Author Topic: New submission limits for Adobe Stock Contributors (Read 6420 times)

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #75 on:** May 26, 2025, 15:22 »

I'm just going to mention in earlier related news:

If you had between 350 and 6,999 downloads during the 2024 calendar year, you qualified to receive a complimentary code for a one-year plan for Creative Cloud Photography (20GB), Illustrator, InDesign, Premiere Pro, or After Effects.

If you had 7,000 or more downloads in 2024, you qualified to receive a complimentary code for a one-year plan for an Adobe Creative Cloud All Apps.

Only Contributors active in 2024 are eligible for the opportunity. To be considered active, you must have uploaded and had approved a minimum of 150 new assets.

350 DLs isn't that terrible, but with the reduced uploads allowed, the review roulette, the mystery similar rejections and whatever else, for some people who are careful and only upload quality images/photos, this will make the CC code, more difficult to achieve.

For you Adobe haters, it's still the site that pays best and makes the most for me. If the fans of dimes and 15% are going to keep cheering, just pay attention to best percentages and most pay, which of the three, SS, IS and AS, Adobe still wins.

ps If reviews are your thing, I have found that aside from some technical bs rejections, for legal reasons, IS is now the most consistent. SS is wacky, but for 10¢ they seem to be taking anything, anyone throws up at them. Yes ago when reviews were actually looked at, IS was possibly the toughest, but at the same time, the most consistent for what they took and what they refused.

SimonSays · « **Reply #76 on:** May 26, 2025, 15:38 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on May 26, 2025, 15:22

I'm just going to mention in earlier related news:

If you had between 350 and 6,999 downloads during the 2024 calendar year, you qualified to receive a complimentary code for a one-year plan for Creative Cloud Photography (20GB), Illustrator, InDesign, Premiere Pro, or After Effects.

If you had 7,000 or more downloads in 2024, you qualified to receive a complimentary code for a one-year plan for an Adobe Creative Cloud All Apps.

Only Contributors active in 2024 are eligible for the opportunity. To be considered active, you must have uploaded and had approved a minimum of 150 new assets.

350 DLs isn't that terrible, but with the reduced uploads allowed, the review roulette, the mystery similar rejections and whatever else, for some people who are careful and only upload quality images/photos, this will make the CC code, more difficult to achieve.

For you Adobe haters, it's still the site that pays best and makes the most for me. If the fans of dimes and 15% are going to keep cheering, just pay attention to best percentages and most pay, which of the three, SS, IS and AS, Adobe still wins.

ps If reviews are your thing, I have found that aside from some technical bs rejections, for legal reasons, IS is now the most consistent. SS is wacky, but for 10¢ they seem to be taking anything, anyone throws up at them. Yes ago when reviews were actually looked at, IS was possibly the toughest, but at the same time, the most consistent for what they took and what they refused.

Actually no Peter,
Adobe used to be the best seller with the highest payout per month. But, for me, that changed the last eight months or so. It is Istock or Shutterstock that it is winning in $ amount and they were already winning in numbers a long time. Adobe is sliding, for me at least.

zeljkok · « **Reply #77 on:** May 26, 2025, 15:40 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on May 26, 2025, 15:22

For you Adobe haters, it's still the site that pays best and makes the most for me. If the fans of dimes and 15% are going to keep cheering, just pay attention to best percentages and most pay, which of the three, SS, IS and AS, Adobe still wins.

Wins perhaps at the moment, but for how long? Even now, it doesn't win Alamy - at least not for me.

Everyone will always have their preferred agency, as well as agency they "hate", and that is ok. This discussion is really about how honest contributors are being treated by current AS review process. This is a fact, not personal preference.

SimonSays · « **Reply #78 on:** May 26, 2025, 15:56 »

I think that Uncle Pete went over to the dark side with his appraisal of Adobe

We can't save everyone. Let's take a minute and mourn for him.

SimonSays · « **Reply #79 on:** May 26, 2025, 16:42 »

Remember our friend Mat Hayward? He was off doing something at Adobe fixing submissions on the background, right?
All I found on internet is that he has worked for Adobe and that is it. He just went away quitely, that is what I think.
Maybe he got fed up with Adobe also and he was their chearleader over here!

If he is still working for Adobe, he is not bragging about it on social media. He only states he worked there, past tense.

zeljkok · « **Reply #80 on:** May 26, 2025, 16:53 »

Quote from: SimonSays on May 26, 2025, 15:56

I think that Uncle Pete went over to the dark side with his appraisal of Adobe
We can't save everyone. Let's take a minute and mourn for him.

Uncle Vader!

SimonSays · « **Reply #81 on:** May 26, 2025, 17:10 »

Looking further, I think all of the AI joy or pain is thanks to Matthew Smith at Adobe.
I might be mistaking but I think he is the godfather of all this AI crap.

cobalt · « **Reply #82 on:** May 27, 2025, 01:11 »

Mat Hayward was great. I don‘t think anything of the recent drama would have happened under his watch.

Perhaps that is the real reason he left. He saw changes coming that would hurt the creator community and he would not be able to defend that, so he moved on.

If that is what happened, I would expect a lot more pain to come.

It is very clear that whoever now makes such radical changes against the creative community has no understanding of the relationship between creative community and buyers.

Driving us away to istock, is not a clever business strategy.

Especially not if the merger happens, it will make istock/getty very attractive, for both creators and clients.

eta

According to linkedin he still works for Adobe

cobalt · « **Reply #83 on:** May 27, 2025, 01:11 »

Where does it say that for 2024 we need 7k downloads for the full creative suite?

Injustice for all · « **Reply #84 on:** May 27, 2025, 04:52 »

@SimonSays

I think you misunderstood,I am still angry and disappointed with my sales.

then the discussion about rejections and limits is another story.

see,this is the difference between me and some of you here,you tar everything with the same brush I don't.

there is a distinction between things.

I am happy with most of the things Adobe does,and I understand many of the decisions,but I am not happy at all with my sales,and this fact remains for the moment,and if this fact does not change,as much as I can understand Adobe and its choices,I certainly will not continue this work for long.

as I already said I am following my last path in microstock,with AI videos,if I don't have a positive feedback as soon as possible with the work I'm doing,as far as I'm concerned it's over,also because it's not acceptable to make 6 sales in a week with my current port.

In June things have to start changing for me at least a little bit,and go even better in the next months,otherwise it's over,I certainly can't tolerate 6 sales in a week anymore,with my current portfolio.

synthetick · « **Reply #85 on:** May 27, 2025, 06:46 »

Quote from: cobalt on May 27, 2025, 01:11

Mat Hayward was great. I don‘t think anything of the recent drama would have happened under his watch.

eta

According to linkedin he still works for Adobe

My thoughts have always been that Mat was moved on to his current role at Adobe, not that he chose to move on. (Disclaimer: I have no insider knowledge though.) But nevertheless the current drama could just as easily have taken place while he was still in his previous role. Contributor Relations have never had any say over moderation.

Atomazul · « **Reply #86 on:** May 27, 2025, 07:44 »

So to summarize the collective information given so far:

One anonymous person posted a screenshot of generic text without any clear connection to Adobe, showing that a submission limit was reached. This was supposedly a screenshot of some kind of posts by "several" other anonymous people, not first hand, and with zero context as to who made the claim and what their methods are (AI, etc.). No one else here has indicated that they have hit any limits or has offered any guesses/hints at what these limits might be, unless I missed it between all the off-topic musings.

I've been submitting hundreds of videos over the past weeks, and I have had no restrictions. Getting the impression that the consensus is over-reacting to this change in their policy.

ADH · « **Reply #87 on:** May 27, 2025, 09:29 »

It is normal and positive for Adobe to do something radical to stop the unlimited massive influx of junk disguised as AI from third world countries, the problem was getting bigger and bigger. For example, I know of one individual in India who employs nearly 100 teenagers creating images on Midjourney, keywording them and uploading them by the thousands daily on Adobe using over 40 different accounts in the names of friends and family. This individual pays the kids who work for him with cigarettes, sodas and candy. It is good news that this type of abuse is being stopped

Injustice for all · « **Reply #88 on:** May 27, 2025, 10:05 »

of course I totally agree,but not just from the third world,everywhere.

This is why it is important to change the system by which sales work,because the current system is too easily subject to fraud.

too many from all over the world,inflate sales,and since the best-selling content gets more exposure,this remains a problem they must try to solve.

It's too easy,I upload 100 contents on Adobe,I make a couple of calls to friends in Europe or Asia,so they can't trace them back to me who is in Italy,and voilà,it's done!

then I send a few euros to these friends,and I have 100 contents that,as soon as they are accepted,already have 3-4 sales each.

then clearly it can also be done on a large scale.

This is fraud,and the current system is too vulnerable,we need a new system and a more dynamic algorithm.

These limits are really the right choice,and a first step towards a more efficient and honest system.

f8 · « **Reply #89 on:** May 27, 2025, 10:54 »

Re: Mat

Fact: He was an employee for Adobe while posting on this forum. He was a contributor service agent and not your friend. It was his job to mollycoddle you. Adobe changed his position an now he is gone. Get over it. Adobe sort of attempted to put in Raul and that seems to have been pulled. You have all been gamed if you think Mat was your friend. Was he good at his job? Yes. Was he personable as far as one can be on a forum? Yes. But he was also a paid employee.

Re: Limits and Rejections

I am a seasoned pro full stop. My rejections as of late are pathetic. I don't spam at all. I take my profession very seriously. What is going on currently at Adobe makes no sense to me at all. As of yesterday I simply give up and have ceased to upload to Adobe. My work has always until recently had very high acceptance rate and my work sells very good at Adobe and continues to do so. A majority of my work has been rejected over the last 2-3 months if it even gets inspected at all sitting in queue for up to 4 months now. I am reading into this as an internal issue or policy that I don't want to input my effort in. I don't do AI at all, yet I am being punished for the sheer volume of similar content being submitted. I make equally good coin at each agency of SS, IS, and AD with Alamy being a very close third. All agencies give me well over 3 digits a month.

My suggestion to Adobe: Have a few different inspection queues similar at Istock does. Tick a box for submission and send the content to editors trained for each submission. For example AI, Photo, Video, and Illustration. Limit the content as per a trained inspector in each area. Don't lump good quality photos in with AI or whatever you are doing now. Its not working. Also make a tick box for the same in search. Your search now is horrible. I search for a subject and get spammed to death with AI when all I wanted was a good descriptive photo.

Adobe really needs to get their crap together!

zeljkok · « **Reply #90 on:** May 27, 2025, 11:59 »

Quote from: f8 on May 27, 2025, 10:54

My suggestion to Adobe: Have a few different inspection queues similar at Istock does. Tick a box for submission and send the content to editors trained for each submission. For example AI, Photo, Video, and Illustration.

That might be a good idea, but is never going to happen. Adobe inspections are done by AI which is "trained" at looking at binary footprint, and nothing else. We might complain, rightfully so, as much as we want - but AI is direction they decided to take, both for content creation and inspection. Even Mat Hayward was replaced by Raul.AiBot - that should explain everything.

Whether Mat was our friend, and what happened to him after he moved on is separate discussion. But things were infinitely better while he was here. Most will probably agree with this.

zeljkok · « **Reply #91 on:** May 27, 2025, 12:04 »

Quote from: Injustice for all on May 27, 2025, 10:05

they can't trace them back to me who is in Italy

At least Inter is in UCL Final. Forza Nerazzurri!

cobalt · « **Reply #92 on:** May 27, 2025, 12:21 »

Mat was very good at his job. I like people that are good at their job.

He is also a good person, not a company robot.

Adobe should have implemented upload limits as soon as the grift became visible. Thousands of people employing extended and fake family, churning out ai 24/7, even selling the surplus.

The biggest problem IMO

- they are not regular creators and don't use Adobe software.

Most of us have some kind of Adobe subscription, or registered Adobe software all our working lives.

These guys don't.

So personally, if this was my agency I would add a new rule - you need to be an adobe subscriber to become a contributor.

Maybe introduce a new 5 dollar firefly subscription as a base suggestion that also allows you to upload to the stock market.

I am usually against getting people to pay, but an up front 5 dollar payment, plus immediate ID verification could have made the grift a lot harder.

The Adobe business is renting software.

Most ai only uploaders don't use Adobe products or services.

So giving them preferrential treatment with 10k upload limits and pissing of the loyal creator community with crazy reviews is simply not a wise business decision.

Atomazul · « **Reply #93 on:** May 29, 2025, 07:12 »

In case anyone else, like myself, reads these forums to share/read relevant information about specifics topics and would like to get right to the point, rather than read though dozens of irrelevant posts:

So far, over the last 9 days since this topic was created, no one in this thread has reported having any restrictions or limits on their submissions. Unless Adobe adjusts the limits in the future, the current limits appear high enough that they are not going to affect most "normal" contributors. They likely target fraudulent and AI spam accounts. Limiting those kinds of accounts should actually be a benefit for most of us, when it comes to the submission queue.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #94 on:** May 29, 2025, 10:05 »

Quote from: SimonSays on May 26, 2025, 15:56

I think that Uncle Pete went over to the dark side with his appraisal of Adobe
We can't save everyone. Let's take a minute and mourn for him.

Thank you for the condolences.

Funny how I can write an entire message, about how Adobe has raised the requirements for the free, made it harder to get accepted and then mentioned they still earn the most FOR ME, 33% (yes I know some SS fans, love the dimes and annual reset, and others are so happy with 15%) which brings out the negative people to attack the earnings part and not the point that Adobe is making it harder to get the free subscription, especially with the review roulette.

Quote from: cobalt on May 27, 2025, 01:11

Where does it say that for 2024 we need 7k downloads for the full creative suite?

Here: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/royalty-details.html

Quote from: zeljkok on May 27, 2025, 11:59

Whether Mat was our friend, and what happened to him after he moved on is separate discussion. But things were infinitely better while he was here. Most will probably agree with this.

Agree. I think from Mat's perspective, he was promoted. Adobe paid him to be the contributor advocate, now he's on the review team.

As for Alamy, yes, it's becoming the best for earnings, because the Microstock earnings, based on low pay and volume, has become low pay and low downloads. Alamy, one DL can equal a year of DT and IS combined. One DL can equal months of SS or Adobe. And I'm not saying just that one a year, big one, there are still $12, $24 and $48 commissions for single sales.

I'm waiting for the merger of SS and Getty, which will bring more change.

Mir · « **Reply #95 on:** May 29, 2025, 11:59 »

I read people are uploading 200-300 a day, so I am not sure what’s the point of this limit - so they won’t upload 600 a day. Does it make a difference at all…

MPfoto71 · « **Reply #96 on:** May 29, 2025, 17:03 »

Quote from: Mir on May 29, 2025, 11:59

I read people are uploading 200-300 a day, so I am not sure what’s the point of this limit - so they won’t upload 600 a day. Does it make a difference at all…

The difference is that the ‘image factories’ (i.e. bots and scripts) can no longer upload 10,000 images a day - the last limit was up to 10,000 images.

With the current 200, 500, 1000 submissions per week (I haven't heard of any other figures so far), there can be significantly fewer ‘image flood’ uploads of endlessly identical motifs that automatically copy and upload the top images again and again.

I myself am currently at around 1,300 accepted uploads per month (photos, videos, AI images mixed with an actual acceptance rate of 70%) - so around 320 per week and I'm probably already high in the uploads of the ‘non-bots’ :-)

zeljkok · « **Reply #97 on:** May 29, 2025, 18:19 »

I upload 150 - 200 / year, so not likely it will break any limit, lol

Here's something interesting for the community, related to similars policy. Yesterday I cycled to world famous Moraine Lake in Banff National Park (Road is closed to vehicles, so it's perfect for cycling - 11km each way). Lake was once on Canadian 20 dollar bill, and photographed to death. Search on Adobe stock for term "Moraine Lake" yields 28,666 (!!!) results. https://stock.adobe.com/search?k=moraine+lake&search_type=usertyped

I took few shots, for myself really. Good light, turned quite well. So last night I upload to AS; 100% certain it will end up rejected as "This content already exists on Adobe Stock". But

Accepted overnight. Yes, they are good shots, but definitely content that has abundant supply. Will I get any download? Not likely, but here they are

Injustice for all · « **Reply #98 on:** **Yesterday** at 03:56 »

Quote from: Mir on May 29, 2025, 11:59

I read people are uploading 200-300 a day, so I am not sure what’s the point of this limit - so they won’t upload 600 a day. Does it make a difference at all…

from what I see several contributors have estimated their limit between 500 and 1000 contents per week.

imo a good generous limit would be 50 contents per day,50 per day is really a lot and it's a fair limit imo.

18,000 contents per year more or less,I think it's enough,if instead the limit is 100 per day it is clearly 36,000 in a year,which seems a bit excessive to me.

but counting the rejections maybe even 100 a day can be acceptable.

angelacat · « **Reply #99 on:** **Yesterday** at 04:14 »

Cobalt: "Maybe introduce a new 5 dollar firefly subscription as a base suggestion that also allows you to upload to the stock market."

Don't agree I don't use Firefly, or any AI, don't see why I should be forced to pay to pay for technology I don't support or use.

I don't use Adobe Premier Pro for video even though I qualify for a free license.

I do use Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop because I have qualified for the free license.

Cat

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: New submission limits for Adobe Stock Contributors (Read 6420 times)

Uncle Pete

SimonSays

zeljkok

SimonSays

SimonSays

zeljkok

SimonSays

cobalt

cobalt

Injustice for all

synthetick

Atomazul

ADH

Injustice for all

f8

zeljkok

zeljkok

cobalt

Atomazul

Uncle Pete

Mir

MPfoto71

zeljkok

Injustice for all

angelacat

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors