Author Topic: Mark as Illustrative Editorial? (Read 3246 times)

Contemporary Dave · « **on:** April 08, 2022, 12:30 »

I've just reached my 100th DL on Adobe, which means that I can at last start submitting illustrative editorial work.

I have quite a lot of images of houses, which sell quite well on other stock sites. I submit them as editorial there, as I don't have any property releases. See sample pic below. To date, I haven't bothered uploading them to Adobe, as I would assume they would reject them for 'intellectual property' reasons (which they have done on similar shots). Am I right in assuming that these type of shots would be classed as 'illustrative editorial'?

.

wds · « **Reply #1 on:** April 08, 2022, 12:38 »

I believe so, you can always try it and see. As I understand it, the only Editorial they won't accept are photos with people in them.....unfortunately.

kevinbrine · « **Reply #2 on:** April 08, 2022, 13:53 »

Excellent image.

zeljkok · « **Reply #3 on:** April 08, 2022, 14:13 »

Actually my experience is they don't accept residential houses as "illustrative editorial". Public landmark architecture is ok, but private property not

This one ok

This one not ok ("Unfortunately, during our review we found that this file does not meet the Adobe Stock’s Illustrative Editorial Guidelines")

ravens · « **Reply #4 on:** April 09, 2022, 02:05 »

The sample photo is very nice.
These houses look generic; so much so, that even the owner can't surely tell, "hey, that's my house". For that reason, I'd go ahead and submit it as commercial provided that here are no people, names or other personal, identifiable elements in the photo. (You can always clone them out.)
I don't think they will accept it illustrative editorial just because these seem to be generic houses.

Firn · « **Reply #5 on:** April 09, 2022, 02:32 »

Quote from: wds on April 08, 2022, 12:38

I believe so, you can always try it and see. As I understand it, the only Editorial they won't accept are photos with people in them.....unfortunately.

I keep hearing this, but my experience is a very different one: I can hardly get any editorial images accepted on Adobe at all. The only ones that always go through are the strict illustrative editorial ones, whith a product placed on a white background for example. As for everything else, like street shots, fabric buildings (without any people!) I always get the the image is against the " Illustrative Editorial Guidelines" rejection.

I could never figure out why this seems to work for other people on Adobe, but not for me.

wds · « **Reply #6 on:** April 09, 2022, 08:30 »

Quote from: Firn on April 09, 2022, 02:32

Quote from: wds on April 08, 2022, 12:38
I believe so, you can always try it and see. As I understand it, the only Editorial they won't accept are photos with people in them.....unfortunately.

I keep hearing this, but my experience is a very different one: I can hardly get any editorial images accepted on Adobe at all. The only ones that always go through are the strict illustrative editorial ones, whith a product placed on a white background for example. As for everything else, like street shots, fabric buildings (without any people!) I always get the the image is against the " Illustrative Editorial Guidelines" rejection. I could never figure out why this seems to work for other people on Adobe, but not for me.

Maybe Matt can weigh in on this one?

Firn · « **Reply #7 on:** April 09, 2022, 08:52 »

Quote from: wds on April 09, 2022, 08:30

Quote from: Firn on April 09, 2022, 02:32
Quote from: wds on April 08, 2022, 12:38
I believe so, you can always try it and see. As I understand it, the only Editorial they won't accept are photos with people in them.....unfortunately.

I keep hearing this, but my experience is a very different one: I can hardly get any editorial images accepted on Adobe at all. The only ones that always go through are the strict illustrative editorial ones, whith a product placed on a white background for example. As for everything else, like street shots, fabric buildings (without any people!) I always get the the image is against the " Illustrative Editorial Guidelines" rejection. I could never figure out why this seems to work for other people on Adobe, but not for me.

Maybe Matt can weigh in on this one?

Maybe he can. I don't know.

Luckily I don't really do many editorial photos in general, so it isn't that much of a big deal to me. They are just a tiny fraction of my port. It just always puzzles me when people here say that Adobe basically accepted everything as editorial as long as there are no people in the photos. For me, unless it's a product photo, my editorial photos get rejected more often than accepted and I can't even figure out a pattern.
Randomly rejected photos:

Reimar · « **Reply #8 on:** April 09, 2022, 10:19 »

Luckily I don't really do many editorial photos in general, so it isn't that much of a big deal to me. They are just a tiny fraction of my port. It just always puzzles me when people here say that Adobe basically accepted everything as editorial as long as there are no people in the photos. For me, unless it's a product photo, my editorial photos get rejected more often than accepted and I can't even figure out a pattern.

The thing is that a " Illustrative Editorial Guidelines" rejection could be for a number or reasons. For example, maybe they didn't like your annotation. A colon out of place for example.

alan b traehern · « **Reply #9 on:** April 09, 2022, 11:14 »

Quote from: Reimar on April 09, 2022, 10:19

Luckily I don't really do many editorial photos in general, so it isn't that much of a big deal to me. They are just a tiny fraction of my port. It just always puzzles me when people here say that Adobe basically accepted everything as editorial as long as there are no people in the photos. For me, unless it's a product photo, my editorial photos get rejected more often than accepted and I can't even figure out a pattern.

The thing is that a " Illustrative Editorial Guidelines" rejection could be for a number or reasons. For example, maybe they didn't like your annotation. A colon out of place for example.

Vague rejections are the way of AS. Maybe Mat can help?

noelbennett235 · « **Reply #10 on:** April 09, 2022, 14:56 »

I only upload images of birds/bees/flowers to Adobe. I have no idea what constitutes editorial there. It is hardly beyond them to clarify what they consider editorial to be.

TonyD · « **Reply #11 on:** April 09, 2022, 19:51 »

Quote from: Firn on April 09, 2022, 08:52

Quote from: wds on April 09, 2022, 08:30
Quote from: Firn on April 09, 2022, 02:32
Quote from: wds on April 08, 2022, 12:38
I believe so, you can always try it and see. As I understand it, the only Editorial they won't accept are photos with people in them.....unfortunately.

I keep hearing this, but my experience is a very different one: I can hardly get any editorial images accepted on Adobe at all. The only ones that always go through are the strict illustrative editorial ones, whith a product placed on a white background for example. As for everything else, like street shots, fabric buildings (without any people!) I always get the the image is against the " Illustrative Editorial Guidelines" rejection. I could never figure out why this seems to work for other people on Adobe, but not for me.

Maybe Matt can weigh in on this one?

Maybe he can. I don't know.

Luckily I don't really do many editorial photos in general, so it isn't that much of a big deal to me. They are just a tiny fraction of my port. It just always puzzles me when people here say that Adobe basically accepted everything as editorial as long as there are no people in the photos. For me, unless it's a product photo, my editorial photos get rejected more often than accepted and I can't even figure out a pattern.
Randomly rejected photos:

I think Mat said on another thread that some photos submitted as editorial get rejected if adobe thinks it qualifies as commercial so some of your nice colorful photos here will be accepted as commercial certainly if they're public buildings. I submit building & even street photos & as long as some things are cloned out, they are accepted. I don't yet qualify for editorial.

Annie · « **Reply #12 on:** April 09, 2022, 20:21 »

Quote from: Firn on April 09, 2022, 08:52

Quote from: wds on April 09, 2022, 08:30
Quote from: Firn on April 09, 2022, 02:32
Quote from: wds on April 08, 2022, 12:38
I believe so, you can always try it and see. As I understand it, the only Editorial they won't accept are photos with people in them.....unfortunately.

I keep hearing this, but my experience is a very different one: I can hardly get any editorial images accepted on Adobe at all. The only ones that always go through are the strict illustrative editorial ones, whith a product placed on a white background for example. As for everything else, like street shots, fabric buildings (without any people!) I always get the the image is against the " Illustrative Editorial Guidelines" rejection. I could never figure out why this seems to work for other people on Adobe, but not for me.

Maybe Matt can weigh in on this one?

Maybe he can. I don't know.

Luckily I don't really do many editorial photos in general, so it isn't that much of a big deal to me. They are just a tiny fraction of my port. It just always puzzles me when people here say that Adobe basically accepted everything as editorial as long as there are no people in the photos. For me, unless it's a product photo, my editorial photos get rejected more often than accepted and I can't even figure out a pattern.
Randomly rejected photos:

Firn, if its of any help, I go by the definitions stated by Shutterstock. That usually works for me:

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/submitting-editorial-content-part-1-illustrative-editorial

"Shutterstock accepts two types of photographic editorial content: documentary and illustrative. Documentary editorial is content that accurately captures an event, situation, or location at a specific moment in time, such as a protest, parade, red carpet event, landmark, political event, concert, etc.

Illustrative editorial on the other hand, illustrates a subject of human interest through staging. Illustrative editorial content can be creative and/or conceptual, but the content must clearly convey a strong idea or concept that illustrates news, current events, or a subject of human interest. For example, the image below does not document an event, but instead features a product next to an individual on a laptop that can be used to illustrate an article about coffee, Starbucks, or working from home."

In other words, if its a location or landmark, then it is Documentary - not Illustrative - Editorial.

Firn · « **Reply #13 on:** April 10, 2022, 00:32 »

Quote from: Annie on April 09, 2022, 20:21

Quote from: Firn on April 09, 2022, 08:52
Quote from: wds on April 09, 2022, 08:30
Quote from: Firn on April 09, 2022, 02:32
Quote from: wds on April 08, 2022, 12:38
I believe so, you can always try it and see. As I understand it, the only Editorial they won't accept are photos with people in them.....unfortunately.

I keep hearing this, but my experience is a very different one: I can hardly get any editorial images accepted on Adobe at all. The only ones that always go through are the strict illustrative editorial ones, whith a product placed on a white background for example. As for everything else, like street shots, fabric buildings (without any people!) I always get the the image is against the " Illustrative Editorial Guidelines" rejection. I could never figure out why this seems to work for other people on Adobe, but not for me.

Maybe Matt can weigh in on this one?

Maybe he can. I don't know.

Luckily I don't really do many editorial photos in general, so it isn't that much of a big deal to me. They are just a tiny fraction of my port. It just always puzzles me when people here say that Adobe basically accepted everything as editorial as long as there are no people in the photos. For me, unless it's a product photo, my editorial photos get rejected more often than accepted and I can't even figure out a pattern.
Randomly rejected photos:

Firn, if its of any help, I go by the definitions stated by Shutterstock. That usually works for me:

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/submitting-editorial-content-part-1-illustrative-editorial

"Shutterstock accepts two types of photographic editorial content: documentary and illustrative. Documentary editorial is content that accurately captures an event, situation, or location at a specific moment in time, such as a protest, parade, red carpet event, landmark, political event, concert, etc.

Illustrative editorial on the other hand, illustrates a subject of human interest through staging. Illustrative editorial content can be creative and/or conceptual, but the content must clearly convey a strong idea or concept that illustrates news, current events, or a subject of human interest. For example, the image below does not document an event, but instead features a product next to an individual on a laptop that can be used to illustrate an article about coffee, Starbucks, or working from home."

In other words, if its a location or landmark, then it is Documentary - not Illustrative - Editorial.

Thank you Annie, I know these guidelines and I think that I understand what "illustrative editorial" is pretty well - That's also why, I think, all my editorial product shots get accepted. They are, by definition, "illustrative editorials". It's just that everyone keeps saying that they get all editorial content accepted by Adobe as long as there are no people in it and that's not how it works for me at all. For me Adobe only seems to accept what is strictly "illustrative editorial", not "all editorial without people". So that's the part that confuses me. The rules don't seem to be the same for everyone?

Firn · « **Reply #14 on:** April 10, 2022, 00:39 »

Quote from: TonyD on April 09, 2022, 19:51

Quote from: Firn on April 09, 2022, 08:52
Quote from: wds on April 09, 2022, 08:30
Quote from: Firn on April 09, 2022, 02:32
Quote from: wds on April 08, 2022, 12:38
I believe so, you can always try it and see. As I understand it, the only Editorial they won't accept are photos with people in them.....unfortunately.

I keep hearing this, but my experience is a very different one: I can hardly get any editorial images accepted on Adobe at all. The only ones that always go through are the strict illustrative editorial ones, whith a product placed on a white background for example. As for everything else, like street shots, fabric buildings (without any people!) I always get the the image is against the " Illustrative Editorial Guidelines" rejection. I could never figure out why this seems to work for other people on Adobe, but not for me.

Maybe Matt can weigh in on this one?

Maybe he can. I don't know.

Luckily I don't really do many editorial photos in general, so it isn't that much of a big deal to me. They are just a tiny fraction of my port. It just always puzzles me when people here say that Adobe basically accepted everything as editorial as long as there are no people in the photos. For me, unless it's a product photo, my editorial photos get rejected more often than accepted and I can't even figure out a pattern.
Randomly rejected photos:
I think Mat said on another thread that some photos submitted as editorial get rejected if adobe thinks it qualifies as commercial so some of your nice colorful photos here will be accepted as commercial certainly if they're public buildings. I submit building & even street photos & as long as some things are cloned out, they are accepted. I don't yet qualify for editorial.

Yes, I have noticed that too - sometimes I try to resubmit the rejected editorials as commercial and sometimes they go through, like the church from my example. It would not have been accepted as commercial on Shutterstock, because it contains artwork like sculptures and murals. In this case I felt safe enough to submit it as commercial as it's a historic building and I doubt there is any artist to sue me over it. But there are other cases like for example the BASF factory buildings. One of the buildings there clearly has the BASF logo on it so I don't feel like it's right to submit it as commercial or that Adobe should accept it as such. But they also don't accept it as editorial.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #15 on:** April 10, 2022, 12:00 »

I don't know if this will be helpful or is something everyone already knows.

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/illustrative-editorial-content.html

For illustrative editorial, we don’t accept:

Images that feature recognizable people
Images of restricted events such as conventions and sports games
Images that feature tight crops of copyrighted or trademarked material, such as stamps, fine art, or other content that may violate privacy rights
Digitally created or manipulated versions of trademarked logos or other brand content — other than social media icons

At Adobe Stock, we define illustrative editorial as conceptual imagery designed to illustrate articles on current events and newsworthy topics. This type of content often features images of real brands and products — like signs on buildings, soda cans, computers, and cars — to convey a story. Illustrative editorial content is made available to Adobe Stock customers for editorial use only.

Yes if you submit an image as Illustrative Editorial it could be rejected, because it's allowed as Commercial. The rejection should clearly say that? But I don't know that they do?

Firn · « **Reply #16 on:** April 10, 2022, 12:27 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 10, 2022, 12:00

I don't know if this will be helpful or is something everyone already knows.

For illustrative editorial, we don’t accept:

Images that feature recognizable people
Images of restricted events such as conventions and sports games
Images that feature tight crops of copyrighted or trademarked material, such as stamps, fine art, or other content that may violate privacy rights
Digitally created or manipulated versions of trademarked logos or other brand content — other than social media icons
[/img]

Thanks, but I am afraid at least in my case it's not helpful. None of the images I tried submitting as editorial that were rejected contained anything from this list. They were usually just shots of streets, buildings, factories, etc. that contained some small trademarks somewhere in the photo.

zeljkok · « **Reply #17 on:** April 10, 2022, 14:17 »

Quote from: Firn on April 10, 2022, 12:27

They were usually just shots of streets, buildings, factories, etc. that contained some small trademarks somewhere in the photo.

and this is in my experience exactly what they reject as editorial. As example, this is shot I really like & think could sell well, but was rejected:

I will say though, criteria is not quite clear (or maybe I am just dumb). For instance this was accepted as "illustrative editorial" (maybe because there is Adobe word in it

)

If the photo is really good, i.e. has sales potential, I'd suggest simply try cutting out "small trademark" in Photoshop, then submitting as RF. As far as people go, they are quite lenient what is "recognizable" (opposite to IS that consider silhouette of person 1km away as recognizable).

Firn · « **Reply #18 on:** April 10, 2022, 14:21 »

Quote from: zeljkok on April 10, 2022, 14:17

Quote from: Firn on April 10, 2022, 12:27
They were usually just shots of streets, buildings, factories, etc. that contained some small trademarks somewhere in the photo.

and this is in my experience exactly what they reject as editorial. As example, this is shot I really like & think could sell well, but was rejected:

At least there is one person who shares my experience of adobe not "accepting anything as long as there aren't people in it" then and I am not just completely insane.

Contemporary Dave · « **Reply #19 on:** April 11, 2022, 03:40 »

UPDATE.

So, I submitted the above image as illustrative editorial... and it got rejected because it did not meet their IE guidelines. Funny that, because that photo has been used dozens of times to illustrate news stories/articles on the current state of the property and construction markets etc...

Ho hum...

Reimar · « **Reply #20 on:** April 11, 2022, 10:24 »

Quote from: Contemporary Dave on April 11, 2022, 03:40

UPDATE.

So, I submitted the above image as illustrative editorial... and it got rejected because it did not meet their IE guidelines. Funny that, because that photo has been used dozens of times to illustrate news stories/articles on the current state of the property and construction markets etc...

Ho hum...

OK, now try to submit the houses as regular commercial.

RalfLiebhold · « **Reply #21 on:** April 11, 2022, 10:33 »

Quote from: Firn on April 10, 2022, 14:21

At least there is one person who shares my experience of adobe not "accepting anything as long as there aren't people in it" then and I am not just completely insane.
[/quote]

No Firn, you are not insane and not alone.

I'm just trying to get through a series of these city shots. No chance. Rejected as commercial because of property in the image and not as editorial either because it doesn't meet their definition.

With cityscapes I have the feeling that you have a better chance when modern architecture is involved.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #22 on:** April 11, 2022, 10:48 »

Quote from: zeljkok on April 10, 2022, 14:17

and this is in my experience exactly what they reject as editorial. As example, this is shot I really like & think could sell well, but was rejected:

As far as people go, they are quite lenient what is "recognizable" (opposite to IS that consider silhouette of person 1km away as recognizable).

Why was this example rejected? Or is it one of those, no one knows for sure. I can't see from the small image. Are there some logos or trademarks or any guess why? Something like "Historic buildings in the western village at Fort Zion, a tourist attraction in Virgin, Utah"

Quote from: Firn on April 10, 2022, 14:21

At least there is one person who shares my experience of adobe not "accepting anything as long as there aren't people in it" then and I am not just completely insane.

Aren't we all crazy just for working Microstock?

I don't know who says "accepting anything as long as there aren't people in it", the link and the advise from Adobe doesn't say that at all. It's specific, they don't take Images that feature recognizable people and someone twisted that to mean something else that's not stated.

It does say ...current events and newsworthy topics. This type of content often features images of real brands and products — like signs on buildings, soda cans, computers, and cars — to convey a story.

It doesn't say, just taking photos of something and calling it Illustrative Editorial.

Firn · « **Reply #23 on:** April 11, 2022, 11:02 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 11, 2022, 10:48

I don't know who says "accepting anything as long as there aren't people in it",

There is at least one person in this thread:

Quote

the only Editorial they won't accept are photos with people in them

But I've seen this statement quite a few times before. Actually had this very same converstaion before. Might have been on the old SS forum though.

MatHayward · « **Reply #24 on:** April 11, 2022, 11:27 »

Uncle Pete says "It does say ...current events and newsworthy topics. This type of content often features images of real brands and products — like signs on buildings, soda cans, computers, and cars — to convey a story.
It doesn't say, just taking photos of something and calling it Illustrative Editorial."

In my opinion, Uncle Pete hit the nail on the head with this one. Just because you don't have the right to sell an image for commercial use, does not put it into the Illustrative Editorial category. There needs to be a purpose behind the image. The OP posted an image of what in my opinion, appear to be generic homes. Could they be approved for the commercial collection? Possibly. That's up to the moderation team reviewing the file. In my opinion, they homes are generic enough to be accepted for commercial use but that is irrelevant to this conversation. What specifically, would qualify those houses for illustrative editorial? Is there any significance, or mainstream relevance that a potential customer would want to purchase a license to use the image to illustrate their editorial article? Can you imagine someone buying a license to illustrate an article talking about those specific houses? Did something historic happen there? Does someone famous live there? Is it a poorly marked business of some kind? There needs to be a specific story here and I'm not seeing it. No branding, no significant landmark that I can identify. I hear from contributors all the time trying to find a way to submit non-illustrative, editorial content to Adobe Stock. It's not happening any time in the forseeable future so I would encourage you to focus on shooting branded items that specifically meet the Illustrative Editorial requirements.

Thank you,

Mat Hayward

P.S. Take the "Mat" out of the Batman logo and you've got an Illustrative Editorial asset ready to be submitted Uncle Pete.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Mark as Illustrative Editorial? (Read 3246 times)

Contemporary Dave

wds

kevinbrine

zeljkok

ravens

Firn

wds

Firn

Reimar

alan b traehern

noelbennett235

TonyD

Annie

Firn

Firn

Uncle Pete

Firn

zeljkok

Firn

Contemporary Dave

Reimar

RalfLiebhold

Uncle Pete

Firn

MatHayward

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors