fact.
I will check again next week to see if it is still there.
-
I had 2 removed in the "audit" process, tells me that they are against the guidelines and a link to read. I did read and I have no idea how "dead trees in a drought affected lake" go against the guidelines. The other one was a "hemp plant ready for harvesting" again I dont see how it goes against guidelines.
To me these removals are clear as mud.
Actually the email said I had 2 removed, I look at my numbers and I have had 19 removed so far. All of them say "This content has been removed for violating Adobe Stock’s content submission guidelines. We have determined that this content is incompatible with the Stock Contributor Terms on the basis of an internal audit. "
So apart from the previous 2, there are mushrooms, a small frog, some ducks and I have no idea what else because there is no point in looking ...
-
I had 2 removed in the "audit" process, tells me that they are against the guidelines and a link to read. I did read and I have no idea how "dead trees in a drought affected lake" go against the guidelines. The other one was a "hemp plant ready for harvesting" again I dont see how it goes against guidelines.
To me these removals are clear as mud.
Actually the email said I had 2 removed, I look at my numbers and I have had 19 removed so far. All of them say "This content has been removed for violating Adobe Stock’s content submission guidelines. We have determined that this content is incompatible with the Stock Contributor Terms on the basis of an internal audit. "
So apart from the previous 2, there are mushrooms, a small frog, some ducks and I have no idea what else because there is no point in looking ...
I guess they've started. I had an email saying 45 removed (out of about 22,500).It contained a shot of I guess what's been removed (an old head on photo of a Hawksbill sea turtle on a coral reef).
I click the link to see more but it just goes to my dashboard. The rejected items count hasn't increased so it seems theres no way to see what's been removed or why.
If they're deciding underwater shots aren't suitable I may as well close up shop at it's 50% of my portfolio.
I wonder if they're starting at oldest and working forwards.
The complete lack of clarity and transparency is the issue. Adobe used to be different. Now they're just like SS. Contributors are just an annoyance that have to be tolerated.
-
They can find the time and resources to remove files but no time and resources to review submitted ones.
All these agencies are gonna end up with not only fewer but total crap submissions very soon with all experienced contributors calling it a day on this nonsense. I'm already seeing pro contributors on Pond5 packing up and removing their entire ports.
-
I also got one, with vanilla "Internal Audit". But when I checked, it's still in port. At any rate, here's the image and caption
(https://as1.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/03/89/51/50/1000_F_389515081_mQUgUG54PnAxSZMUZ7o3ZhsAHHFnde5G.jpg)
Capilla Santa Cruz Catholic Church Building Exterior on Waterfront near San Miguel Downtown on Cozumel Island, Mexico
I'd agree with one of above posters: AI with faulty algorithms. That's all there's into it. (Including duplicate emails about Photoshop redemption)
-
They can find the time and resources to remove files but no time and resources to review submitted ones.
I guess they run some "AI' tool
my removals are very random "Incompatible with Terms" but what exactly triggered the removal I can't guess
-
wow, they removing pictures like crazy. About 50 already from 4000 port. And
-
33 removed here, and no idea if that is all or just the beginning ...
BIG question here: what figure will Adobe use to calculate if you're eligible for the annual free Creative Cloud subscription next year? Your number of added files, or your "growth" after deduction of removed files?
-
Is it so hard that they directly point us to the rejected file in our portfolio?
Instead, we have to go through our files individually to find which one was rejected.
Sometimes, you can't even find the file.
Did they ever think of that?
It's like saying:
Here's a screenshot of the file that was removed. Good luck finding which one was in your portfolio!
I don't dispute the rejection, I just can't find it and see why!
-
In the discord the removed files include simple color backgrounds that supposedly break adobes terms and other weird examples.
What is the point of that?
-
I thought ahead and I took a screenshot of my Not Accepted page back when they sent me an email about duplicate removals. I don't see any new rejected files so far.
-
I got the email today. It said 38 files were removed and it showed 1 example file. I went through all the rejections and a total of 90 have been removed. So the email I got stated an incorrect number or this is an ongoing purge..
-
Looks like its their AI system which is taking decision and with some cases have messed up and rejected incorrectly.
-
In the discord the removed files include simple color backgrounds that supposedly break adobes terms and other weird examples.
What is the point of that?
In my case 36 files were removed and the example image shown is a background of an old wall with some paint and structure on it.
(see screenshot)
This does not make any sense at all :-?
-
In the discord the removed files include simple color backgrounds that supposedly break adobes terms and other weird examples.
What is the point of that?
In my case 36 files were removed and the example image shown is a background of an old wall with some paint and structure on it.
(see screenshot)
This does not make any sense at all :-?
Content isn't just being removed for compliance reasons, but also because it is similar to other content you have submitted.
I had one removed yesterday for 'similar' reasons, and was quite cross, as the only other image I'd submitted from this location was quite different. However, when i checked a little more carefully, it was removed because I had accidentally submitted, (and had approved), the same image twice over.
-
I had 2 removed in the "audit" process, tells me that they are against the guidelines and a link to read. I did read and I have no idea how "dead trees in a drought affected lake" go against the guidelines. The other one was a "hemp plant ready for harvesting" again I dont see how it goes against guidelines.
To me these removals are clear as mud.
Actually the email said I had 2 removed, I look at my numbers and I have had 19 removed so far. All of them say "This content has been removed for violating Adobe Stock’s content submission guidelines. We have determined that this content is incompatible with the Stock Contributor Terms on the basis of an internal audit. "
So apart from the previous 2, there are mushrooms, a small frog, some ducks and I have no idea what else because there is no point in looking ...
Photographs of real nature are against the guidelines now. There is no risk for tons of fake representations of artificial nature to be accepted. Adobe society is already directed by a robot, maybe.
-
37 files were removed from my port. I don’t understand why. No information given at all.
I think I will give up on all this crap. What’s the point to try to take perfect images if these will be removed .
-
Adobe Stock is going bonkers and removing every day a few video files. Going the same distasteful route as Getty and Shitterstock......no humans to ask questions....there is a reason Matt disappeared from this forum.....it is going to get worse with this corporations.......the treatment these companies have with their contributors is shameful...hopefully they go all under for once and for all and something new with better treatment to contributors come along...A big fat 0 to how Adobe is behaving......hope it bites them back as it did with SS and Getty
-
Hello Adobe,
why don't you openly say that you're not interested in us contributors anymore?
What's with this pathetic, pointless communication?
I am very disappointed.
As a tech company, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Incidentally, I am also (was) a customer of Adobe products.
-
I am not Adobe hater & think they are doing lots of things right. But what bothers me is arrogance. Whole review process is disrespectful; it wouldn't be hard to add couple of rejection reason boxes reviewer could tick (i.e "exposure" "focus" "metadata" etc) instead of vanilla "quality". Black hole where uploads disappear; list goes on.
Then this removal issue with zero explanation why, and in many reasons inaccurate as contributors are reporting files still in port.
I watched YouTube clip couple of years ago. Technical conference (akin to Apple Developer Conference). Lead Developer demonstrates new Photoshop feature, while Business guy watches. Ensuing conversation:
Business Guy: "Wow. How did you do that?"
Devoloper: "It's just an algorithm"
Business Guy: "What's an algorithm?" (with resentful look on his face, implying 'what a geek, can you explain this')
That is likely one of reasons for what we are experiencing; high-level product management with direction to advance AI, but technically inept and out of touch what's happening below
-
Images that have been removed from my port for "Audit Removal: Incompatible With Terms" - An Asiatic lion walking in a forest, Himalayan landscape of lake and mountains, a brick wall of a decaying building, another landscape of mountains and forests and about 20 other images that were submitted 4-5 years ago. I would love to know what these "new terms" are.
The sad thing is, Adobe was the last contributor platform that I was still submitting images to and thanks to their brilliant new initiative, I guess I'm going to stop doing that too. It's time to say goodbye to this business that I like a fool have been hanging on to for so many years.
-
Same. I have also files removed. Over 50. Simple easy photos with no reason to remove :(. I suspect their AI selection system just don't like some description words. I don't see any other reason.
-
I found one that was a lake removed for "incompatible with terms" - not sure what terms it might be incompatible with. I might have a typo for "Sierra" that is "Seirra" - maybe that is a bad word in some language? But a search for "seirra" reveals 17 results for seirra in images but over 3000 in premium. It is still visible if I search for it on Adobe but not under seirra.
In another note, I saw an image I sold a few days ago is now in the rejected pile. It still shows as 21 sales in my dashboard sorted by downloads, but no longer shows up in my recent sales under insights. I don't know if the $ for the sale exists anymore, I don't follow things that closely? The rejection is for IP - which is probably valid in a sense but it is a common enough object for which there are still millions in the database. I still have a few similars with sales, so don't want to draw any extra attention to those. I will miss it's sales though.
edited - I did a bit more poking around - the .png was rejected probably back at the original time of submitting, the .jpg is still there. I guess the recent sale was refunded or cancelled or something, but I did see an older one, or maybe I was wrong about the recent sale.
Adobe - and really all the sites do a pretty horrible job of reviewing and communicating the results to us. Not that this is an easy thing to do, but they could at least send us an e-mail that says we removed these images with a list of the images removed and the reason rather than expecting us to look through our rejected images list (mine stands at 439 right now) and try to guess which are new rejections and which are old - especially if they change the rejection reason to include AI for 8 year old images. I can only assume it is some sort of search and destroy program that is mostly doing a lousy job (as far as I can tell other than exact double images in the database). But they have enough images they won't miss the deleted ones - even if there might be a few less sales.
-
I found one that was a lake removed for "incompatible with terms" - not sure what terms it might be incompatible with. I might have a typo for "Sierra" that is "Seirra" - maybe that is a bad word in some language? But a search for "seirra" reveals 17 results for seirra in images but over 3000 in premium. It is still visible if I search for it on Adobe but not under seirra. ...
not that it's an excuse, but it's possible it was rejected since 'sierra' is also trademark for a car - for awhile human reviewers at SS rejected images taken in Newport, OR (a US cigarette)
--- as idiotic as thump's cohort removing pix of the 'enola GAY' ( dropped a-bomb on hiroshima)
and recently i keep getting some (designated) AI images rejected for "needs a model release" - it may be due to a bug in submittal that doesn't always show a secondary clickbox when 'ai gen' is selected. it says "images are of fictional people"
-
On Discord there have been several instances of people complaining about images that have been removed, but I have found that the exact same images are still online in their portfolios with different file numbers. So for anyone wondering why a file has been removed please check your portfolio and see if you have a duplicate of it still online.
-
In the discord the removed files include simple color backgrounds that supposedly break adobes terms and other weird examples.
What is the point of that?
In my case 36 files were removed and the example image shown is a background of an old wall with some paint and structure on it.
(see screenshot)
This does not make any sense at all :-?
Content isn't just being removed for compliance reasons, but also because it is similar to other content you have submitted.
I had one removed yesterday for 'similar' reasons, and was quite cross, as the only other image I'd submitted from this location was quite different. However, when i checked a little more carefully, it was removed because I had accidentally submitted, (and had approved), the same image twice over.
Yes, on the one hand it is about similar content within the Adobe collection and on the other hand about content that supposedly breaks the guidelines.
And I don't have a fundamental problem with the fact that the guidelines need to be adapted from time to time.
The problem I see here is that we contributors are left completely in the dark. There is no reasonable statement about which images were removed and why.
Just a link to your own rejections, which you can't sort - in my case there are more than 10,000 files in there (which is not surprising with 64,000 online files).
I have absolutely no chance of finding out which other 35 images have been removed, because I have no search filter and the images are not sorted at the top of the rejection list, but are sorted by upload date... which is “completely nonsensical”, to put it mildly. You do that if you don't want the contributor to be able to find it :)
To put it briefly and directly:
-> no problem that you have to customize and maybe also clear something away sometimes
-> a big problem is the lack of transparency and the complete lack of communication with the contributors (who ultimately make the business possible, at least so far)
And we'd rather not even talk about the currently incomprehensible rejections :-)
On Discord there have been several instances of people complaining about images that have been removed, but I have found that the exact same images are still online in their portfolios with different file numbers. So for anyone wondering why a file has been removed please check your portfolio and see if you have a duplicate of it still online.
Good advice - I just tried that once and didn't find the image from my post in the AdobeStock portfolio, so it wasn't a complete duplicate.
What I found in the search are such images that at least explain the deletion of “similar” images:
Example 1:
- https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/texture-of-old-rustic-wall-covered-with-gray-and-blue-stucco-multilayers-of-old-paint-on-the-wall-textured-background-selective-focus/886762746
- https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/texture-of-old-rustic-wall-covered-with-gray-and-blue-stucco-multilayers-of-old-paint-on-the-wall-textured-background-selective-focus/886762672
- https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/texture-of-old-rustic-wall-covered-with-gray-and-blue-stucco-multilayers-of-old-paint-on-the-wall-textured-background-selective-focus/886762924
Example 2:
- https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/close-up-of-concrete-and-brick-wall-cracks-in-the-wall-selective-focus/991545887
- https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/close-up-of-concrete-and-brick-wall-cracks-in-the-wall-selective-focus/991545827
- https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/close-up-of-concrete-and-brick-wall-cracks-in-the-wall-selective-focus/991545804
The fact that such clearly recognizable duplicates are still included is very strange - but the deletion is yet to come.
The process is still running and today on Saturday another 7 pictures disappeared from my portfolio and I have no idea which ones they are :)
-
On Discord there have been several instances of people complaining about images that have been removed, but I have found that the exact same images are still online in their portfolios with different file numbers. So for anyone wondering why a file has been removed please check your portfolio and see if you have a duplicate of it still online.
That seems to be the case for the 2 I've "lost" and the 2 my husband has "lost". All for "Incompatible". The only one of the 4 that I can maybe (sorta, kinda) agree with is this one for the gore rule. The other one of mine was a baby skunk in the grass and my husband's were of 1) 3 wolves standing in a snowy field and 2) 2 wolves walking across a river
So ...
-
Hello Adobe,
why don't you openly say that you're not interested in us contributors anymore?
What's with this pathetic, pointless communication?
I am very disappointed.
As a tech company, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Incidentally, I am also (was) a customer of Adobe products.
It appears that this was removed because it is a duplicate of a file in your portfolio with a different file number. Please can you check?
-
I also got one, with vanilla "Internal Audit". But when I checked, it's still in port. At any rate, here's the image and caption
(https://as1.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/03/89/51/50/1000_F_389515081_mQUgUG54PnAxSZMUZ7o3ZhsAHHFnde5G.jpg)
Capilla Santa Cruz Catholic Church Building Exterior on Waterfront near San Miguel Downtown on Cozumel Island, Mexico
I'd agree with one of above posters: AI with faulty algorithms. That's all there's into it. (Including duplicate emails about Photoshop redemption)
The reason why it's still in your port may be because the file that was removed was a duplicate. Please can you check if the file numbers of the removed file and the one in your port are different?
-
Just woke up to another email of a further 11 removed so 56 in total.
They DO appear in the rejected items but in the location in time of where they would have been rejected so you need to trawl through.
The SEEM to be starting at the older and working up because so far all the stuff is on the last few pages. Most of it from Fotolia days!
Its the same bland, generic removal reason that offers no useful information and might be garbage.
Can see with the attachments, as a selection i have a sea fan, clownfish, coral crab, flooded bridge, rice terrace and old drone shot of a river all "incompatible with terms". It doesnt tell me why or any details at all.
Most of these are from 6-8 years ago, some are Fotolia so pre-adobe stock days. So apparently my images have managed to violate Adobe Stock terms and conditions despite being uploaded and accepted literally before Adobe Stock even existed.
Do i need to persuade a clownfish to sign a model release now? Or check for an owner of a blade of grass?
FWIW quite of a few of these images sell quite well even to this day.
It looks to make like they're started at image number 1 and applying their unspecified criteria from there upwards which suggest a lot of people could lose hundreds or potentially thousands of images by the time this completes.
The really frustrating thing here is the complete contempt they seem to be treating contributors. They've gone down the Shutterstock route.
There is no clear criteria listed anywhere, there's no timeline, there's no explanation of HOW the process is conducted (i suspect entirely automated.. but based on what?). No discussion of whether this is a one off or will continue scanning or pruning indefinitely.
Theres not even a simple filter to show WHAT has been deleted - the email link just uselessly goes to the "rejected images" most recent page.
AS *used* to be different to the others, direct 2 way engagement and communication with contributors, things were explained (even if not agreed with) but you knew where you stood. Those days have gone.
-
Just woke up to another email of a further 11 removed so 56 in total.
They DO appear in the rejected items but in the location in time of where they would have been rejected so you need to trawl through.
The SEEM to be starting at the older and working up because so far all the stuff is on the last few pages. Most of it from Fotolia days!
Its the same bland, generic removal reason that offers no useful information and might be garbage.
Can see with the attachments, as a selection i have a sea fan, clownfish, coral crab, flooded bridge, rice terrace and old drone shot of a river all "incompatible with terms". It doesnt tell me why or any details at all.
Most of these are from 6-8 years ago, some are Fotolia so pre-adobe stock days. So apparently my images have managed to violate Adobe Stock terms and conditions despite being uploaded and accepted literally before Adobe Stock even existed.
Do i need to persuade a clownfish to sign a model release now? Or check for an owner of a blade of grass?
FWIW quite of a few of these images sell quite well even to this day.
It looks to make like they're started at image number 1 and applying their unspecified criteria from there upwards which suggest a lot of people could lose hundreds or potentially thousands of images by the time this completes.
The really frustrating thing here is the complete contempt they seem to be treating contributors. They've gone down the Shutterstock route.
There is no clear criteria listed anywhere, there's no timeline, there's no explanation of HOW the process is conducted (i suspect entirely automated.. but based on what?). No discussion of whether this is a one off or will continue scanning or pruning indefinitely.
Theres not even a simple filter to show WHAT has been deleted - the email link just uselessly goes to the "rejected images" most recent page.
AS *used* to be different to the others, direct 2 way engagement and communication with contributors, things were explained (even if not agreed with) but you knew where you stood. Those days have gone.
It appears that all these files are still online, so the reason why they were removed may be because they are duplicates. Please can you check if the file numbers of the removed files and the file numbers of the ones still in your port are different?
-
Just woke up to another email of a further 11 removed so 56 in total.
They DO appear in the rejected items but in the location in time of where they would have been rejected so you need to trawl through.
The SEEM to be starting at the older and working up because so far all the stuff is on the last few pages. Most of it from Fotolia days!
Its the same bland, generic removal reason that offers no useful information and might be garbage.
Can see with the attachments, as a selection i have a sea fan, clownfish, coral crab, flooded bridge, rice terrace and old drone shot of a river all "incompatible with terms". It doesnt tell me why or any details at all.
Most of these are from 6-8 years ago, some are Fotolia so pre-adobe stock days. So apparently my images have managed to violate Adobe Stock terms and conditions despite being uploaded and accepted literally before Adobe Stock even existed.
Do i need to persuade a clownfish to sign a model release now? Or check for an owner of a blade of grass?
FWIW quite of a few of these images sell quite well even to this day.
It looks to make like they're started at image number 1 and applying their unspecified criteria from there upwards which suggest a lot of people could lose hundreds or potentially thousands of images by the time this completes.
The really frustrating thing here is the complete contempt they seem to be treating contributors. They've gone down the Shutterstock route.
There is no clear criteria listed anywhere, there's no timeline, there's no explanation of HOW the process is conducted (i suspect entirely automated.. but based on what?). No discussion of whether this is a one off or will continue scanning or pruning indefinitely.
Theres not even a simple filter to show WHAT has been deleted - the email link just uselessly goes to the "rejected images" most recent page.
AS *used* to be different to the others, direct 2 way engagement and communication with contributors, things were explained (even if not agreed with) but you knew where you stood. Those days have gone.
It appears that all these files are still online, so the reason why they were removed may be because they are duplicates. Please can you check if the file numbers of the removed files and the file numbers of the ones still in your port are different?
The numbers are the same - i think it just takes time for the deletions to filter through the database (as is normal outside this for manual changes).
-
The reason why it's still in your port may be because the file that was removed was a duplicate. Please can you check if the file numbers of the removed file and the one in your port are different?
That really me go look.
Removed File ID: 254285694
File in Port ID: 389515081
It appears duplicate theory is valid. But I am still not convinced 100% it is not some sort of back-end error on their side, because I am really careful about this kind of stuff (incl. similars). But if it indeed slipped, this means they have daemons that run across each contributor port and hunt for duplicates. Likely not just based on file name, but internal content.
At any rate - thanks!
-
The reason why it's still in your port may be because the file that was removed was a duplicate. Please can you check if the file numbers of the removed file and the one in your port are different?
That really me go look.
Removed File ID: 254285694
File in Port ID: 389515081
It appears duplicate theory is valid. But I am still not convinced 100% it is not some sort of back-end error on their side, because I am really careful about this kind of stuff (incl. similars). But if it indeed slipped, this means they have daemons that run across each contributor port and hunt for duplicates. Likely not just based on file name, but internal content.
At any rate - thanks!
You're welcome! I'm careful too but I also had an accidental duplicate removed in the audit. I have come across at least 12 instances so far of people complaining (here and elsewhere) about images that have been removed, but I have found that the exact same images are still online in their portfolios with different file numbers.
-
My latest. (Just the Xmas ones in the top row)
-
One for similar, which is very possible, one for guidelines. Here's the guideline offender. A wide panorama image. Maybe the size or the format?
(https://as1.ftcdn.net/jpg/00/97/06/28/220_F_97062883_lqzle3DOey52oeJmgYkzf8FL4CHKuFqW.jpg)
:o
-
Hello Adobe,
why don't you openly say that you're not interested in us contributors anymore?
What's with this pathetic, pointless communication?
I am very disappointed.
As a tech company, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Incidentally, I am also (was) a customer of Adobe products.
It appears that this was removed because it is a duplicate of a file in your portfolio with a different file number. Please can you check?
If the files are being removed because they are duplicates, it's Adobe that has duplicated them, not me. I am VERY careful about not re-uploading images. One might slip through once in a while, but not a full series (as was tagged as "incompatible" today). And, if images are being tagged as being duplicates, use THAT as a rejection, not this vague "incompatible" crap.
Edit: After digging further I've found that there were 8 images in the series. 4 are gone from my portfolio - like I never uploaded them at all, when I know I did. But they are not the 4 marked as "incompatible" in the rejects OR the 4 that are in my portfolio. The ones marked "incompatible" and the ones still in my portfolio are the SAME images.
I count myself lucky that I haven't had hundreds of images hit by this, but the whole "incompatible" thing just pisses me off because - how can I as a contributor LEARN what NOT to submit if the rejection reason is so vague?? If they said "similar" I probably would have shrugged, said "It's possible." and moved on (knowing that my ideas of similar can vary widely from that of others - ESPECIALLY when it comes to the wildlife photos which I specialize in).
The just wasn't a rabbit hole I wanted to dive into this weekend....
-
If the images are actually duplicates say image #x was deleted because it is identical to image #y.
I totally agree the vague guidelines reason is very unhelpful. I followed the guidelines link and went down a little bit of a rabbit hole...
here is what they say for metadata non compliance:
"May not contain or reference names of real known people.
May not contain or reference fictional characters."
Now with the rapid approach of Easter, take the name "Jesus". We will leave out the discussion of if this is a real or fictional character since neither is allowed in the metadata.
But when you search on Adobe Stock.... "1,492,551 results for Jesus in images" of which ~500,000 are AI generated so only a few years old. Clearly someone is not following their rules. In fact, if you search for almost any somewhat famous historical figure you get results that are not editorial.
If you follow their link to what is allowed and not allowed, searching on the listed not allowed fictional characters commercial only:
9,975 results for spiderman in images
6,521 results for pikachu in images (although these mostly seem to be machu pichu)
1,759 results for catwoman in images
32 results for gandalf in images
17 results for Daenerys Targaryen in images
These are the specific examples they list as not allowed in the metadata and yet there they are. There could be reasons why something could be legitimately in the metadata - for example "Newport, OR" as listed below, but some of these are just blatantly against the spelled out rules.
-
If the images are actually duplicates say image #x was deleted because it is identical to image #y.
I totally agree the vague guidelines reason is very unhelpful. I followed the guidelines link and went down a little bit of a rabbit hole...
Yes, a clear rejection reason of "duplicate content in portfolio" would have avoided a lot of the unnecessary anger at Adobe for appearing to randomly remove images and videos. People were already mistrustful of Adobe because of the recent increase in rejections and this didn't help.
-
If the files are being removed because they are duplicates, it's Adobe that has duplicated them, not me. I am VERY careful about not re-uploading images.
Exactly my thoughts. Which is why I was very surprised to discover "duplicate".
I believe their AI engines are running out of control. AI is essentially (complex) software algorithms. There was a book "Software anti-patterns"; essentially it points to symptoms that indicate certain software system is too heavy, suffers of various design issues and as result is becoming full of bugs/unpredictable. Lots of that behaviour can be now seen in Adobe platform in my opinion.
-
"We have determined that this content is incompatible with the Stock Contributor Terms on the basis of an internal audit."
Who did this internal audit? There are millions of images and I am sure the internal audit has not been done by any human.
They are removing works which are totally accurate.
-
"We have determined that this content is incompatible with the Stock Contributor Terms on the basis of an internal audit."
Who did this internal audit? There are millions of images and I am sure the internal audit has not been done by any human.
They are removing works which are totally accurate.
Definitely isnt a "who". No doubt this is an automatic script let loose with no human oversight with significant bugs working on undisclosed criteria.
-
"We have determined that this content is incompatible with the Stock Contributor Terms on the basis of an internal audit."
Who did this internal audit? There are millions of images and I am sure the internal audit has not been done by any human.
They are removing works which are totally accurate.
Definitely isnt a "who". No doubt this is an automatic script let loose with no human oversight with significant bugs working on undisclosed criteria.
They have removed some of my very popular files just with no proper reason. I am not sure what are they upto but if they read these forums, they need to understand that some fake contributors were flooding platforms with AI generated stuffs and real people were already struggling with it. And now, they have started punishing real artists too.
-
So in total I got removed about 300 pictures :) It look like thet stopped removing at this moment, but for how long?
-
So in total I got removed about 300 pictures :) It look like thet stopped removing at this moment, but for how long?
They didn't stop. I just got a mail about more image being removed from my port this morning.
If Adobe continues like this, soon I'll have a negative port....
Btw, I am 100% convinced the images that are being removed are selected by some wonky AI and not by human. There are so many that make absolutely no sense.
-
For anyone who has had files removed and can't work out why, please can you check to see if they were duplicates? Do you still have the same files in your portfolio, with file numbers that are different to the ones that have been moved to the Not Accepted tab?
-
My latest. (Just the Xmas ones in the top row)
The one you have highlighted looks to be an exact duplicate?
It's still in your portfolio with a different ID number:
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/images/tree-lot-woman-tries-to-convince-man-of-perfect-tree/539231596?prev_url=detail
-
For anyone who has had files removed and can't work out why, please can you check to see if they were duplicates? Do you still have the same files in your portfolio, with file numbers that are different to the ones that have been moved to the Not Accepted tab?
i've had about 300 removed - it's not worth my time to track them down - a much bigger proble is AS doing bulk rejections of batch es accepted elsewhere
-
For anyone who has had files removed and can't work out why, please can you check to see if they were duplicates? Do you still have the same files in your portfolio, with file numbers that are different to the ones that have been moved to the Not Accepted tab?
Maybe I'm missing something, but how can we check? I don't record the ID numbers Adobe assigns to files and there's no way that I know of to check back on what files I've uploaded after they've gone through the review process.
I've dug through the 2 my husband got rejected and notice there is one image in each batch uploaded (1 batch of 6 uploaded 9.20, the other batch of 8 uploaded 4.19) that is missing from his portfolio. Is it possible an image got double tapped while uploading? Possible, maybe, but at this late date there's no way I could know for sure without having a accept/reject list from those dates.
-
For anyone who has had files removed and can't work out why, please can you check to see if they were duplicates? Do you still have the same files in your portfolio, with file numbers that are different to the ones that have been moved to the Not Accepted tab?
Maybe I'm missing something, but how can we check? I don't record the ID numbers Adobe assigns to files and there's no way that I know of to check back on what files I've uploaded after they've gone through the review process.
I've dug through the 2 my husband got rejected and notice there is one image in each batch uploaded (1 batch of 6 uploaded 9.20, the other batch of 8 uploaded 4.19) that is missing from his portfolio. Is it possible an image got double tapped while uploading? Possible, maybe, but at this late date there's no way I could know for sure without having a accept/reject list from those dates.
At least for the files that I have noticed were removed with duplicates, if you find the file in the rejected list ( https://contributor.stock.adobe.com/en/uploads/rejected ) - sadly you need to look at them all to find which ones were removed via audit because obviously it would be too hard to let us search by rejection date or tell us which images were removed when they send us the letter.
mine were listed as rejected for "audit removal: incompatible with terms" - note the image id # and then go and search for the image in the whole database or more easily in your own port and if you can find it see if the image # is different.
-
For anyone who has had files removed and can't work out why, please can you check to see if they were duplicates? Do you still have the same files in your portfolio, with file numbers that are different to the ones that have been moved to the Not Accepted tab?
Maybe I'm missing something, but how can we check? I don't record the ID numbers Adobe assigns to files and there's no way that I know of to check back on what files I've uploaded after they've gone through the review process.
I've dug through the 2 my husband got rejected and notice there is one image in each batch uploaded (1 batch of 6 uploaded 9.20, the other batch of 8 uploaded 4.19) that is missing from his portfolio. Is it possible an image got double tapped while uploading? Possible, maybe, but at this late date there's no way I could know for sure without having a accept/reject list from those dates.
At least for the files that I have noticed were removed with duplicates, if you find the file in the rejected list ( https://contributor.stock.adobe.com/en/uploads/rejected ) - sadly you need to look at them all to find which ones were removed via audit because obviously it would be too hard to let us search by rejection date or tell us which images were removed when they send us the letter.
mine were listed as rejected for "audit removal: incompatible with terms" - note the image id # and then go and search for the image in the whole database or more easily in your own port and if you can find it see if the image # is different.
All of the files my husband and I have had rejected as "incompatible" are still in our portfolios with different file IDs. We have been lucky that it's only been 8 files. I really feel for the people who have had hundreds tagged as incompatible.
-
I am lucky that only twelve of my images removed thus far (portfolio of 7400 images). I was, however, annoyed that one of the removed images was one of my all-time bestsellers. I searched for this image on the main Adobe page and find it still online, but not under my name.
It was stolen by “Designpics” and here is the image:
https://stock.adobe.com/za/images/greyhounds-at-full-speed-during-a-race/609179796 (https://stock.adobe.com/za/images/greyhounds-at-full-speed-during-a-race/609179796)
I looked through this portfolio of 100 pages and find many more of my images. Obviously a portfolio of stolen images. Those of you searching for removed images and find them still online, make sure they are under your name and not stolen.
-
As part of our ongoing commitment to enhance the content discovery experience for both customers and contributors, we have identified and are removing duplicate files on Adobe Stock. You should have received an email regarding this update on February 27, 2025. All assets have been carefully evaluated to ensure minimal impact on your portfolio.
-
As part of our ongoing commitment to enhance the content discovery experience for both customers and contributors, we have identified and are removing duplicate files on Adobe Stock. You should have received an email regarding this update on February 27, 2025. All assets have been carefully evaluated to ensure minimal impact on your portfolio.
Thats what the email says but many of us are getting things removed that arent duplicates.
Exactly what criteria is used here - is it identical image, similar images, similar metadata? Is it fully automated or human audited?
Also, please can we have a filter on the rejected page to see which have gone rather than have to manually trawl through page after page of normal rejections over the last decade?
-
As part of our ongoing commitment to enhance the content discovery experience for both customers and contributors, we have identified and are removing duplicate files on Adobe Stock. You should have received an email regarding this update on February 27, 2025. All assets have been carefully evaluated to ensure minimal impact on your portfolio.
Thats what the email says but many of us are getting things removed that arent duplicates.
Exactly what criteria is used here - is it identical image, similar images, similar metadata? Is it fully automated or human audited?
Also, please can we have a filter on the rejected page to see which have gone rather than have to manually trawl through page after page of normal rejections over the last decade?
Your lobster, clownfish and the 2 drone videos are still showing up in your portfolio, do you now agree that the ones that were removed were duplicates?
-
As part of our ongoing commitment to enhance the content discovery experience for both customers and contributors, we have identified and are removing duplicate files on Adobe Stock. You should have received an email regarding this update on February 27, 2025. All assets have been carefully evaluated to ensure minimal impact on your portfolio.
I am a landscape and travel professional photographer, two unique images have been removed from my portfolio. Of these two locations I have ONLY ONE PHOTOGRAPH. How is this possible?
In other cases, the vertical version has been removed. It is not the same photo cropped. It is another image. Customers often like to buy two versions of the same location, the horizontal one is for the blog and the vertical one for social media such as Instagram or TikTok.
Your approach to similar images is completely wrong for me. I am a professional photographer, and you are not helping professionals.
-
Seems also be the case that also the rejection rate increased extremely because of the same matter: too similar content.
It's like I said last year that Adobe will have to steer the mass floods of AI images and delete / reject much content.
But tragic that's also happening to real photos.
-
Your lobster, clownfish and the 2 drone videos are still showing up in your portfolio, do you now agree that the ones that were removed were duplicates?
No given the other 40+ ive checked the last few days which only appeared once in total. Some very easy to confirm given there were only 5 or 6 shots in the series in total.
-
As part of our ongoing commitment to enhance the content discovery experience for both customers and contributors, we have identified and are removing duplicate files on Adobe Stock. You should have received an email regarding this update on February 27, 2025. All assets have been carefully evaluated to ensure minimal impact on your portfolio.
The rejections are not with just reason of duplicate. I see many more rejections with some unrelated reason.
And "All assets have been carefully evaluated"... who evalutated them?
-
As part of our ongoing commitment to enhance the content discovery experience for both customers and contributors, we have identified and are removing duplicate files on Adobe Stock. You should have received an email regarding this update on February 27, 2025. All assets have been carefully evaluated to ensure minimal impact on your portfolio.
Sorry, but beware that mistreatment and subtle lies aren't the only certainty your company now inspires.
Your company uses ineffective and faulty artificial management tools, and you must know it. Your company humiliates the professional photographers who made Adobe's fortune.
Oh yeah, your employer is cleaning up the image database because of duplicates? Image database consisting of over 45% declared AI images, now!!! surely about 50% in facts if including fake photos undeclared...
Then follow this link: https://stock.adobe.com/fr/search?order=relevance&serie_id=485406634&order=relevance&serie_id=485406634
Is this contributor (Burst mode master then AI flooder master) one of your company's friends?
Otherwise, developing intelligent tools to defend violated intellectual property on the Adobe platform, tackling the bandits who steal and resell photos on the site, is a waste of your company's time, isn't it? Your employer has nothing to gain from this, and it's okay for them to be a receiver... and they punish historically honest creators. Your company knows that it's highly unlikely that honest contributors will have any legal recourse... But well, sure, it happens in all the microstock companies. But you could emerge from them, since, you are Adobe.
I am lucky that only twelve of my images were removed this far (portfolio of 7400 images). I was, however, annoyed that one of the removed images was one of my all-time bestsellers. I searched for this image on the main Adobe page and found it still online, but not under my name. It was stolen by “Designpics” and here is the image:
https://stock.adobe.com/za/images/greyhounds-at-full-speed-during-a-race/609179796 (https://stock.adobe.com/za/images/greyhounds-at-full-speed-during-a-race/609179796)
I looked through this portfolio of 100 pages and found many more of my images. Obviously a portfolio of stolen images. Those of you searching for removed images and find them still online, make sure they are under your name and not stolen.
Trust must be restored by Adobe, it's urgent! But as long as things remain as they are, I advise experienced photographers to stop sending their "best of the best" selection to Adobe, given the pathetic and intolerable rejections that are now the norm. At the very least, send them the crappy snapshoots, and they'll be accepted.
I am a landscape and travel professional photographer, two unique images have been removed from my portfolio. Of these two locations I have ONLY ONE PHOTOGRAPH. How is this possible?
In other cases, the vertical version has been removed. It is not the same photo cropped. It is another image. Customers often like to buy two versions of the same location, the horizontal one is for the blog and the vertical one for social media such as Instagram or TikTok.
Your approach to similar images is completely wrong for me. I am a professional photographer, and you are not helping professionals.
Well done, good strategy! redeem for bonus codes will be plummeting next year... good savings for Adobe, more profit...
Hope Adobe will not convert sales into Vietnamese Dong (1 VND = 0,04 USD), could be a nice idea for the future of the Adobe company.
Converting euro sales (money received by Adobe from Euro zone) into dollar (for Euro zone contributors) was an intelligent decision for financial of Adobe, right?
Maybe we should advice customer orientation towards respectful microstock companies, there is/are.
-
I am lucky that only twelve of my images removed thus far (portfolio of 7400 images). I was, however, annoyed that one of the removed images was one of my all-time bestsellers. I searched for this image on the main Adobe page and find it still online, but not under my name.
It was stolen by “Designpics” and here is the image:
https://stock.adobe.com/za/images/greyhounds-at-full-speed-during-a-race/609179796 (https://stock.adobe.com/za/images/greyhounds-at-full-speed-during-a-race/609179796)
I looked through this portfolio of 100 pages and find many more of my images. Obviously a portfolio of stolen images. Those of you searching for removed images and find them still online, make sure they are under your name and not stolen.
I haven't found any of mine or my husband's yet, but I can believe the stolen accusation. That's a LOT of variety of images and styles for one person. Oh, and yeah, the duplicate culling? It's not working that well...
-
I am lucky that only twelve of my images removed thus far (portfolio of 7400 images). I was, however, annoyed that one of the removed images was one of my all-time bestsellers. I searched for this image on the main Adobe page and find it still online, but not under my name.
It was stolen by “Designpics” and here is the image:
https://stock.adobe.com/za/images/greyhounds-at-full-speed-during-a-race/609179796 (https://stock.adobe.com/za/images/greyhounds-at-full-speed-during-a-race/609179796)
I looked through this portfolio of 100 pages and find many more of my images. Obviously a portfolio of stolen images. Those of you searching for removed images and find them still online, make sure they are under your name and not stolen.
You can't compete. He is a "premium" user, and his duplicates don't suffer from the new algorithm treatment.
https://stock.adobe.com/za/search?creator_id=206467774&search_page=91
Edit: In just a few clicks, I also found stolen photos from my collection. >:( >:( >:(
So... Adobe deletes the original photos of the authors, and preserves the copies sent by the thieves, it's disgusting!
Description and keywords have been changed by the thief.
Programming an algorithm to detect fraudulent uploads of existing photos would be possible to do. Why doesn't Adobe do this?????? Adobe likes thieves, not photographers???
(Those are not my pictures in the screenshot, just to show duplicates and that he has a premium account)
-
I am lucky that only twelve of my images removed thus far (portfolio of 7400 images). I was, however, annoyed that one of the removed images was one of my all-time bestsellers. I searched for this image on the main Adobe page and find it still online, but not under my name.
It was stolen by “Designpics” and here is the image:
https://stock.adobe.com/za/images/greyhounds-at-full-speed-during-a-race/609179796 (https://stock.adobe.com/za/images/greyhounds-at-full-speed-during-a-race/609179796)
I looked through this portfolio of 100 pages and find many more of my images. Obviously a portfolio of stolen images. Those of you searching for removed images and find them still online, make sure they are under your name and not stolen.
You can't compete. He is a "premium" user, and his duplicates don't suffer from the new algorithm treatment.
https://stock.adobe.com/za/search?creator_id=206467774&search_page=91
Edit: In just a few clicks, I also found stolen photos from my collection. >:( >:( >:(
So... Adobe deletes the original photos of the authors, and preserves the copies sent by the thieves, it's disgusting!
Description and keywords have been changed by the thief.
Programming an algorithm to detect fraudulent uploads of existing photos would be possible to do. Why doesn't Adobe do this?????? Adobe likes thieves, not photographers???
(Those are not my pictures in the screenshot, just to show duplicates and that he has a premium account)
That's about an obvious a stolen account portfolio as you'll ever see. The variety, the dodgy descriptions in bad English etc.
A very very quick search on one of my areas yielded at least 4 of my images on the first 3 pages.
-
That's about an obvious a stolen account portfolio as you'll ever see. The variety, the dodgy descriptions in bad English etc.
A very very quick search on one of my areas yielded at least 4 of my images on the first 3 pages.
Adobe makes money selling stolen photos (of course, the original author is never compensated), so isn't the company aren't the companies complicit if there's no anticipatory action taken from their part against this phenomenon?
-
That's about an obvious a stolen account portfolio as you'll ever see. The variety, the dodgy descriptions in bad English etc.
A very very quick search on one of my areas yielded at least 4 of my images on the first 3 pages.
Adobe makes money selling stolen photos (of course, the original author is never compensated), so isn't the company aren't the companies complicit if there's no anticipatory action taken from their part against this phenomenon?
Seems that Adobe is becoming the new Shitterstock. What a shame.
Just try to squeeze the last $$$ before the collapse.
-
As part of our ongoing commitment to enhance the content discovery experience for both customers and contributors, we have identified and are removing duplicate files on Adobe Stock. You should have received an email regarding this update on February 27, 2025. All assets have been carefully evaluated to ensure minimal impact on your portfolio.
"Duplicates" - I don't think so. Adobe weeds them out in the review process anyway. Plus, submitting is so tedious that there's no point to offer any duplicates.
The least Adobe could do is to list the removed images properly. Now we have no idea what exactly has been removed.
Looking at the couple of removed images (have only seen 2) I'm wondering if Adobe is possibly getting ready to offer illustrative editorial images as material for AI?? Those removed images MAYBE show recognizable incidental people at 200-300% (but hardly so at 100%).
-
The least Adobe could do is to list the removed images properly. Now we have no idea what exactly has been removed.
Looking at the couple of removed images (have only seen 2) I'm wondering if Adobe is possibly getting ready to offer illustrative editorial images as material for AI?? Those removed images MAYBE show recognizable incidental people at 200-300% (but hardly so at 100%).
Not with mine, random marine life and drone shots of uninhabited jungle etc.
-
Adobe Stock is totally useless.
They have to work without me in future.
They removed the second time about 1000 clips and said it`s AI. But it`s not.
I don`t know what problems they have but for me it`s totally useless now.
I`m in stock market for about 20 years with a high income so i know when it`s time to end busniess with a platform.
-
I had a few rejected for "AI". They're not. I loathe text prompt spam crap. I've never used it.
Oddly they're in sequences of other images that were accepted. That has to be automatic algorithm flagging. Any human would see if the other 15 or so in the series weren't AI then the middle one wasn't.
-
After almost 20 years of uploading to Fotolia, then Adobe, I'm stopping uploading my work to that company. Being insulted like this has its limits.
-
Yes like i said.
They are digging their own grave. I think a lot of people will end work with them.
-
It is really a shame that with all the IA and the easy way to see that such a portfolio is 99% stolen Adobe or SS let this happen. They are very vigilant to a few duplicates, but people steal other images and upload it in the thousands and Adobe does nothing. Discouraging
I am lucky that only twelve of my images removed thus far (portfolio of 7400 images). I was, however, annoyed that one of the removed images was one of my all-time bestsellers. I searched for this image on the main Adobe page and find it still online, but not under my name.
It was stolen by “Designpics” and here is the image:
https://stock.adobe.com/za/images/greyhounds-at-full-speed-during-a-race/609179796 (https://stock.adobe.com/za/images/greyhounds-at-full-speed-during-a-race/609179796)
I looked through this portfolio of 100 pages and find many more of my images. Obviously a portfolio of stolen images. Those of you searching for removed images and find them still online, make sure they are under your name and not stolen.
-
As part of our ongoing commitment to enhance the content discovery experience for both customers and contributors, we have identified and are removing duplicate files on Adobe Stock. You should have received an email regarding this update on February 27, 2025. All assets have been carefully evaluated to ensure minimal impact on your portfolio.
The number in the email is 10% of what was actually removed. The strangest thing is the ones that were accepted, say, 14 days ago, but then subsequently rejected every day. So strange. But sales are so down compared to 2023 anyway, it almost doesn't matter.
-
I don't think contributors will abandon Adobe,simply because Adobe is the best agency,where else do you want to go? :D
Unless you are exclusive to some exclusive agency,there are no better agencies than Adobe out there.
and I say this even though I'm a low-earner,but that's another story,that's my fault.
sure,I could earn more,but we must also consider that we are many,many Adobe Stock contributors.
There are problems?yes there are,but that doesn't mean they can't be solved,and I'm more than sure that they will be solved,just as I'm more than sure that there will be more problems,that's life!
at the moment there are still rejections for similar,but simply because at the moment things work differently than they will in the future,as new ways to manage the library will be found,and it will no longer be necessary to reject for similar,but more than anything for aesthetic or commercial quality of the content.
Let's try not to forget that it's always easy to criticize,and that we contributors don't have the whole picture,while the Adobe Stock team has a broader vision of everything,and that it's not easy to manage the enraged herd of contributors thirsty for sales! :D
In the meantime,I'm working hard in a completely new direction,my goal is to improve and modernize my portfolio.
I'm also a bit stressed by the long review times,also because I'm experimenting with a new production,and I would clearly like to move faster,at a time when unfortunately moving quickly is difficult.
I have to keep believing,I can't afford to give up.
we can do it Adobe!
keep it up!
-
I don't think contributors will abandon Adobe,simply because Adobe is the best agency,where else do you want to go? :D
Unless you are exclusive to some exclusive agency,there are no better agencies than Adobe out there.
and I say this even though I'm a low-earner,but that's another story,that's my fault.
sure,I could earn more,but we must also consider that we are many,many Adobe Stock contributors.
There are problems?yes there are,but that doesn't mean they can't be solved,and I'm more than sure that they will be solved,just as I'm more than sure that there will be more problems,that's life!
at the moment there are still rejections for similar,but simply because at the moment things work differently than they will in the future,as new ways to manage the library will be found,and it will no longer be necessary to reject for similar,but more than anything for aesthetic or commercial quality of the content.
Let's try not to forget that it's always easy to criticize,and that we contributors don't have the whole picture,while the Adobe Stock team has a broader vision of everything,and that it's not easy to manage the enraged herd of contributors thirsty for sales! :D
In the meantime,I'm working hard in a completely new direction,my goal is to improve and modernize my portfolio.
I'm also a bit stressed by the long review times,also because I'm experimenting with a new production,and I would clearly like to move faster,at a time when unfortunately moving quickly is difficult.
I have to keep believing,I can't afford to give up.
we can do it Adobe!
keep it up!
Honestly, I think a lot of people do this on the side as a part-time gig because only a tiny fraction of top earners can actually make a living from it.
If Adobe pushes it's luck further, a lot of good contributors will like me just tell Adobe to fu*k off and find something else to make money from.
If you're not getting a decent return on your investment after a while or you get too many obstacles thrown in your way, you just quit. Simple as that.
-
as far as I'm concerned, even a part-time salary is fine with me,I never thought I would get rich and famous with microstock.
However,i think that this is just a transitional moment,and that in the near future more effective and faster ways will be found to solve all the problems we know,like copycats,slow reviews,rejections for similar content already in the library,thieves...
This is still an early stage of a radical event that began only 2-3 years ago.
then we must also consider that the future of microstock and of us contributors depends not only on how events on Adobe Stock develop,but there are many more things at stake in a broader vision.
to put it simply,in the absurd event that Adobe Stock stops accepting content,this will impact a whole host of businesses outside of Adobe,so it can't happen,just as it can't happen that 90% of the contents are rejected,because it would be the same, just as it can't happen that thieves and copycats continue to do as they want.
The problems are there,and they are known,and Adobe has always moved in the right direction, so I don't see why it shouldn't continue to do so.
this is just a transitional moment,the prehistory of modern microstock,things will be different and better in the future,with new tools available,to resolve any potential problems.
It's an inevitable consequence,there's a lot of money and a lot of business at stake,it can't be otherwise.
There are problems,but there is also the will to solve them,otherwise they wouldn't have bothered to clean up the library,or they wouldn't have bothered to impose the new rule of only one account unless absolutely necessary,otherwise they would have already lowered the royalties,otherwise the contributor bonus would not be given,otherwise they would never have accepted the AI contents... otherwise many things!
It's a difficult time,but it will pass,there are no alternatives,then anyway it's certainly not easy to manage all this,as I said it's easy to criticize,but the situation is very complex,keep up with the times and at the same time try to please everyone,it's difficult.
then as far as I'm concerned,the future of this work for me,depends on the development that will take place in the near future.