My hands-on experience is with Adobe Stock, and I run StockPhotoScout, which helps contributors prepare AI images for it. What I pay attention to is what happens after upload: which images get licensed, whether they sell again, and how much work it takes to prepare the next submission.
Which site fits the images you make?
The first difference is whether you are creating an illustration or recording something that really happened. An AI image of a festival and a photograph taken at that festival have different submission options.
| Your work | Where I’d start | What decides it |
|---|---|---|
| AI-generated images | Adobe Stock | Accepts qualifying AI content; Shutterstock and Alamy do not. |
| Real events, streets and local places | Shutterstock or Alamy | Editorial submission options for documentary photographs. |
| Commercial photos with releases | Adobe Stock or Shutterstock; consider Alamy too | All three may accept the work. Compare preparation effort and actual sales. |
Why I would start with Adobe for AI images
Among these three sites, Adobe is the practical choice for AI contributors because it accepts this type of work. You still need the commercial rights, the correct AI declaration and an image that meets its submission standards.
Before your first submission, check Adobe’s AI image requirements.
One image, 11 downloads
What interests me beyond that policy is whether a file can keep earning after the work of creating and submitting it is done. In the Adobe records we analysed from April 2 to July 28, 2026, 653 downloads generated $577.35. The 105 images that sold at least twice accounted for 68.5% of those royalties.
The blue water image below is one of those repeat sellers. It appears in our records as an industrial impeller and water-flow image, with $8.34 earned during that period.
Those repeat downloads give me a reason to keep working with Adobe. When deciding what to create next, I look at the subjects that keep selling. A marketplace’s advertised commission percentage tells me much less about that opportunity.
Getting there still takes care. Files in New in Adobe Contributor have been uploaded, but not submitted for review. You check the images, titles, keywords and AI declarations before submitting. I would learn those steps with a few distinct images before producing hundreds.
The full Adobe earnings breakdown shows how those payments were distributed across the sold images.
When Shutterstock or Alamy makes more sense
Suppose you photograph a local festival: performers, spectators and shop signs, with no model releases. I would look at editorial submission options on Shutterstock and Alamy. Adobe’s limited illustrative editorial collection is a different category; it does not accept traditional documentary coverage.
Shutterstock is worth considering if you want to submit both commercial photography and documentary editorial work. For the latter, accurate captions matter: include when and where the photograph was taken. Its contributor AI policy rules it out for the generated images discussed above.
Shutterstock explains the distinction in its AI content policy.
Adobe’s illustrative editorial guidelines explain why that collection is different from documentary photography.
Alamy is another option for real photographs of places and events you can identify accurately. The practical difference I would pay attention to is quality control. It checks a sample of the images awaiting review; a failed sample can cause all images waiting for QC to fail. If you return from a trip with hundreds of photographs, inspecting them at full size is part of the work you are taking on.
Its payment terms also deserve a close look. From September 1, 2026, the contract uses revenue thresholds to determine commission tiers. Direct sales, distributor sales and exclusive content can have different terms. Work out which terms apply to you before treating an advertised percentage as your share.
Alamy’s quality-control rules explain how a failed sample affects the rest of a submission.
Use its current contributor contract to check your commission tier, payment conditions and exclusivity choices.
Should you upload to more than one stock site?
For eligible, non-exclusive photographs, trying a second site can be sensible. You have already done the shoot, and preparing another submission may take little extra time. Check the agreements and any exclusivity choices first.
If you are still learning releases, captions and submission screens, starting with one site keeps that first attempt manageable. If you already have well-organised files and reusable metadata, there is less reason to wait. “Start with one” is a way to reduce setup work, not a rule that the first site must produce a sale before you try another.
Compare the royalties actually credited and the additional time spent preparing each submission. Give the images comparable time on sale. A quiet month is not enough to tell you whether the subject is weak or whether another marketplace would reach different buyers.
Make your first submission small enough to learn from
For my AI workflow, Adobe is where I would begin: it accepts the content, and the sales records above give me a concrete reason to keep learning what works there. A photographer documenting real events has a different starting point, with editorial options on Shutterstock and Alamy.
Once you have chosen, prepare a small group of distinct images and follow that site’s submission process. The first task is to get your work ready for review. Sales take longer to assess; you do not need to settle your entire distribution strategy before making that first submission.
If you already have images ready, follow the Adobe Stock upload steps to check them and submit them for review.