Hi Everyone,

I would like to share two updates regarding the submission of generative AI images to Adobe Stock. We have updated the contributor portal and added an additional checkbox that eliminates the need for you to attach a property release for generative AI images featuring people or property that are fictional.

In addition, you can now submit photo-realistic generative AI images as asset type photos, i.e., content that looks as though it could have been created by a camera, as long as you check the box that it was created with generative AI tools. All other generative AI content should continue to be submitted as asset type illustrations.

You can read the details on all the updates in our learn and support page here:
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-content.html

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Mat Hayward

Hey @Mat,
Now it is showing $1 on Banner but it is strange to me they have paid me $5 for my assets from last 2 consecutive years, now why $1, Since my portfolio and assets are similar types.
you can say mixed nature (vectors and illustration).

Quote from: MatHayward on June 28, 2023, 13:12

Quote from: lowbouncerate on June 28, 2023, 11:20

Hi,
I can see the banner of Adobe Free Collection but it says $5 for each selected assets but in email it is states its $1 for each assets.
Its Human Error or something?

Hi everyone,

Today we did, in fact open nominations for those of you with eligible icons in your portfolio. The payment for accepted icons is $1 per file.

@lowbouncerate, if you could please send me a screen shot of the banner you referenced displaying $5, I would like to investigate. Please send to my email address [email protected]

Thank you,

Mat Hayward

This is the first time we have made a selection specifically for icons in the Free collection.

Thank you,

Mat Hayward

Hi,
I can see the banner of Adobe Free Collection but it says $5 for each selected assets but in email it is states its $1 for each assets.
Its Human Error or something?

Hi everyone,

Today we did, in fact open nominations for those of you with eligible icons in your portfolio. The payment for accepted icons is $1 per file.

@lowbouncerate, if you could please send me a screen shot of the banner you referenced displaying $5, I would like to investigate. Please send to my email address [email protected]

Thank you,

Mat Hayward

Perhaps June 28th?

Perhaps indeed! Note to self...drink more coffee before posting! JUNE 28 it is!!

MatHayward,  why for my photo is displayed UNDER REVIEW

The in review slider will be removed tomorrow. The approvals are complete for this wave.

Thank you,

Mat Hayward

You go to your Adobe account (website) and select free under "filter by price level" - then you see all the photos in the FreeCollection.
You can then count through them quite quickly :-)

Unfortunately, there isn't an easy way to call the earnings out in the contributor portal. JustanImage has shared one good workaround. Another, way to confirm payment is to check your earnings status from today. Note the amount and then add up your earnings from individual sales in he Activity statistics. There should be a difference of the amount added for your approved Free assets.

An email will be sent but has not yet been deployed.

Please keep in mind, this is an ongoing process and it does not all happen at once. I'll post here when the updates are complete, today.

Thanks,

Mat Hayward

Quote from: HalfFull on June 23, 2023, 08:01

I've been in contact with AS and Mat recently about rejections. The ones I took issue with do appear to have been approved now (now in the accepted list, image portfolio)... I'm waiting on a follow up confirming what actually happened.

I have to say I found Mat to be very understanding and balanced with his assessment. I have no issues there at all. Hopefully the rejection problem is a growing pain issue due to the high volume of images rather than a change in policy.

If I had any issue, AS should have seen this coming... we've seen how fraudsters have worked tirelessly in the Stock Industry, especially at Shutterstock, so there was bound to be a massive influx of chancers submitting dodgy work etc by the 1000's.

Personally, I'd like to see AI have its own queue away from photographs, illustrations and human pngs etc and for any delay to affect them only rather than impacting everyone. At the moment photographs seem to go through ok but png's take an age.

Thank you for your update, you are more communicative than Adobe in this fiasco.

I am glad they looked into your image/s but what the real going concern is the mass rejections that totally break the pattern of years previously.

I have completely halted uploading as the rejections are beyond reasonable and quite frankly a complete waste of my time.

We have been assured by Mat that nothing has changed, and I think is safe to say after 9 pages of a thread proclaiming the opposite that this simply is not true.

Honestly I expect more from Adobe as they are usually top shelf but lately they have dropped the ball on this issue, and for that I among others are very concerned.

I am not at all concerned about a longer inspection time, this is totally understandable, volume creates delays. What concerns me is the SUDDEN extremely high amount of rejections or total rejections of quality content not meeting their quality standards. It is the polar opposite of the experience I have had since Adobe took over from Fotolia, black and white different.

I just with they would a) address this issue or b) fix it.

Please share your account number with me via PM or direct email to [email protected]. Share with me the date range, the number of images in the batch that were all refused and some file numbers for content you believe was inappropriately rejected. I will be more than happy to explore.

I cannot add any value to this discussion based on anonymous complaints of invalid rejections. I've not seen evidence of the "SUDDEN extremely high amount of rejections" being reported. To investigate, I need to see real-world examples. Without that, we are just spinning wheels here.

thanks,

Mat Hayward

Why does Adobe think my uploaded PNG file is ai generated? It is not, it was made in Inkscape. It's sitting in review with a message reminding me to select the generated with ai checkbox

Are you referencing the yellow bar in the contributor portal that says "If you submit Generative AI images you must select the checkbox"?

If so, that isn't targeted to you specifically and is not triggered by your PNG file. That message is visible to all contributors upon upload, regardless of asset type.

Thanks for the question,

Mat

Quote from: hatman12 on June 13, 2023, 00:44

Anyone received payment for free collection choices yet?

Are there any choices yet? Looks like all of my nominated files are still "under review".

The selections for the lates batch of nominated photos has not yet been finalized. You will receive an email notification when that does happen, plus there will be updates here in MSG.

Thanks,

Mat Hayward

Payments are generally processed within 7-10 BUSINESS days. The wait time varies based on how many requests are in the queue.

Thanks,

Mat Hayward

Quote from: MatHayward on June 07, 2023, 11:38

I appreciate you sharing the example. In my opinion, the image is "OK" or "fine". Maybe a bit hot on exposure, but within range which explains why you didn't get the "technical" rejection. My perception of the "quality" rejection reason is that it's just "fine". It's a subjective process and we definitely won't all agree on everything. My personal opinion is that this one could have gone either way. What pushes me to agree with the moderator is that all the plates are different. Having hosted more than my share of childrens birthday parties, the plates always match. This could potentially be used by a party store, but it's more likely they would hire a photographer to shoot the exact products they carry. 

It's easy to focus on the rejections, and I know from personal experience how frustrating it can be. That said, it's part of the process and we've all experienced it. My suggestion is to avoid taking it personal and look at is as a challenge to do better the next time. We approve a heck of a lot more than we reject at Adobe Stock and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Good luck!

Mat Hayward

Sorry Mat, but I really had to laugh out loud when I read your (hair-pulling) reasoning for Firn's rejection.
 
According to my imagination NOW, a review team of well-paid experts from business, art and technology sits there in a cozy Adobe office and discusses on a scientific basis the sales prospects of every picture that is projected on a large screen - quite democratically, everyone then presses the quality buzzer or not.  But in this particular case, an international kids birthday paper plate expert had to be consulted. That is laudable and of course takes time.

At least that explains the long review times. Qualitatively good review takes time 

Thanks for explanation 

You're welcome Ralf. I'm always happy to provide comic relief

Actually, your post hits the proverbial nail on the head. As you know, I'm not on the moderation team. I don't review content, so what I did was scrutinized the image in question, gave it some consideration and decided after looking for a while that if I were forced to guess why the image was rejected for "quality" it would be for the reason I described. It's just my opinion, and in truth, I could be convinced otherwise without much objection.

The moderation team on the other hand, does not have the luxury of time when it comes to analyzing content. As has been noted in countless posts here and elsewhere, the wait time for review is taking an unprecedented amount of time. There is tremendous pressure to get this wait-time down to a more reasonable amount. Even without that added pressure, the mandate has always been for fast reviews. The moderator needs to make a decision within a second or two and move on to the next image or video. They do this all day, every day, 365 days a year.

There are more than 500,000 images online at Adobe Stock with the keywords "party plates" right now. It's safe to assume that most on the moderation team have seen their fair share and then some of photos of party plates. Some of the photos are awesome, others are "ok". The image in question here falls into the latter category in my opinion.

Complaints about rejection reasons, the lack of clarity in the reasons provided and disputes on the rejections have been ongoing since the first days at Fotolia. As I've mentioned countless times before, if the moderation team took the time to wrestle with each and every decision and then spent additional time providing specific details and answering every question that comes in arguing with the decision, the review time would be exponentially longer. It's not a perfect system and they don't get it right every time, but I feel very strongly they get it right most of the time. As an employee or not, you would have a very difficult time convincing me otherwise. Since I opened my account in 2006, I've had 2,989 files rejected. If I thought the content wasn't good enough to be approved, I wouldn't have sent the files in the first place. Someone on the moderation team felt differently. That's just part of the deal. The only real action that can be taken is to look at the content through impartial eyes, consider if something could have been done differently or better, and apply what I've learned to the next shoot to find a better result the next time.

We have an active Discord community, as well as the Adobe Stock contributor forum in which impartial feedback is provided by other contributors on rejected content. I've personally learned a lot from the insightful critiques offered. If you have some content you feel strongly was unjustly rejected, I recommend posting some examples and asking for outside opinions. Maybe you change you mind, maybe you don't. The important thing in my opinion is to continue to grow as an artist and to keep feeding the creative side of your brain.

On a personal note, @Ralf. You commented that my original explanation caused "hair-pulling". I too used to pull my hair with rejection reasons. If you've seen what I look like these days, you will almost certainly stop pulling your hair out. It doesn't always grow back!

Thanks for the lively debate y'all.

-Mat Hayward

Obviously there is some issue with extraordinary rejection rate at Adobe, even if Matt is trying to deny that.

Today I got really frustrated as out of batch of 500 diverse pictures 400 has been already rejected. And I am surely not an idiot trying to submit some useless crap, previously my acceptance rate was around 90% and I have almost 8000 pics in my portfolio.

Hey Kubeslaw, getting images rejected does not equate to being "an idiot". What is your account number? I'll be happy to take a look and offer you my opinion.

-Mat

I�ve been informed the payments for this wave of video approvals have been processed. You should see the change in your account balance if any of your files were approved.

Thank you!

Mat