Author Topic: Am I going nuts? Editorial rejections (Read 4883 times)

ShadySue · « **on:** April 07, 2011, 10:38 »

Within the space of a minute, I had these three rejections for Editorial at iStock, asking me to resubmit them for the main collection.
I realise that, as always, they could have been rejected for 'lighting', but please stick to the actual rejection and see if you can help me to understand them. I think I'm seeing the red mist, and I'm just not 'getting it'.
First one:

Isn't the yacht subject to IP? Also there are people on the yacht and around 30 people at the base of Liberty who can be seen at full size. Do they really think I can chase them all up and get releases?

Second one:

IMO, if I took the graffiti and sign away, there is no photo. IMO it's the juxtaposition that's the message: the solid still in use Victorian church and the long gone 'Adult fun' establishment. I can just see it in a church newletter illustrating '...fading is the worldling's pleasure, all his boasted pomp and show - solid joys lasting treasure, none but Zion's children know." (If you weren't brought up a Scottish Presbyterian, that will mean nothing to you, but sung to the tune of Deutschland Deutschland uber alles, you never forget it.)

Third one:

Again, IMO there is no picture/message/point without the writing in marker pen which helps the shop refitters to know where all the different bits go. The (only?) use I can think of this is in a textbook or OHP/smartboard for students/apprentices on day release etc in the building trade.

Again, please stick to the actual rejection. I already had one similar rejection which I scouted on Feb 13th and haven't heard back about yet.

lagereek · « **Reply #1 on:** April 07, 2011, 10:40 »

Nah! thats not editorial!! its big time Advertising, campaigns and everything.

pdx · « **Reply #2 on:** April 07, 2011, 14:52 »

hi Sue,

The yacht: Perhaps they're looking for the "editorial" content in an image to be a litte more prominent - if that makes sense - as in that regard the image is somewhat borderline. The colors and contrast also appear a little dull which probably helped push them towards a rejection - even if their stated reason is a little odd... unless the people are tiny and unrecognizeable. The yacht itself wouldn't be subject to IP though provided you can't see any names, logos, registration, etc... there are plenty of yachts in the main collection.

Church: The sign and graffiti appear to be generic with the sign being a phrase rather than the name of the store. It's a little hard to tell at this size but I probably wouldn't clone anything at all for submission as RF... I definitely wouldn't clone out "Adult fun" though - that would be the least of my concerns.

Construction site: As above, there's nothing wrong with including text such as "grid 7" or other generic scribblings in RF. Overall, in terms of subject and market value, this and the church image would be more suitable as RF anyhow.

Keep in mind their (standard) rejection notice says to remove any logos etc "if there are any". This doesn't necessarily mean they're asking you to remove anything prior to submission as RF.

ShadySue · « **Reply #3 on:** April 07, 2011, 16:45 »

Thanks for . iStock categorically say they won't take graffiti (though there's plenty in the collection). An admin categorically said if some vandal graffitied my property and I signed a PR, they wouldn't accept the image unless I had done the graffiti or had a PR from the vandal.
I've had a rejection for a very small area in an image that they thought was writing. I cloned it out and resubmitted and out of interest, I went back for a look - it was actually natural erosion!
iStock is very, very conservative about handwriting: there have been many examples of rejections even when someone has added writing, or even printed text, of their own (and maybe the inspector didn't read the note they had put to that effect in the description field.
I would expect the people in the yacht pic to be rejected. They are small, but my past experience and especially that of others (e.g. in the critique forum), would indicate a rejection for 'recognisability by context and clothing' - even when no 'reasonable person' would be able to attest that a photo was definitely one particular person.
Maybe that 'put it into the main collection' button is right next to the 'lighting' button and someone hit it three times in a row.
Maybe I'll just forget about these images. Scout is taking eight weeks and counting, and, having scouted very few images since starting iStock, I've got a backlog on editorials.

bunhill · « **Reply #4 on:** April 07, 2011, 17:15 »

this is only my opinion and these things are always about scales of subjectivity but ....

i think there is potentially a difference between graffiti in the US sense and graffiti which is just about writing words on walls. Some graffiti is identifiable almost like intellectual property. Even if you don't like it. Some tagging is almost like logos.

Stuff scrawled on a wall is more like breaking windows.

donding · « **Reply #5 on:** April 07, 2011, 20:21 »

I had this image rejected a long time ago by iStock....they said I needed a property release from the artist. Needless to say I did not mess with it...not worth the hassle...lol

luissantos84 · « **Reply #6 on:** April 07, 2011, 20:26 »

gwhitton · « **Reply #7 on:** April 07, 2011, 22:12 »

Quote from: donding on April 07, 2011, 20:21

I had this image rejected a long time ago by iStock....they said I needed a property release from the artist. Needless to say I did not mess with it...not worth the hassle...lol

Give me a break....wow!!

ShadySue · « **Reply #8 on:** April 14, 2011, 04:07 »

This one's an isolation rejection, but with the note that it should be in the main collection. I said clearly in the caption that it was hand-painted. (Not 'unique', from a workshop that puts them out in reasonable numbers, but the artist's intials (I assume) are on the back.

Like the ones above, it's a 'can resubmit', so I can't actually Scout it (or can I?)
Isn't there a wider issue. Shouldn't "I" (as on 'we, the contributors') be allowed to decide that I/we want a particular image only to be available for editoral uses because of the potential perfectly-allowable uses when sold from the main collection?