Verifying locations of images - for their (not really) Gaffe-Proof collections?

[Jo Ann Snover]

In a recent thread about SS's new low volume subscriptions I made mention of a request from a SS Contributor Success rep to verify the location of one of my images.

Another contributor mentioned that he'd just received four of those requests for images shot in the middle of nowhere.

Today I saw this blog post by Lee Torrens and wondered if these requests were part of trying to source images from a particular state for political candidates to use

http://www.microstockdiaries.com/shutterstock-to-save-politicians-from-themselves-with-gaffe-proof-collections.html

They are starting with two states, apparently: "...the new �Safe for IA and NH� collection hosts images shot by Iowa and New Hampshire-based photographers only". Strangely, they are concerned with where the photographers are based. I visit New Hampshire each summer (used to live there) and have quite a few New Hampshire images in my portfolio even though I don't live there now.

And the image they asked me about was in Washington state, where I currently live, so perhaps they're prepping things for other locations as well?

I can't find anything on the site or blog that links to this collection, but Google helped me out:

http://www.shutterstock.com/public_lightbox.mhtml?lightbox_id=38977292&code=14c7d1e8952ffadd126c844d1c9afec0&pl=Press15-pllb&cr=

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/shutterstock-new-hampshire-iowa-photos

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/stock-photo-service-shutterstock-campaign-images-gaffe-214475

I think they need to do a little more work on their curation, however, as the Nubble Light (in the collection) is in Maine, not New Hampshire.

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-197676677/stock-photo-nubble-lighthouse-is-illuminated-as-the-sun-sets.html?src=lb-38977292

People who live in one state sometimes travel to another...

Edited to add that this picture, also in the IA/NH collection says it's in Colorado...

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-10234423/stock-photo-mayflower-gulch-colorado.html?src=lb-38977292

This one is in Yellowstone

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-19330396/stock-photo-bison-along-a-river-in-yellowstone.html?src=lb-38977292

This one is in Vermont

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-319721138/stock-photo-the-picture-perfect-town-of-peacham-vermont-with-its-large-red-barn-and-white-new-england-church.html?src=lb-38977292

Colorado

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-94211479/stock-photo-bear-lake-rocky-mountain-national-park-colorado.html?src=lb-38977292

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-49799983/stock-photo-colorado-rockies-in-autumn.html?src=lb-38977292

Vermont again

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-153675464/stock-photo-the-brand-new-taftsville-covered-bridge-in-quechee-vermont.html?src=lb-38977292

[Shelma1]

I'm guessing this is in response to a few articles recently about Canadian politicians being embarrassed when it was disclosed that their admvertising campaigns included stock images of people and places that were not Canadian or located in Canada. I think there were a couple about Australian politicians as well.


Ah...just read the link. Apparently U.S. politicians as well.

So many more important things to be concerned with when it comes to politicians and the truth.

[Microstockphoto]

More work for the same peanuts

[Jo Ann Snover]

So SS did reply to my support ticket on this with some boilerplate "blah blah" that they can't be responsible for verifying keywords. There was a note at the end that they'd pass on this information to the person who curated this collection.

However it's exactly the same today, months later. I went to look because a SS rep mentioned it in an article a Facebook friend linked to about Offset and a shoot for Offset

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/inside-offset-the-surreal-millennial-targeted-photo-market-within-shutterstock-111

It really wouldn't take long to make a collection that actually did what they purported to do, but taking it down would be better than leaving it up when it's totally useless. And they don't take it down but make reference to it in an article!