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. ...

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"

Quote from: MPfoto71 on April 12, 2025, 08:37

Quote from: cobalt on April 12, 2025, 04:40

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

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?

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.

Quote from: gnirtS on April 12, 2025, 21:44

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).

Quote from: synthetick on April 12, 2025, 21:20

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.

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?



 

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 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.

Definitely isnt a "who".  No doubt this is an automatic script let loose with no human oversight with significant bugs working on undisclosed criteria.

So in total I got removed about 300 pictures It look like thet stopped removing at this moment, but for how long?