MicrostockGroup

It now appears 'someone' has decided to deactivate existing (and high selling) files of playing cards, poker cards etc due to copyright issues on the design on the King, Queen, Jack etc and also the fonts used for Ace, 2,3,4, etc. Once again a new policy that hits contributors hard with no 'real' explanation of why files are being deactivated. I am truly amazed that anyone is staying with these bunch of clowns. I'm not affected fortunately, although believe it or not, I did as shoot only this afternoon for a client with a stack of cards based on the Queen Of Hearts theme but as it was a commissioned project I would not be uploading them to iSP anyhow. Is there any limit that iSP won't go to to totally pi** o** their contributors?

Wow.  I am not affected, but this is going to hurt some people.

Smart move, Click Click, to have designed your own set of cards!

And I have always thought the opposite. I know I have seen a thread in the past (over the past 6 years at some point) where cards were copyrighted. Just like the Scrabble game tiles, crayons, etc. Even when the logo isn't shown.

Part of the problem is the inconsistencies of the reviewers. One reviewer might have rejected a card shot, whereas 5 others let them through. Exact same thing with maps. I had an image rejected because I showed a map in the photo (part of the overall concept, but not the main subject) and yet look at the number of close-ups of maps there are, where the map is the main subject.

That sounds correct, RT.

I guess I'll file this in the once again Istock does not know what the h@ck it is doing folder...

I had one deactivated.  My cards are from a very old Bezique set by Cavendish, printed by Thos De La Roux Co. LTD London.  I have emailed to ask if it really needs to be deactivated, as these cards aren't on the list of companies that have copyrighted their designs and I can't find any information about them being copyrighted.

And istock still have photos of British coins and notes that aren't allowed to be sold as RF.  Shutterstock got rid of theirs and I removed mine from istock.  Strange how some rules are applied and others are ignored.

And to play devil's advocate, the info is in the technical wiki and there have been threads about it.
That said, what is and isn't allowed is a mystery to me. I had some pics, which had sold a few in early days, which is unusual for me, deactivated. This year, I uploaded them as editorial, and half were refused for my usual - lighting. But as I was uploading them, I noticed at least two of the same thing in the main collection, uploaded after mine. It's all to do with inspector judgement, and I certainly wouldn't like the job.

It's just natural 'flat' light in this part of the world. I just meant it was my most common rejection reason, nothing more than that.

You really haven't a clue. "I get lighting rejections" is an 'observation', no more no less, just a conversational remark.
This is a 'complaint': http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/am-i-going-nuts-editorial-rejections.

fair enough and I'm sorry my comment got trolled That said I think flat lighting can sometimes be an advantage. Next time you get a lighting rejection maybe go for peer review.

Similarly, there's a thread now in the editorial forum about a clock face being deactivated with a note that it couldn't be submitted as editorial.
The subject moved on to the Louvre Pyramid, and the bottom line was that 'photos where the Louvre Pyramid is the main subject' wouldn't be accepted as editorial.
Hmm. Search on 'Louvre Pyramid'. "Not the main subject"?

My guess / hunch would be that it is RF (and self service) which is the issue. Getty has lots of unreleased RM images of the Louvre pyramid as a main subject. Including in the Flickr collection. But because they are RM that means presumably that there is going to be a conversation with the client about the usage ahead of any sale.

I might be wrong.