To me this topic is useless in the forum if there is no discussion on the particular problem with the problematic examples, it looks like personal problem between contributor and Adobe, but not professional. I can't believe in this, by my experience Adobe do it's job professional. But maybe there is some private case and better contact Mat or Adobe directly, if you don't want to share your images, something I understand.

About the AI quality, the agencies evaluate the quality based on the current state of the technology, just like istock in 2002 for example with the image sensor quality compared to the film photography, this is normal.

Quote from: SuperPhoto on December 15, 2023, 10:41

So...

a) For actual photos (not genAI)... Do you "need" keep the meta data in the images? I submitted a batch of high quality photographs - and "all" were rejected... (I had cleaned out the meta data, i.e., what camera was used, and other details)... was that just laziness on the reviewers part (i.e., did they just "assume" it was genAI because of no meta data, so just rejected it), or what was going on - do I "need" to leave that data in? Extremely frustrating, as I had waited quite some time for them to be processed...

b) When I do some of the genAI,I do take the time to remove extra fingers, logos, make sure the composition is correct, etc... I realize there are probably many that don't (seeking 'genAI' riches with no work/editing/etc)... HOWEVER... it's also frustrating when it seems you get a lazy reviewer - that rejects 90%-95% of a batch that required a lot of time consuming editing to make sure it looked good... Matt, could you please fix that?

Thanks very much!

Removing metadata such as camera details would have zero impact on moderation results. The quality of the asset is the top criteria when it comes to image reviews. Without seeing the content you are referencing, I can only assume there were issues with the files and that the moderators got it right. I'm certainly open to being proven wrong and would encourage you to share a couple of examples here.

-Mat Hayward

I totally agree with you Mat, In my 15 years experience in stock photography I also many times got frustrated about rejections, but looking at those images 5-10 years later I see the reviewers were right in most of the cases.Without examples this topic is useless.
I see overall people thinking on quality only on technical aspect, but to me in one stock photo quality means also what value it brings to the collection and from there the quality of the Adobe Stock collection as a whole. Every image is like a small pixel who create the whole collection image. From this point I think with AI we have to think even more on this level of "hidden" quality and to think what our brain can create as idea and bring it to the image's heart, because a couple of years from now there will be an option in the AI tools to create millions of images in a couple of hours in bulk by group of criteria and prompts templates. I'm very excited to see our new role as stock photographers. Sorry, got a bit off topic.

@Deyan: If you are affected by Clipdealer not paying as well, please feel free to reach out to me.

Thanks Robert, but he owe me very little amount and I'll wait a bit more. I'm more affected because of his act in this case. I can understand closing agency to not pay us final payment, it happens because of bad management or business luck, but here in Clipdealer we see tendentious and intentionally retention of the money.

123RF accept and sells AI content on the same level as the regular content.

For sure acceptance fixed limit per user do not exist, this is so stupid that no one agency would limit themselves on that stupid way, but limit on each user based on previous reviews or potfolio sales history sounds real, although even that is pretty extreme. So, create unique content, quality content, strong conceptual, no similars and so on and your acceptance rate will be high. All this is clear from years ago. Don't be paranoid.

At first you don't notice the third arm...



What is the point of reviewing if g@rbage like this gets accepted? It's not just one or two. It's not just a start-up glitch. There are now over 19.5 million acknowledged genAI items at Adobe Stock.

The contributor should have noticed this and not uploaded it.

The reviewers should have noticed this and rejected it.

Different contributor. This time there's a leg missing. Oh well. It looks stylish and polished, so who cares about the details..../



The three-legged woman I pointed out a week or two back is gone, but many many more are still there weeks later - e.g.

 

What has happened to pride in the quality of the Adobe Stock collection? Being part of a larger company that is focusing elsewhere - getting the stock price up as part of the AI goldrush - has its downsides...

Third hand, logos, missing legs..all this can be captured by some coding and AI. Then all this photos will be separated in the review process, I think they will have some kind of tool soon, because billions of AI images are coming with breakneck speed.

Adobe Ai has content and commercial use rights. Midjourney has more data for content creation but I don't think it has commercial use rights. Even for a fee.

So Adobe are uninformed and misled or they are sufficiently informed and after analysis have decided to accept this AI pictures? To me is the second.

I'm not surprised as I stopped uploading in Dreamstime due uploading problems, especially importing problems on their servers (some files imported others not). I asked the support two times and they replied something like "it's all fine here, the problem is on your side" then I quit them.

I saw a lot of comments, but I still can't understand how this will work. I understood that Shutterstock change the commissions from fixed amount to percentage, would someone explain % of what? As to calculate percent you need reference amount.
In Elements for example you get 50% of the pool and divided bonus from the unused amount. No matter in this case if it is fair or not in each particular agency, but let it be clear.

This boat is sinking not because of breakdown, but it's overloaded. So the key is to not be picked up too many new passengers and meanwhile some of the oldest to continue jumping.

At least they share  the risk with us for 6 months with this move, they enter with money to show us that they believe in this change, I like to be positive, maybe Canva will reach positive move in long term for the contributors not just for them, I hope.

I know personaly a lot of spanish photographers from years, I have at least 100 000 km travel in Spain, I passed so many villages and cities and I love this country like my second home. Great people, be strong!