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.

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.

Quote from: MatHayward on April 11, 2022, 11:27

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

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?

Quote from: MatHayward on April 11, 2022, 15:04

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

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?

Quote from: MatHayward on April 11, 2022, 16:08

Quote from: zeljkok on April 11, 2022, 15:32

Quote from: MatHayward on April 11, 2022, 15:04

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

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

Quote from: MatHayward 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.

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

Quote from: MatHayward on April 29, 2022, 09:43

Quote from: ouatedeP on April 29, 2022, 06:08

Quote from: MatHayward 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.

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