Quote from: zi_fi on February 27, 2024, 03:11

Quote from: Wilm on February 25, 2024, 16:09

However, I generally believe that there are indications as to why such purchases - for example via a 30-day free trial - become conspicuous at all.

If the buyer does not search for keywords, but enters the image numbers directly and downloads the images, this is not "normal" search behavior. And if this happens several times in a row, some automated "alarm signals" will probably go off at the agencies - which is understandable.

It's evident that there are certain behaviors that should raise red flags, such as direct downloads using image numbers without keyword searches. However, it's baffling that Adobe either lacks the tracking systems to detect such anomalies or simply chooses not to investigate thoroughly. Opting for account termination as a quick fix is not only lazy but also unjust. Contributors invest significant time and effort into building their portfolios, and they deserve better than arbitrary terminations without proper investigation. Adobe needs to step up and implement robust monitoring systems to ensure fair treatment of its contributors.

I would like add this:

It is not generally suspicious if images are not searched for, but the image numbers are entered and the image is downloaded.

We have searched for images for certain projects often enough and forwarded the image numbers to our customers so that they can buy the images. This is quite a common procedure.

In our case, however, it was always images from a wide variety of contributors. And our customers also bought the images and did not download them via free trial.

In any case, I would very much appreciate it if Mat would take a closer look at your case and give you more specific feedback.

I'm optimistic that he'll be able to do so if he's available to assist.

Some people here are suggesting that Adobe doesn't investigate properly and shuts down accounts without sufficient evidence, but maybe the long time that it takes them to investigate accounts (and then either unblock them or terminate them) could indicate that Adobe is being very thorough. As contributors we really have no idea what level of fraud is going on.

Im sure the level of fraud is now astronomical and growing exponentially - faster than they can cope with.

Rather than risk innocent contributors lose weeks/months of money (potentially thousands) for a false alarm with no recourse, assuming no clear, obvious copyright issues id like to see the account still active for sales and earnings held in escrow for the duration of a review.
If the review finds them innocent they get that money and no image ranking is then lost.  If it finds against them its used by Adobe to cover whatever is needed.