MicrostockGroup

Hi! I am feeling that exclusives at DT have a lot of advantages.. I got nice approval, could be better but I understand some of them but others are not understandable.. They can be usual stuff but I bet if they were submitted by exclusives they would get in once SS, FT and IS accepted these files... this isn't the first time, how do you feel?

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-57648268/stock-photo-fresh-apple-fruit-isolated-on-white-background.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-57648280/stock-photo-elegant-red-wine-glass-on-brown-wooden-background.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-57648364/stock-photo-set-of-drill-bits-on-wooden-background-shallow-depth-of-field.html

I guess they deserve more but it is kind of unfair.. subjects are well covered like you said but if they were submitted by exclusives they woudn't say no.. but as a non exclusive "not what we are looking for"...! LOL

I don't think that DT is going to change their "new" policy, ever.

Why would they? With the new policy in place they only accept more unique and better content which is only for their own benefit. And that's all that counts to them.

I've mentioned before that the agencies are the real winner in this game as they can put their own rules in place that WILL affect all contributors except themselves.

It helps the agencies but not the individual contributor.

The agencies on the other hand claim that with a "better" collection/improving collection more buyers will come and buy more of your images - ok we all know that this is not going to happen.

There are too many players in this game so it's basically survival of the fittest. Newbies will soon be discouraged early on and drop the ball because they can't make it to the critical port size to see a good, steady stream. And the oldtimers will have to bite the bullet and take a hit in income until eventually the amount of active contributors drops significantly.

In general I'd recommend to stay away from well covered topics. The apple, wine glass and the friggin' beautiful woman on headset ( ) are just a waste of your time unless you can make it better than the best images that are already online.

If I can do it better than some of the best I'll give it a try but otherwise you are putting time into something that won't give you enough returns.

Furthermore, every agency can refuse an image for any reason. Fair or not, that's what we signed...

I can't say I could really single out DT for anything. They all have the same problems with rejections. I think if they let you in as a contributor, they should accept your images barring any major flaws or mistakes (hey, we all make them). To avoid garbage, just be more picky on who you let in or cull non selling images every few years. Maybe, even kick people out that are just taking up space. To avoid similar images, they should just group a series under one image. So, only one or two images show up in the search, but buyers can see the rest from a link or lightbox on that image.

A lot of these agencies seem to have evolved very little. Their solution was just to reject more, rather than try to actually solve their problems. It would be nice if we, the contributors, had a little more say on how our images are sold because I'm thinking we could probably make both the agencies and us more money if they gave us more control.

I don't know. If you look under the tab "Latest Submissions" you will see egg noodles, a spring landscape, a hand with money, a dark chocolate bar, a woman with a gift package, an apple with a tape measure around it, tomatoes and a "beautiful young model". Nothing unique, nothing that doesn't have stiff competition. I don't get it.

http://www.dreamstime.com/latest-photos_pg1

I just got this rejection: "Reason: Image subject is too specific or niche-oriented. The primary goal of a stock image is to be generic and match as many usage types as possible. Your image is not generic enough and will not generate significant sales. Please try to recreate/rephotograph the scene differently and/or use this info for more generic images in the future."
(The image featured a Paris landmark, lesser known than the Eiffel Tower or arch of triumph, but still Paris landmark)

I think I'll just submit some more Eiffel Towers...
Or maybe I'll go and shoot some apples and tapemeasures, those should be generic enough for their taste.

...be careful with this

from wikipedia: "A French court ruled, in March 1992, that the night-time light display is protected under copyright, except in a panoramic view. As a result, it is no longer legal to publish contemporary photographs of the tower at night without permission in France and some other countries."

The light show is not alllowed. Night views with regular lighting are ok.

Yes that is the oddness I find with Dreamstime . Maybe they are trying to be Veers , not take anything you got on Shutterstock, Istock, Fotolia but I cannot see reviewer checking before rejecting "not what we looking", "poor compostion" or any subjective reason.
It is strange new policy. I think they again are looking for amateurs because they will jump exclusiveness with Dreamstime.

They have new editor. It say in news today. Explaining maybe it is reason for new policy of sudden subjective rejections vs past objective.
Also, we know it is all about volume, not rocket science to sell micro stock. More amateurs with little or no overhead can easily replace serious contributors. Put new exclusive on frontpage and keyword ranking and agency  not lose any sleep even if many old contributors go exclusive with IStock or quit Dreamstime.
Again, my impression only.