MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Mark as Illustrative Editorial?  (Read 4914 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 08, 2022, 12:30 »
0
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 »
0
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.

« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2022, 13:53 »
0
Excellent image.

zeljkok

  • Non Linear Existence
« Reply #3 on: April 08, 2022, 14:13 »
+1
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 Stocks Illustrative Editorial Guidelines")




« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2022, 02:05 »
0
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.




« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2022, 02:32 »
0
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 »
0
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?

« Reply #7 on: April 09, 2022, 08:52 »
+1
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:
« Last Edit: April 09, 2022, 11:56 by Firn »

« Reply #8 on: April 09, 2022, 10:19 »
+2

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.

« Reply #9 on: April 09, 2022, 11:14 »
0

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?

« Reply #10 on: April 09, 2022, 14:56 »
+1
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.

« Reply #11 on: April 09, 2022, 19:51 »
+1
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.

Milleflore

« Reply #12 on: April 09, 2022, 20:21 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2022, 20:26 by Annie »

« Reply #13 on: April 10, 2022, 00:32 »
0
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?
« Last Edit: April 10, 2022, 00:41 by Firn »

« Reply #14 on: April 10, 2022, 00:39 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2022, 01:21 by Firn »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #15 on: April 10, 2022, 12:00 »
0
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 dont 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?



« Reply #16 on: April 10, 2022, 12:27 »
0
I don't know if this will be helpful or is something everyone already knows.

For illustrative editorial, we dont 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.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2022, 13:50 by Firn »

zeljkok

  • Non Linear Existence
« Reply #17 on: April 10, 2022, 14:17 »
0
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   ;D)


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).

« Reply #18 on: April 10, 2022, 14:21 »
+1
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.

« Reply #19 on: April 11, 2022, 03:40 »
0
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...

« Reply #20 on: April 11, 2022, 10:24 »
0
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.

« Reply #21 on: April 11, 2022, 10:33 »
0


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

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #22 on: April 11, 2022, 10:48 »
0

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"


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.

« Last Edit: April 11, 2022, 10:55 by Uncle Pete »

« Reply #23 on: April 11, 2022, 11:02 »
0


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.

« Reply #24 on: April 11, 2022, 11:27 »
+1
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.

« Reply #25 on: April 11, 2022, 11:44 »
0
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.

Thank you Mat, that you have once again given an explanation here.

A little frustrating for us are the borderline cases. The colorful houses above in my example are landmarks of one of the island Murano near Venice, so they meet the Illustrative Editorial requirements in my opinon. But they were rejected.

zeljkok

  • Non Linear Existence
« Reply #26 on: April 11, 2022, 13:26 »
0
...

Thank you for great explanation as always Mat
Can I please ask you to elaborate on this one though.   This was rejected:


There are no logos/brands, but it is private property - replica of old west frontier town in Virgin, USA at doorstep of Zion National Park.  It can be newsworthy - travel industry, cultural heritage, etc

On the other had, this was accepted (and has several downloads, thank you very much):


Plaza De Las Artes in San Jose, Costarica.  Conceptually I don't see any difference between these 2 images;  which illustrative editorial aspect Costarica photo has that Zion doesn't?

I am not trying to push Zion image through - I'd simply like to learn something in order not to waste time of your QA next time.  Thanks

« Reply #27 on: April 11, 2022, 13:48 »
0
Can you imagine someone buying a license to illustrate an article talking about those specific houses?

Yes, I can. I can actually think of countless editorial articles where such an image can be used and where an image of generic buildings is exactly what the author wants in opposite to a specific house and I have seen such images used in plenty news articles

Pretty much every news article that writes about house - selling prices raising/falling, no more room to build new houses, upgrading houses to be better isolated to be more energy efficient, new laws regarding houseowners and so on.

You want examples?

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-7533283/Governments-new-build-housing-targets-jeopardy-number-homes-starting-built-falls.html
https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/general/neighbours%E2%80%99-fears-about-affordable-housing-are-worse-any-impacts
https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/burton/homes-set-go-market-brand-4284671
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3127302/Too-small-no-character-poor-quality-fifth-prefer-buy-new-build-home.html
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/plans-submitted-first-phase-new-3124431


I would never upload any image where I would not see any potential use for a customer.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2022, 13:53 by Firn »

zeljkok

  • Non Linear Existence
« Reply #28 on: April 11, 2022, 14:08 »
0


I would never upload any image where I would not see any potential use for a customer.

Same here & I've been following this thread with great interest (see my post above with 2 image samples, one accepted one rejected)

I think the problem is grey area about what qualifies as illustrative editorial, as there is no clear cut answer & it is, at least to an extent, subject to interpretation.

« Reply #29 on: April 11, 2022, 15:02 »
0
Can you imagine someone buying a license to illustrate an article talking about those specific houses?

Yes, I can. I can actually think of countless editorial articles where such an image can be used and where an image of generic buildings is exactly what the author wants in opposite to a specific house and I have seen such images used in plenty news articles

Pretty much every news article that writes about house - selling prices raising/falling, no more room to build new houses, upgrading houses to be better isolated to be more energy efficient, new laws regarding houseowners and so on.

You want examples?

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-7533283/Governments-new-build-housing-targets-jeopardy-number-homes-starting-built-falls.html
https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/general/neighbours%E2%80%99-fears-about-affordable-housing-are-worse-any-impacts
https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/burton/homes-set-go-market-brand-4284671
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3127302/Too-small-no-character-poor-quality-fifth-prefer-buy-new-build-home.html
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/plans-submitted-first-phase-new-3124431


I would never upload any image where I would not see any potential use for a customer.

There are more than 16 million hits with the keyword "house." These are not illustrative editorial images and there are no limitations preventing a customer from using an asset available for commercial use in an editorial manner. My question wasn't whether there could be an article written in which a generic house could appropriately illustrate it. My question was about what it was specific to those exact houses that would inspire editorial use about those particular houses?

https://stock.adobe.com/search?load_type=search&native_visual_search=&similar_content_id=&is_recent_search=&search_type=usertyped&k=house

« Reply #30 on: April 11, 2022, 15:04 »
0
...

Thank you for great explanation as always Mat
Can I please ask you to elaborate on this one though.   This was rejected:


There are no logos/brands, but it is private property - replica of old west frontier town in Virgin, USA at doorstep of Zion National Park.  It can be newsworthy - travel industry, cultural heritage, etc

On the other had, this was accepted (and has several downloads, thank you very much):


Plaza De Las Artes in San Jose, Costarica.  Conceptually I don't see any difference between these 2 images;  which illustrative editorial aspect Costarica photo has that Zion doesn't?

I am not trying to push Zion image through - I'd simply like to learn something in order not to waste time of your QA next time.  Thanks

What's the image number on the ghost town image? It looks to me like it may be appropriate for IEC. I'll be happy to take a look.

-Mat

« Reply #31 on: April 11, 2022, 15:25 »
0
My question wasn't whether there could be an article written in which a generic house could appropriately illustrate it. My question was about what it was specific to those exact houses that would inspire editorial use about those particular houses?


I am afraid I do not understand the question then. You could ask the same about every single image in Adobe's database.
I could ask the same about the 16 million hits with the keyword "house" you mentioned. What  is specific to those exact 16 million that would inspire editorial use about those particular houses any more than Contemporary Dave's house image? For an editorial piece a customer can use a commercial image just the same as an editorial one, so why not give him the choice?

I simply do not understand the choice and still don't understand why some images are rejected. The house issue, regardless of whether I don't understand why it can't be an editorial, could simply be solved by submitting it as commercial, but in my cases my rejected images can't.  I had images of, for example , a BASF factory building complex rejected. And now, if someone wants to write an article about BASF he would want a photo of a BASF factory with the BASF logo right there and not some generic factory. So, why aren't imges like this accepted as editorial? Isn't this specific enough?

zeljkok

  • Non Linear Existence
« Reply #32 on: April 11, 2022, 15:32 »
0

What's the image number on the ghost town image? It looks to me like it may be appropriate for IEC. I'll be happy to take a look.

-Mat

File ID: 492100473
Original name: virgin1.jpg

(Thanks a lot Mat.  Again, not about the photo, but rather about figuring what is exactly illustrative editorial by AS criteria)

« Reply #33 on: April 11, 2022, 16:08 »
0

What's the image number on the ghost town image? It looks to me like it may be appropriate for IEC. I'll be happy to take a look.

-Mat

File ID: 492100473
Original name: virgin1.jpg

(Thanks a lot Mat.  Again, not about the photo, but rather about figuring what is exactly illustrative editorial by AS criteria)

That file was rejected for lack of a property release. It seems you inadvertently missed clicking the "this is illustrative editorial" box and submitted the image for consideration in the commercial collection. Re-upload the file and submit it as IEC and I expect it will be approved.

Good luck,

Mat Hayward

zeljkok

  • Non Linear Existence
« Reply #34 on: April 11, 2022, 17:22 »
0

What's the image number on the ghost town image? It looks to me like it may be appropriate for IEC. I'll be happy to take a look.

-Mat

File ID: 492100473
Original name: virgin1.jpg

(Thanks a lot Mat.  Again, not about the photo, but rather about figuring what is exactly illustrative editorial by AS criteria)

That file was rejected for lack of a property release. It seems you inadvertently missed clicking the "this is illustrative editorial" box and submitted the image for consideration in the commercial collection. Re-upload the file and submit it as IEC and I expect it will be approved.

Good luck,

Mat Hayward

Mat - it was actually rejected 1st time as IEC
File ID: 491958046
Original name: virgin1.jpg

(I posted ID from 2nd RF rejection, not realizing these were 2 separate IDs)




« Reply #35 on: April 12, 2022, 07:45 »
0
And now, if someone wants to write an article about BASF he would want a photo of a BASF factory with the BASF logo right there and not some generic factory. So, why aren't imges like this accepted as editorial? Isn't this specific enough?

If I understood it correctly, you should have used something in the line of "BASF chemical verbund-site next to Rhine river in Ludwigshafen, Germany" as caption?

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #36 on: April 12, 2022, 09:46 »
0


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.

Not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that sometimes people use the logic, if it says one thing like, an image can't have people in it as the featured subject, then the opposite is true. NOT!   ;D Then they post on forums, over and over, until it becomes a factoid. It's still not true but then many more people, "because everyone else says so" say it must be true.

So yes you are correct: the assumption that Adobe will "accepting anything as long as there aren't people in it" is not true and never was.

The other people are wrong. You are =


« Reply #37 on: April 12, 2022, 13:10 »
+2

What's the image number on the ghost town image? It looks to me like it may be appropriate for IEC. I'll be happy to take a look.

-Mat

File ID: 492100473
Original name: virgin1.jpg

(Thanks a lot Mat.  Again, not about the photo, but rather about figuring what is exactly illustrative editorial by AS criteria)

That file was rejected for lack of a property release. It seems you inadvertently missed clicking the "this is illustrative editorial" box and submitted the image for consideration in the commercial collection. Re-upload the file and submit it as IEC and I expect it will be approved.

Good luck,

Mat Hayward

Mat - it was actually rejected 1st time as IEC
File ID: 491958046
Original name: virgin1.jpg

(I posted ID from 2nd RF rejection, not realizing these were 2 separate IDs)

Thanks for the updated image ID. That ghost town image is now online in the Illustrative Editorial collection. This particular shot is in a bit of a gray area as far as branding is concerned, but you captioned it well so it's live. Everyone should keep in mind that the Illustrative Editorial Collection is not simply a place to upload your for unreleased content that doesn't qualify for the commercial collection. Just because there aren't people in it, doesn't make it eligible for IEC. Every submission should have a strong branding element.

thanks,

Mat Hayward

« Reply #38 on: April 12, 2022, 13:55 »
+1
My question wasn't whether there could be an article written in which a generic house could appropriately illustrate it. My question was about what it was specific to those exact houses that would inspire editorial use about those particular houses?


I am afraid I do not understand the question then. You could ask the same about every single image in Adobe's database.
I could ask the same about the 16 million hits with the keyword "house" you mentioned. What  is specific to those exact 16 million that would inspire editorial use about those particular houses any more than Contemporary Dave's house image? For an editorial piece a customer can use a commercial image just the same as an editorial one, so why not give him the choice?

I simply do not understand the choice and still don't understand why some images are rejected. The house issue, regardless of whether I don't understand why it can't be an editorial, could simply be solved by submitting it as commercial, but in my cases my rejected images can't.  I had images of, for example , a BASF factory building complex rejected. And now, if someone wants to write an article about BASF he would want a photo of a BASF factory with the BASF logo right there and not some generic factory. So, why aren't imges like this accepted as editorial? Isn't this specific enough?

Every photo could illustrate something. Do you understand this? 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.

That's what Adobe says what they define IEC. Current events, newsworthy, conceptual, convey a story, not because you can't submit it as commercial.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2022, 13:58 by Stock4Me »

zeljkok

  • Non Linear Existence
« Reply #39 on: April 12, 2022, 14:18 »
+2

Thanks for the updated image ID. That ghost town image is now online in the Illustrative Editorial collection. This particular shot is in a bit of a gray area as far as branding is concerned, but you captioned it well so it's live. Everyone should keep in mind that the Illustrative Editorial Collection is not simply a place to upload your for unreleased content that doesn't qualify for the commercial collection. Just because there aren't people in it, doesn't make it eligible for IEC. Every submission should have a strong branding element.

thanks,

Mat Hayward

Thank you Mat; photo is online now indeed.  I am not blowing Adobe horn, but this is what separates you from others - being reasonable, and actually listening online.  Try something like this with Shutterstock AI rejections, good luck

I think I have now solid grasp on what constitutes Adobe IEC material & in general will  submit something from "gray area" only if I feel it has enough end customer potential.   Thanks again

« Reply #40 on: April 29, 2022, 06:08 »
0
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.


i understanding the branding part of Illustrative Editorial niche.  What i might need clarification is how far is the newsworthy part of interest.  Are pure news images, without identifiable people of interest?  Let's say a close up of  "End War in Ukraine" sign from a protest, or a car crash?

« Reply #41 on: April 29, 2022, 09:43 »
0
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.


i understanding the branding part of Illustrative Editorial niche.  What i might need clarification is how far is the newsworthy part of interest.  Are pure news images, without identifiable people of interest?  Let's say a close up of  "End War in Ukraine" sign from a protest, or a car crash?

No. Those examples are not representative of the intent of the Illustrative Editorial collection. If there is truly no recognizable people or property, they may be eligible for the commercial collection. Customers that download content from the commercial collection are allowed to use the assets for editorial purposes.

-Mat Hayward

« Reply #42 on: April 29, 2022, 12:37 »
0
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.


i understanding the branding part of Illustrative Editorial niche.  What i might need clarification is how far is the newsworthy part of interest.  Are pure news images, without identifiable people of interest?  Let's say a close up of  "End War in Ukraine" sign from a protest, or a car crash?

No. Those examples are not representative of the intent of the Illustrative Editorial collection. If there is truly no recognizable people or property, they may be eligible for the commercial collection. Customers that download content from the commercial collection are allowed to use the assets for editorial purposes.

-Mat Hayward

which is why i question using "newsworthy" in the definition.   These are all example of News worthy images. 

« Reply #43 on: April 29, 2022, 12:51 »
0
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.


i understanding the branding part of Illustrative Editorial niche.  What i might need clarification is how far is the newsworthy part of interest.  Are pure news images, without identifiable people of interest?  Let's say a close up of  "End War in Ukraine" sign from a protest, or a car crash?

No. Those examples are not representative of the intent of the Illustrative Editorial collection. If there is truly no recognizable people or property, they may be eligible for the commercial collection. Customers that download content from the commercial collection are allowed to use the assets for editorial purposes.

-Mat Hayward

which is why i question using "newsworthy" in the definition.   These are all example of News worthy images.

Yes, I understand. You are asking if we accept traditional editorial content. We do not.

-Mat Hayward

zeljkok

  • Non Linear Existence
« Reply #44 on: April 29, 2022, 14:32 »
0
Still want to point out there is grey area (or as Mat said earlier 'borderline').  For example, this is an image rejected couple of months ago -- world famous Hotel Del Coronado in San Diego, filming location of "Some Like It Hot" movie with Marilyn Monroe



However yesterday I had download of https://stock.adobe.com/ca/stock-photo/id/390299575, accepted as IE last year.  Same Hotel Del Coronado, this time with garden and sign. 


As general rule I will not submit architecture as IE to Adobe, but again it is not always clear cut & probably will depend from reviewer to reviewer.




 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
47 Replies
22930 Views
Last post September 05, 2019, 11:55
by MatHayward
2 Replies
2662 Views
Last post March 02, 2020, 14:15
by MatHayward
2 Replies
3277 Views
Last post April 03, 2020, 00:33
by cristianstorto
17 Replies
5294 Views
Last post October 31, 2020, 09:16
by Uncle Pete
1 Replies
1183 Views
Last post April 29, 2022, 05:56
by Firn

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle