Today again rejected 5 images for the same reason, this time I took AI out of the file names.
Again written to the support and received the answer after a few hours.
Even though this is annoying and not a permanent condition for me, I have to praise the Shutterstock support at this point. They responded to my questions and the answer came very quickly.

With Adobe I had a specific question about a problem with editorials and after 2 - 3 weeks they referred me to the FAQ page.

This time the explanation goes more in the direction of Michaeal's technical text wall 


"....Thanks for keeping us updated regarding this matter with your submissions and for sharing your feedback.

The review process is based on strict guidelines which all our reviewers comply with, but also, it's a subjective process done by humans in which errors can be made. That being said, please resubmit your recent assets rejected following the same instructions previously shared and including the Case Number ...

On the other hand, we noticed the images were oversaturated which might be causing the AI rejection; please avoid the overuse of filter effects for all future submissions. ...."


I love oversaturated images and here so far no problems with the review and now this stupid AI gets in my way. 

Thank you for the warning.

Content for istock, deposit etc� I still process all that with an old photoshop elements version.

Content worked on with modern photoshop only goes to Adobe.

I will share this thread in a few places, things have truly become more complicated.

Just briefly to clarify, that obviously didn't come across right. My concern at first was also that you are no longer allowed to use Topaz and Photoshop.

These tools may still be used for Shutterstock.

The problem in my case was that I had visibly used Sharpen AI for the reviewer, he probably didn't know this tool and put my image in the Gernerative AI box. At least that's how I interpreted their answer.

The image has now come through the review unchanged.

Just got the reply from Shutterstock, the problem seems to have been the use of Topaz:

"..... After checking the Topaz Sharpen AI and Topaz Gigapixel software that was designed to remove noise of images and after confirming that you are the copyright owner of the content that was rejected on suspicion of being AI-generated, allow me to provide the follow steps:...."

I am now to resubmit the image with a case number.

Somehow everything is getting more and more complicated.

Thank you, Jo Ann. I couldn't find anything noticeable in the metadata.
The only thing is the filename,which looks like this after using these tools:
053_drage-SharpenAI-motion-gigapixel-hq-scale-2_00x copy.jpg.

I would imagine that this could be a problem. However, only since today, because I use these programs regularly.

Quote from: Wilm on October 05, 2023, 15:50

Half of the images displayed on the first page for almost any search term are images "generated with AI". 5% of all images in the database are displayed as "generated with AI". ...

quick test - none of these are even 20% AI:
india
varanasi
rainer

mountaineering sherpa - a few of my Ai & others on 1st page, but still mostly non-AI

which search terms yield half AI?

if only 5% are in the AS collection, but half are displayed on 'almost any search term' that implies a seriously biased algorithm

Steve, I think this is more about general search terms than specific travel topics.

By the way, Sahara desert has an AI picture in 1st place and a few more on page 1. Most of the images are clearly recognizable as AI.

And what is this junk picture at the top about the Caribbean doing on page 1?

https://stock.adobe.com/de/search?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_page=1&k=karibik+strand&search_type=autosuggest&acp=1&aco=karibik&get_facets=0&asset_id=605913510


I can't really imagine that such a picture is really popular with buyers. Something else is going on in ranking AI.

easy and fun,and they also pay me 300 USD

I sincerely wish you success, but you don't have the money in your pocket yet.
Bananas determine everyday life in countries where they grow and are cultivated.
If our photographer friends there now really step on the gas, it should be difficult to get against it 

But again, good luck with your experiment. I am curious about the result.

While I agree that the submission requirements do say it shouldn't have identifiable locations/people/etc - so in this case - I would say this should have not gone through according to the current specs...

However, making a reason to reject based on something that could be construed/potentially "offend" someone - while yes, of course tragic/etc, and definitely very tragic for anyone personally affected - it would not be right to reject something because someone could be potentially offended, otherwise, where do you stop? Slippery slope. Some people might not like pictures of cows (i.e., vegans, east indians, etc). Some people might not like pictures of churches, or conversly mosques, (i.e., they "feel offended" by a particular religion), etc. Some might not like political parties, political stances, etc. Some people might not like 'black' people, others might not like 'white' people, others might not like 'asian' people, etc, etc. So 'feeling offended' is not a good reason to reject. (Total aside - last 3 years should have been an eye opener for many in terms of what really happened then, as well as what really happened WWII/etc - people are deliberately having their emotions/thoughts manipulated - but entirely different topic).

For me, it's not the subject itself, i.e. an exploding building in a big city, for example. Whoever likes that, let them do it. 
My personal problem is the reference to a named real horrible event. The whole thing then also with bad unrealistic pictures. This is in bad taste and respectless from my point of view, not to mention that it violates Adobe's guidelines. 

It reminds me of the mentality of cell phone gawkers during accidents.

This is a huge topic and the question cannot be answered so simply.
On the one hand, opinions differ widely here, and even if we leave out iStock for a moment, there are differences between the agencies here too.

The easiest way would be, you post a few examples from your portfolio, then one could look specifically whether improvements are necessary here.

I do my own tagging, after trying a few apps, on Shutterstock. In my opinion, the suggestions here are still the best and, in my experience, are also adapted to certain trends. But even here there should be many different opinions.

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on September 15, 2023, 11:45

Quote from: Uncle Pete on September 15, 2023, 11:29

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on September 15, 2023, 08:26

Quote from: Her Ugliness on September 13, 2023, 10:07

Worst of all is that you now cannot access the image and delete it. Today, for the first time in months or maybe even a year, I had an image rejected and I know it is a perfectly technical fine image with commercial value. So I want to re-submitt it, but I cannot delete the old one that went to "data licensing". That's really upsetting.

Yes, you can view and delete all these " Eligible for data licensing" photos .  Just go to the reviewed content, in here you can click on "data catalog",which you can find at the affected image.

And is there a delete button now? There wasn't before. When some of us wrote SS answered, these would be archived, in case we changed our mind about data licensing. HA! More like held hostage and what right do they have to archive our rejected submissions? Plus, lets say I want to make it exclusive elsewhere? How do I do that when SS has a copy on file.

They did say they would review the process and our ability to delete our own images. Did they?

Pete, like I said you can delete them now.

Where is that delete button? I do not see this in my reviewed tab and the image does't show up anywhere else. I also do not have any link saying "data catalog" to click on. Where do you see this?
 There are only the three dots and when I click on them the only option is "See large preview"

And I only talked with Shutterstock support yesterday about this and was specifically told that the image accepted for data licensing cannot be deleted by me and they refuse to delete it. 

Ok, that's strange and of course I can't explain that either.
When I click on data catalog, I first see all selected images.
I discovered this option only a few days ago and was surprised to find that I already have 20 images in this data garbage bin.
When I click on the three dots, I get the delete button as shown on the screenshot.

Worst of all is that you now cannot access the image and delete it. Today, for the first time in months or maybe even a year, I had an image rejected and I know it is a perfectly technical fine image with commercial value. So I want to re-submitt it, but I cannot delete the old one that went to "data licensing". That's really upsetting.

Yes, you can view and delete all these " Eligible for data licensing" photos .  Just go to the reviewed content, in here you can click on "data catalog",which you can find at the affected image. 

Thanks Jo Ann, I see my "top down" problem answered.

Of course, the agencies evaluate keywords, titles and their combination differently. So it is not possible to please everyone at the same time.

The only agency that gives insight into how photos are searched is Alamy in the search-history for views.
It makes sense to look here again and again,  the customers' search queries are already very complex with partly very unusual keywords. The frowned-upon term "isolated" crops up here all the time in my case. I can't imagine that customers search very differently at other agencies.

To your kitchen example with "wood shims" I could add countless examples with minor keywords.

In this respect, the Adobe recommendation for a small spartan number of keywords seems to me difficult to understand.

But maybe that's exactly the reason why Adobe runs comparatively poorly for me 

Got my payment right now 

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on September 06, 2023, 14:35

Quote from: cascoly on September 06, 2023, 14:06

image rejected as intellectual incontinence for box with 'heavy duty' on side

NLC

  silhouette of boat on Inle lake Burma
  Mt St Helens

At Inle Lake I get very wistful.
Have traveled the country in 2015 alone by motorcycle and find the current political situation in this spiritual with extremely hospitable people unbearable. When were you there?

This was my best seller before the coup.

last time 2015  - probably saw you.  my pix - https://cascoly.photography/search?q=inle  (lots of dupes that need to be cleaned up)

first time was 1987, just before the protests & the military coup. we were limited to a very narrow corridor but did get to Inle Lake big black market kyat was officially 8 to the $ (and you were required to change $25 & bring a Johnny Walker Red(!) for the customs agent or you'd have a long wait), but outside you could get 25-80. another currency was 505 cigarettes - packs replaced cash & were never opened

Thanks for your insights.
I can't top 1987, when I was still traveling with my parents in southern France