MicrostockGroup

I suggested that to the leads right when the programme was rolled out. As you say, too sensible. And too easy: that's web 101 and the iStock webbies have to be 'cutting edge'.

I upload to iStock using DeepMeta.  I thought I would give editorial a try.  I don't see any way to designate the image as Editorial???  Would someone please point me in the right direction?

Thank you very much.  I wasn't able to find that anywhere.  Was it included in the iStock forum discussion?  I must have missed it and "search" didn't return a result???

ED:  worked like a charm.  Now, just wait and see.   

Slightly off-thread, but maybe not 'epic fail' territory.
For editorial, they have decided that you need permission to photograph one or two minors, or inside interiors (baguely defined: I had a rejection for a photo taken of performers (amateur) on an outdoor stage in a public park at a free event, after over four weeks 'pending executive' during which all that could easily have been confirmed by Googling.
Anyway, I wondered from the outset why they didn't provide the sort of specifically editorial releases they would want for these purposes right at the outset/editorial launch.
Today in the editorial forum:

Contributor:
I'm bringing this up because I got two of these rejections today. It would be nice if iStock would create an editorial release for such a situation. The current property release is so broad that some property owners or managers might be unwilling to sign it. I'd like iStock to create a release that basically says that the photographer is allowd to be on the property and has the owner's permission to take photos while they are on the property.


Subman:
The current property release is efficient, permission to shoot is permission to shoot. Normally with bigger events, press documentation giving permission to shoot on location are provided by the organising institution..
 
Contributor:
The current property release states:
"As owner or authorized representative of the Property and by
signing this release, I give the Photographer / Filmmaker and
Assigns my permission to create and use the Content depicting the
Property in any Media, for any purpose (excluding defamation and
/ or pornography) which may include, among others, advertising,
promotion, marketing and packaging for any product or service."

The editorial license does not allow the images to be used for any of those purposes. If I want to shoot at a local mall (for example) and I tell the manager that the images will only be used in newspapers, magazines or another editorial context and then ask them to sign a release stating that the images can be used for "advertising, promotion, marketing and packaging for any product or service," I don't look very honest.

Aside from the commercial property release, is there anything else that will iStock will accept as permission to use our images for the editorial collection?


Five hours ago: no reply is the loud reply.

Now I have a new dilemma. I use Capture One Pro, and it seems as a default to new dates on "date created" and "date modified" when I make JPG's from my Fuji X100 raw-files. If I state the real date on the upload page, my image gets rejected.

the real question to iStock would be: WHY DO WE NEED TO FILL IN THE DATE IN THE CAPTION AND IN A BOX ON THE UPLOAD PAGE IF IT'S THE FILE'S EXIF IS THE THING THAT REALLY MATTERS? AND WHAT IF MY CAMERA'S TIME AND DATE WAS SET WRONG???
 
Sorry about the shouting, I just had to.

They do sell, If I get some non-newsworthy images online (they will sell for a longer time), but it's such a struggle...

The problem at Shutterstock is that they don't understand what an editorial image is: they want "newsworthy" photos. And at IS they nitpick about the caption, file creation date etc. etc.

Make sure you submit how its says on their website.  DeepMeta has the date and then location.  All my images got rejected because istock requires location and then the date...I guess they are really picky on the order of things.  So I wanted to point that out as their third party software does not have the correct format...or I just got a crazy inspector.