I'm a photographer and I received an email today. I mostly take commercial photos. I have also editorial photos. Here is the summary:

Your Shutterstock account has been disabled until your perform a portfolio clean up, removing every asset which you have added or removed a logo, person, object, or otherwise manipulated, that has been approved for Editorial Use Only. Your uploading has been disabled until you acknowledge your understanding of the policy and confirm you have removed all altered editorial content in your portfolio by writing to [email protected]. This is your first and only warning.

I deleted more than hundred images and sent an e-mail to them. What should i do more?

Quote from: Stocker2015 on January 21, 2026, 21:05
I'm a photographer and I received an email today. I mostly take commercial photos. I have also editorial photos. Here is the summary:

Your Shutterstock account has been disabled until your perform a portfolio clean up, removing every asset which you have added or removed a logo, person, object, or otherwise manipulated, that has been approved for Editorial Use Only. Your uploading has been disabled until you acknowledge your understanding of the policy and confirm you have removed all altered editorial content in your portfolio by writing to [email protected]. This is your first and only warning.

I deleted more than hundred images and sent an e-mail to them. What should i do more?

Editorial images are not supposed to be manipulated. They are indented to be as it is. Since, you have done clean-up, now wait and this wait can go upto months.

They are quite respectful, as they could have had a reason to ban you. This is actually rather reassuring information.

What if you cleaned up the photo to upload it as commercial and then they say the photo is more suitable as editorial and then you upload it again as such. Whose fault is it then?
I think I did that exactly a couple of times.

I think I may be guilty of this recently. I often clean up a city skyline to remove logos and then submit as commercial. Recently I have had an email from Shutterstock telling me that a correction is needed and so without much thought I add an editorial description and resubmit as editorial on the site. This change when instead of just rejecting, they allow you to resubmit on the site is potentially the reason for this problem of altered editorial images. I'm going through my recent uploads to see if I can find and delete any problem images.

Steve

I rarely make some minor corrections such as removing a cigarette on the ground or a stain on a building by using Adobe generative AI tools. I mostly make color correction and denoising. That's all. The examples they gave me in the email are illustration works I have done. I applied effects to photographs of certain historical figures who passed away in the mid-1900s and used them in my work. There are many artists on the site who produce visuals by doing this kind of work, and they add new ones every day. Beyond that, there are people who take old black and white photographs and sell them, let alone applying effects. If there is a copyright issue, these should be stopped. Until I received the warning, these people's works should have been removed from the site.

Quote from: Stocker2015 on January 25, 2026, 08:11
I rarely make some minor corrections such as removing a cigarette on the ground or a stain on a building by using Adobe generative AI tools. I mostly make color correction and denoising. That's all. The examples they gave me in the email are illustration works I have done. I applied effects to photographs of certain historical figures who passed away in the mid-1900s and used them in my work. There are many artists on the site who produce visuals by doing this kind of work, and they add new ones every day. Beyond that, there are people who take old black and white photographs and sell them, let alone applying effects. If there is a copyright issue, these should be stopped. Until I received the warning, these people's works should have been removed from the site.

Ah, that changes things. You are doing art appropriation, not editorial. I don't know why they would be submitted as Editorial. This is completely different.

1) If the images you have used a reference, to be modified are 1931 or after, they are still protected by copyright. That's USA, which is where Shutterstock is located.

2) If you are using the image of a famous person, that is protected by right to likeness. Even if they are dead, that would have to be before 1931, with a few exceptions, or the person would need to be dead for over 70 years, and that's depending on the estate and their legal standing on the ownership.

You are describing two different things, so I don't know how to answer. Are these Editorial or are they "applied effects to photographs of certain historical figures who passed away in the mid-1900s " ? And without knowing or seeing the finger pointing at other peoples images, no one can tell you why those passed or if they are legal or not. If they are before 1931 or in the case of iStock before 1900, they are acceptable, because the copyright has expired.

Does that help anything?

Do you have an example of one or some of your images? Why would they be Editorial?

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 25, 2026, 20:39

If they are before 1931 or in the case of iStock before 1900, they are acceptable, because the copyright has expired.

Not to Shutterstock, because they don't take public domain content.

3. Copyright restrictions

Please note: You cannot submit illustrations that are based on images to which you do not own copyright, such as free images from the internet or public domain works.


https://submit.shutterstock.com/help/en/articles/12259804-how-do-i-submit-illustrations-to-shutterstock

From what we've seen in practice, if you've properly cleaned your portfolio, removed all questionable editorial files, and emailed support to confirm it, there's usually nothing else to do. This isn't a ban, it's a temporary pause while they review your account. Shutterstock is currently very strict with editorial content. Even small edits, removing logos, objects, people, or "cleaning up" images - are considered manipulation. A lot of contributors get flagged without even realizing where they crossed the line. So the best approach now is simple: remove everything questionable, confirm it by email, and wait. In our experience, accounts are usually restored after a cleanup, but it can take time, sometimes weeks or longer.

I converted few photos of a famous person who died in the 1930s into vector format and applied effects to them, and these photos are listed as public domain photos on Wikipedia. In my country, the public domain period is 70 years, and we are well past that. There are many people working in this field, and their work sells quite well. I have come across this work in newspapers, magazines, and even on TV during national holidays. The interesting thing is that Shutterstock used to accept this type of work commercially about 4-5 years ago when uploaded with a reference image. After this type of work started to become increasingly popular, they stopped accepting it and started accepting it editorially. A couple of years later, they even stopped accepting them editorially. After that point, I never received any warning, so I stopped creating such vector works and focused more on taking photographs.

Yesterday, I noticed that my portfolio, which had approximately 5,000 images, had been reduced to around 600, and I couldn't access thousands of images. When I contacted Shutterstock, they said there had been a system error and that the photos appeared in searches, but when I searched by number, I couldn't find any of the photos I was looking for. It was as if they had vanished into thin air. What's even more interesting is that among these thousands of works, I also had photos of people taken in a studio environment with signed model release documents. I even emailed SS, but for some reason, I can't get a response. My sales had already dropped by 90% as of January, and now this has happened on top of that. I received the warning email last week and deleted the specified vector-format works, and even more, from the system, but one morning I looked and 4,000 of my photos had vanished. I hope it's a system error. I've lost all my motivation. It's as if someone came along and randomly deleted thousands of my photos from the system.

Quote from: Stocker2015 on January 26, 2026, 12:28
I converted few photos of a famous person who died in the 1930s into vector format and applied effects to them, and these photos are listed as public domain photos on Wikipedia. In my country, the public domain period is 70 years, and we are well past that. There are many people working in this field, and their work sells quite well. I have come across this work in newspapers, magazines, and even on TV during national holidays. The interesting thing is that Shutterstock used to accept this type of work commercially about 4-5 years ago when uploaded with a reference image. After this type of work started to become increasingly popular, they stopped accepting it and started accepting it editorially. A couple of years later, they even stopped accepting them editorially. After that point, I never received any warning, so I stopped creating such vector works and focused more on taking photographs.

Yesterday, I noticed that my portfolio, which had approximately 5,000 images, had been reduced to around 600, and I couldn't access thousands of images. When I contacted Shutterstock, they said there had been a system error and that the photos appeared in searches, but when I searched by number, I couldn't find any of the photos I was looking for. It was as if they had vanished into thin air. What's even more interesting is that among these thousands of works, I also had photos of people taken in a studio environment with signed model release documents. I even emailed SS, but for some reason, I can't get a response. My sales had already dropped by 90% as of January, and now this has happened on top of that. I received the warning email last week and deleted the specified vector-format works, and even more, from the system, but one morning I looked and 4,000 of my photos had vanished. I hope it's a system error. I've lost all my motivation. It's as if someone came along and randomly deleted thousands of my photos from the system.

To the first point regarding Public Domain content - Shutterstock don't accept this, as per their terms of service that you agreed when you signed up. Of course, this doesn't mean that such content doesn't get approved, as I guess the reviewers can't be expected to check every image for provenance on upload. However, if you are caught breaking this rule, then the consequences are as you've experienced. The fact that other people have such content approved, doesn't mean it's an acceptable practice, and their portfolios are at similar risk of closure.

Regarding the portfolio, there is some sort of display problem at the moment, and I've reported it myself, but I'm waiting for further feedback.

If I check on the mobile app, about 1000 images are missing, (approx 10%), but on the main website, the full amount are visible and available for sale. If you are seeing a discrepancy on the app, then this could be the same fault but, if you have got content missing from the main site, then this looks as if Shutterstock may be taking action to remove content.

All images appear in the collections I created, but when I search for an image on the site by its number, for example, it cannot be found in the system. 4,000 images are missing, and at most 400-500 of them are editorial. It is impossible for there to be more than that. It's also impossible for them to have been retouched with AI; there are photos from 10 years ago among them. They couldn't have reviewed so many photos in such a short time and removed them from the system. As I said, there are thousands of images that have been accepted with model releases, commercially accepted into the system, and not retouched with AI. The homepage shows that I have a portfolio of over 600 images, but when I add up the numbers in the collections section, it exceeds 5,000. There is a significant loss of images, and if it is a system issue, I don't think it should take this long to fix.When I look at it on my mobile phone, I see over 600 images.

Quote from: Stocker2015 on January 26, 2026, 13:50
All images appear in the collections I created, but when I search for an image on the site by its number, for example, it cannot be found in the system. 4,000 images are missing, and at most 400-500 of them are editorial. It is impossible for there to be more than that. It's also impossible for them to have been retouched with AI; there are photos from 10 years ago among them. They couldn't have reviewed so many photos in such a short time and removed them from the system. As I said, there are thousands of images that have been accepted with model releases, commercially accepted into the system, and not retouched with AI. The homepage shows that I have a portfolio of over 600 images, but when I add up the numbers in the collections section, it exceeds 5,000. There is a significant loss of images, and if it is a system issue, I don't think it should take this long to fix.When I look at it on my mobile phone, I see over 600 images.

If images are missing on the main site, it sounds as if they are being removed. I have several contributor friends who have told me that they have the same problem with the number on the app being too low, but their main portfolios on the website are correct, as is mine.

I guess all you can do is wait and see if SHutterstock get back to you.

I clicked on the portfolio link, which is said to consist of over 600 images on the main page, and clicked on the thumbnails of 20-30 photos on the page that opened, and I got this message on all of them:

We're sorry! xxxxxxxx numbered image is no longer available.

Apparently, I don't have a single image left in the system. Unbelievable.

I haven't received a response regarding this issue from the email address [email protected]. There used to be a forum, but it's gone now.

Quote from: Stocker2015 on January 26, 2026, 15:11
I clicked on the portfolio link, which is said to consist of over 600 images on the main page, and clicked on the thumbnails of 20-30 photos on the page that opened, and I got this message on all of them:

We're sorry! xxxxxxxx numbered image is no longer available.

Apparently, I don't have a single image left in the system. Unbelievable.

I haven't received a response regarding this issue from the email address [email protected]. There used to be a forum, but it's gone now.

Sorry, but that sounds as if they are in the process of taking your portfolio down.

Quote from: kuriouskat on January 26, 2026, 09:11

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 25, 2026, 20:39

If they are before 1931 or in the case of iStock before 1900, they are acceptable, because the copyright has expired.

Not to Shutterstock, because they don't take public domain content.

3. Copyright restrictions

Please note: You cannot submit illustrations that are based on images to which you do not own copyright, such as free images from the internet or public domain works.


https://submit.shutterstock.com/help/en/articles/12259804-how-do-i-submit-illustrations-to-shutterstock

They do take some, when it's marked for Editorial Use Only. But just a fine point. https://submit.shutterstock.com/help/en/articles/10617446-content-publishing-standards-intellectual-property

Adobe also has the same restriction, saying no public domain artwork or images. "Adobe Stock does not accept public domain content, which includes images where the copyright has expired or content dedicated to the public domain. To ensure compliance with Adobe Stock's guidelines, contributors must have full rights and ownership of their images. If you are unsure about the copyright status of your artwork, it is recommended to create your own content or use images that you have the legal right to use. "

Correct SSTK says: You cannot submit illustrations that are based on images to which you do not own copyright, such as free images from the internet or public domain works. but they have accepted them in the past and the collection is loaded with those. My point is, if someone finds something on SSTK, it could be from 2009 before they changed their interpretation. I think most of us can remember when some people were uploading NASA images, which tey found and downloaded and then tagged and uploaded. There got to be too many, so SSTK put a restriction on those. There are other resources and artwork, that also got banned after that. But the ones on the site, were not removed.

It's possible that SSTK is cleaning up for the merger or that they are now running AI to find things that are in the collection, that they want to remove. Using humans is too time consuming and costly. I just had notice that three of my images were removed for copyright or trademark. The identical images are still for sale on SSTK from others. That's the way it goes sometimes. Two of those images have never sold or if they did, it's less than a dollar in 15 years. Not worth the worrying.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 26, 2026, 17:17

Quote from: kuriouskat on January 26, 2026, 09:11

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 25, 2026, 20:39

If they are before 1931 or in the case of iStock before 1900, they are acceptable, because the copyright has expired.

Not to Shutterstock, because they don't take public domain content.

3. Copyright restrictions

Please note: You cannot submit illustrations that are based on images to which you do not own copyright, such as free images from the internet or public domain works.


https://submit.shutterstock.com/help/en/articles/12259804-how-do-i-submit-illustrations-to-shutterstock

They do take some, when it's marked for Editorial Use Only. But just a fine point. https://submit.shutterstock.com/help/en/articles/10617446-content-publishing-standards-intellectual-property

Adobe also has the same restriction, saying no public domain artwork or images. "Adobe Stock does not accept public domain content, which includes images where the copyright has expired or content dedicated to the public domain. To ensure compliance with Adobe Stock's guidelines, contributors must have full rights and ownership of their images. If you are unsure about the copyright status of your artwork, it is recommended to create your own content or use images that you have the legal right to use. "

Correct SSTK says: You cannot submit illustrations that are based on images to which you do not own copyright, such as free images from the internet or public domain works. but they have accepted them in the past and the collection is loaded with those. My point is, if someone finds something on SSTK, it could be from 2009 before they changed their interpretation. I think most of us can remember when some people were uploading NASA images, which tey found and downloaded and then tagged and uploaded. There got to be too many, so SSTK put a restriction on those. There are other resources and artwork, that also got banned after that. But the ones on the site, were not removed.

It's possible that SSTK is cleaning up for the merger or that they are now running AI to find things that are in the collection, that they want to remove. Using humans is too time consuming and costly. I just had notice that three of my images were removed for copyright or trademark. The identical images are still for sale on SSTK from others. That's the way it goes sometimes. Two of those images have never sold or if they did, it's less than a dollar in 15 years. Not worth the worrying.

I do agree that things have changed over the years, and that content isn't always removed following a policy change, but the OP said he uploaded these images about 4-5 years ago, and they certainly weren't accepting Public Domain stuff at that point. He's also stated that he's removing objects from editorial images, such as cigarette butts and stains on walls, and is using AI tools to do so, so there are several issues here that might make his content non-compliant.

You already did everything they asked. This is not a ban, it's a review pause. Shutterstock is extremely strict with editorial right now, and any kind of edit, removing logos, objects, people, or even small AI clean‑ups, is treated as manipulation. A lot of contributors get caught without even realizing where they crossed the line. You removed the problematic files and emailed support, that's it. There's nothing else you can do now except wait. From our experience, accounts usually get restored after a cleanup like this, but it can take weeks or longer. The key thing now is not uploading anything new and not trying to "fix" more files.

I can't access any photos in the portfolio right now. The system shows that there are over 600 photos left, but it is impossible to access any of them. Sales have also completely stopped. I already did what they wanted overnight and deleted all my vector work. Beyond that, I also deleted photos that could be considered risky. It is not possible that 4,000 of my visuals were deleted because they posed a risk or did not comply with the rules. This represents over ten years of work; more than half of my portfolio consisted of commercial photos.

I sent them an email explaining this, but the response I received contained no information on the matter. When I tried to contact them through the site, they responded with something like, "There is a system error, we hope it will be fixed." I'll wait and see, but frankly, I think this happened as a result of the company merging with Getty. There are hundreds of thousands of images on the site that violate the rules. I hope they show the same sensitivity here. In fact, on a recent trip abroad, they rejected photos I took of cats with my camera, claiming they were AI-generated. I sent them an email explaining the situation, but it wasn't even considered. It's really incomprehensible.

Quote from: kuriouskat on January 26, 2026, 18:17
I do agree that things have changed over the years, and that content isn't always removed following a policy change, but the OP said he uploaded these images about 4-5 years ago, and they certainly weren't accepting Public Domain stuff at that point. He's also stated that he's removing objects from editorial images, such as cigarette butts and stains on walls, and is using AI tools to do so, so there are several issues here that might make his content non-compliant.

True.

If it's any help, I was accused of uploading AI, and responded. My account wasn't locked, I was just told to remove them or else. I responded and then gave an example of how the image was created. (which was not AI and used no modern editing that has built in AI.)

Here's what they asked for:

    A step-by-step explanation of how that style of illustration was created
    Any sketches or screenshots of the creation process
    Original source images for any auto-traced components
    Information regarding what digital tools may have been used in the process

That was November 25th. I just got the answer on Jan. 19th from "Creative Content Operations". the issue has been resolved.

What I'm getting at, is anyone who has been issued a warning, and unfortunately some people get blocked and locked, it could take a couple months, to get an answer. This isn't overnight. iStock was faster. They had the same questions about AI illustrations. It seems both of these places are using AI to detect AI, although, no one is going to admit that, or how they work. The answer from IS was, (paraphrased) the way you are editing makes the images look like they are created by AI, because of the similar looking artifacts.

Oddly no issues with Alamy or Adobe, for the identical images. 

Editorial isn't just that easy, cut and dried. I don't edit anything, because I'm doing news, which is very strict. Illustrative Editorial or images of cityscapes, for example, are not restricted as much and can have some editing. Maybe SSTK is going to jump into the same boat with Getty and make everything clearly News type editorial, without alterations. But that isn't what either of them did in the past. I could dig and maybe find an email from SSTK or IS that says, an image couldn't be accepted as Editorial, because of logos and trademarks on the buildings. But when I removed those, they were acceptable. They have changed and want thing both ways, depending on who's doing the review.

As a matter of fact, I prefer the no alterations or heavy editing. Real is real. But SSTK has asked that people remove logos or signs, in order to get their images approved. Stocker2015 has my sympathy for policy changes that these places had viewed in a different way, in the past.

Here's what they say now: "No, you cannot remove or alter the content of an image that you upload as editorial to Shutterstock. Shutterstock's editorial content must be factual and true to life, and any post-production adjustments, such as adding or removing objects from a scene, are not allowed. If your content is rejected for editorial reasons, it is likely due to excessive adjustments or digital manipulation."

Pretty easy. News editorial policy now applies to all editorial, because of AI creating false images or altering real images.

I had the same account suspension as you're experiencing now. It started last August with a similar message about "editorial image manipulation." Unfortunately, the suspension lasted almost half a year, and I lost more than a thousand dollars in income.

I could still access my account, but I couldn't upload anything, my money was frozen, and about 70% of my portfolio disappeared. I honestly thought I had lost my account.

I contacted the IP team to clarify the situation because some of the images they flagged were not altered at all. They replied that the appeal process might take 30–60 days and that I would be contacted. The response was very formal.

Later, someone from the IP team reached out to me, but they just copy-pasted their rules about altered editorial photos — nothing specific to my case. After that, I waited for about five months, but nothing happened.

After the New Year, I wrote to them again asking what was going on. They told me that I simply needed to acknowledge that I understood the rules and would remove the problematic images. However, I couldn't even remove them because most of my portfolio wasn't visible.

Still, once I confirmed that I understood their editorial photo policy, they quickly reactivated my account and restored all the missing images. Then, of course, I deleted the problematic ones.

I recommend that you simply acknowledge their policy, confirm that you fully understand it, and say that you will remove any non-compliant images as soon as your full portfolio becomes visible again.

Quote from: rkz91 on January 28, 2026, 08:50
I had the same account suspension as you're experiencing now. It started last August with a similar message about "editorial image manipulation."

What was the image manipulation about in your case?

Quote from: rkz91 on January 28, 2026, 08:50
I had the same account suspension as you're experiencing now. It started last August with a similar message about "editorial image manipulation." Unfortunately, the suspension lasted almost half a year, and I lost more than a thousand dollars in income.

I could still access my account, but I couldn't upload anything, my money was frozen, and about 70% of my portfolio disappeared. I honestly thought I had lost my account.

I contacted the IP team to clarify the situation because some of the images they flagged were not altered at all. They replied that the appeal process might take 30–60 days and that I would be contacted. The response was very formal.

Later, someone from the IP team reached out to me, but they just copy-pasted their rules about altered editorial photos — nothing specific to my case. After that, I waited for about five months, but nothing happened.

After the New Year, I wrote to them again asking what was going on. They told me that I simply needed to acknowledge that I understood the rules and would remove the problematic images. However, I couldn't even remove them because most of my portfolio wasn't visible.

Still, once I confirmed that I understood their editorial photo policy, they quickly reactivated my account and restored all the missing images. Then, of course, I deleted the problematic ones.

I recommend that you simply acknowledge their policy, confirm that you fully understand it, and say that you will remove any non-compliant images as soon as your full portfolio becomes visible again.

If I would get such a message, I would just close my account for the peanuts they pay. I wouldn't go to the trouble checking if I removed something from a photo and certainly not for each stupid photo I ever submitted. Adobe doesn't allow recognizable people in editorial photos so I adjust them all the same (remove them or make them blurry). If I try selling them as commercial and they say it is better suited as editorial I submit them as such. If that is not allowed, fine. I'll just remove all editorial content or all the content. They are going down anyways. Why bother dancing to their tunes.