pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Castles rejection  (Read 1370 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 29, 2012, 02:28 »
0
This is a new one to me:
"==> EUROPEAN CASTLES - as stated in iStockphoto's Technical Wiki:

Most castles in Europe that are not in ruins often operate as museums, are privately owned, or managed by a historical society."

Kinda hard to believe that you can't sell a photo of a historic building taken from the road over a mile away without getting a property release - and where would you go for a release for one which (like the one in my shot) is publicly owned?

I suspect that most ruined castles are privately owned, too, even if they are nothing more than inconvenient obstructions in a farmer's fields.

 


« Reply #1 on: April 29, 2012, 03:23 »
0
Yes, it is a new one - they started that a few months back - seems like overkill to me too, but there it is.

You can still submit such images as Editorial if you want.

ShadySue

« Reply #2 on: April 29, 2012, 09:45 »
0
Yes, it is a new one - they started that a few months back - seems like overkill to me too, but there it is.

You can still submit such images as Editorial if you want.

True, but in many cases you'll be competing against images of the same castle which haven't been culled from the main collection.
I had one rejected recently, where there are a few different angles already in the collection.
Ironically my recently-rejected castle used to be a castle, but is now more or less an office suite, shared by various organations; not a museum or owned by the National Trust or National Heritage or anything like that. A totally different angle of the same castle submitted at the same time was accepted.

« Reply #3 on: April 29, 2012, 11:31 »
0
Rules are rules. But some rules are ridiculous.

« Reply #4 on: May 12, 2012, 02:20 »
0
For me its simple - castles were build centuries ago. NO current owner has rights to limit shooting the castle from public place as they didnt build it, designed it or anything else. Many castles in Europe are owned by the state itself and as long as there is no PR need for shooting castles in law, no bureau or office is allowed to sign a PR for you! This is simply insane. In almost every country is allowed to shoot even private modern buildings from public. 90% of current MR and PR crap requirements were made by agencies and not by the law. This is just another step in creating paranoia...

m@m

« Reply #5 on: May 12, 2012, 12:10 »
0
Maybe they just have enough castle photos and not enough market for them :P

cascoly

  • Photography, travel & online games at cascoly.com

« Reply #6 on: May 12, 2012, 12:38 »
0
. In almost every country is allowed to shoot even private modern buildings from public. 90% of current MR and PR crap requirements were made by agencies and not by the law. This is just another step in creating paranoia...

perhaps it's evolution iun action - the profits will go to those agencies with rational acceptance policies

ShadySue

« Reply #7 on: May 12, 2012, 13:30 »
0
Maybe they just have enough castle photos and not enough market for them :P
I that were the reason, why would they suggest (in the rejection email) submitting them as editorial-only?

m@m

« Reply #8 on: May 12, 2012, 14:17 »
0
Could no say, but with 49,675 images of castles from all over the world in their archive and the fact that those castle in archive are not being deleted or transferred to the editorial section, may suggest that they want to control the input of such photos...what better way? Get a property release= (the almost impossible) or make them editorial= (this photo is not significant enough for editorial purpose) until they find the castle of two that they may be missing from their collection...IMO

Edit: Probably the reviewers in the editorial department have more free time in their hands to reject good photos that they don't want...just a thought! ;)
« Last Edit: May 12, 2012, 14:32 by m@m »

ShadySue

« Reply #9 on: May 12, 2012, 14:52 »
0
Could no say, but with 49,675 images of castles from all over the world in their archive and the fact that those castle in archive are not being deleted or transferred to the editorial section, may suggest that they want to control the input of such photos...what better way? Get a property release= (the almost impossible) or make them editorial= (this photo is not significant enough for editorial purpose) until they find the castle of two that they may be missing from their collection...IMO

Edit: Probably the reviewers in the editorial department have more free time in their hands to reject good photos that they don't want...just a thought! ;)
Did you fail Logic101?
If the photo is "not significant enough for editorial purpose" why would they be suggesting incurring the costs of a second inspection, rather than just rejecting them outright?;
If the editorial reviewers have "more free time on their hands", how come are main collection reviews for indies flying through in under 24 hours, but editorials are still taking about a week?

m@m

« Reply #10 on: May 12, 2012, 15:28 »
0
How many random castle pictures do you think could be sold as editorial? that's if they're accepted, for not being  part of current affairs or not being an extremely popular location

Have a nice one.

ShadySue

« Reply #11 on: May 13, 2012, 08:49 »
0
How many random castle pictures do you think could be sold as editorial? that's if they're accepted, for not being  part of current affairs or not being an extremely popular location

Have a nice one.

"I don't think less well-known castles would sell very often for use in travel articles, guide books or history textbooks, so you'd be better posting them as RM" may be a reasonable opinion, but it's not relevant to this thread.

iStock only started accepting 'hot news' this week, so your idea that a castle photo might not be accepted by iStock for "not being part of current affairs" is irrelevant. (This is a specifically iStockphoto thread.)

m@m

« Reply #12 on: May 13, 2012, 10:18 »
0
I'm very much aware this is a "specifically iStockphoto thread...I don't need to post my castle shots as RM, because they where accepted as RF without a request for a "property release" and have being in the collection for years (even though this is, as you said, not relevant to the thread)... Now, and this may be relevant to this thread!,  since you're so well inform, would you care to enlighten us with your version of the reason why 49,675 images are selling on the RF iStock collection without PR, but for the new uploads of the same subject, you're requested to provide one?...or is this question irrelevant as well...?
« Last Edit: May 13, 2012, 10:44 by m@m »

Poncke

« Reply #13 on: May 14, 2012, 12:51 »
0
123RF rejected castle shots recently. One was of a castle silhouette the other was a photo of a castle, different castle tho.  When I wrote them an email this was their reply.

We have re-evaluated the image 'Castle Silhouette' and have accepted it.
Image 'castle' rejected as RF but accepted as Editorial. Shots where the castle is the primary focus, as well as interior shots, would not be suitable as Royalty-Free in 123rf.


The silhouette castle was accepted on 123 and DP and rejected on CS and FT
The normal castle was accepted on SS, CS, DP and BS but rejected on FT and 123

Its completely random between the MS sites.

ShadySue

« Reply #14 on: May 14, 2012, 13:41 »
0
would you care to enlighten us with your version of the reason why 49,675 images are selling on the RF iStock collection without PR, but for the new uploads of the same subject, you're requested to provide one?...or is this question irrelevant as well...?
My answer to that is alreay in the Harvard thread.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
22 Replies
5340 Views
Last post April 13, 2008, 01:18
by cascoly
6 Replies
2113 Views
Last post April 15, 2008, 23:04
by anonymous
15 Replies
3801 Views
Last post July 08, 2008, 18:53
by madelaide
17 Replies
3517 Views
Last post April 25, 2009, 16:59
by madelaide
12 Replies
1517 Views
Last post February 18, 2012, 16:01
by Anyka

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors