MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Strange Deactivation by Istock  (Read 4211 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 20, 2013, 10:08 »
+3
I received this email from Istock:

Dear iStock Member,

 After serious consideration, we feel that the adult oriented content in this file (18234425) is not suitable for our broad Royalty Free license and we have decided to remove it. Please note future uploads of similarly explicit content may be rejected.

 iStock Content Team

Attached is the image in question.


« Reply #1 on: November 20, 2013, 10:11 »
0
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahh. Incompetent hacks.

« Reply #2 on: November 20, 2013, 10:15 »
+4
Well the twin arches are more than a little suggestive. I am surprised you had the front to show here.

« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2013, 10:16 »
+2
iStock, what else? ;D

« Reply #4 on: November 20, 2013, 10:18 »
+3
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=939#6

"Logos & Corporate Branding

We will not accept images of protected logos and corporate branding where the logo is the sole content of the image. "

I'm guessing this maybe the problem.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2013, 10:22 »
+1
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=939#6

"Logos & Corporate Branding

We will not accept images of protected logos and corporate branding where the logo is the sole content of the image. "

I'm guessing this maybe the problem.


Yeah, there's a couple of similar mishit buttons reported on their editorial forum.

« Reply #6 on: November 20, 2013, 10:29 »
+1
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=939#6

"Logos & Corporate Branding

We will not accept images of protected logos and corporate branding where the logo is the sole content of the image. "

I'm guessing this maybe the problem.


problem for some, not for all, there are over 100 signs just like this one

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #7 on: November 20, 2013, 10:37 »
+3
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=939#6

"Logos & Corporate Branding

We will not accept images of protected logos and corporate branding where the logo is the sole content of the image. "

I'm guessing this maybe the problem.


problem for some, not for all, there are over 100 signs just like this one


Yeah, like all their deactivations - it seems to be quite random.
You'd think they'd find one brand, e.g. McDonald's, then look for all the McDonald's signs and deactivate those which need it all at once. Otherwise it just festers resentment.

« Reply #8 on: November 20, 2013, 10:39 »
0
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=939#6

"Logos & Corporate Branding

We will not accept images of protected logos and corporate branding where the logo is the sole content of the image. "

I'm guessing this maybe the problem.


This is probably the reason.  It is no big deal, but I though some of you would get a laugh out of it.

« Reply #9 on: November 20, 2013, 10:40 »
+1
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=939#6

"Logos & Corporate Branding

We will not accept images of protected logos and corporate branding where the logo is the sole content of the image. "


Alamy has a similar policy. It's takes them time to get around to everything too. Which is completely understandable.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #10 on: November 20, 2013, 10:57 »
+1
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=939#6

"Logos & Corporate Branding

We will not accept images of protected logos and corporate branding where the logo is the sole content of the image. "


Alamy has a similar policy. It's takes them time to get around to everything too. Which is completely understandable.

As we're talking about iStock, it wouldn't take much time at all.
Search McDonalds (or whatever). Put offending and marginal files into a lightbox for a second look. Remove those which pass on the second look, deactivate the rest.
And that's only knowing what's available on our end. Surely they have something more powerful.

Ron

« Reply #11 on: November 20, 2013, 10:58 »
0
The M probably resembles boobies too much  ;)

Ron

« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2013, 11:01 »
-1
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=939#6

"Logos & Corporate Branding

We will not accept images of protected logos and corporate branding where the logo is the sole content of the image. "

Alamy has a similar policy. It's takes them time to get around to everything too. Which is completely understandable.
Why approve them in the first place, someone is looking at the image, (these days one would think thats not true either), when he pushes the accept button. How can you miss a giant M staring you in the face?
« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 11:11 by Ron »

« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2013, 11:02 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:46 by Audi 5000 »

Ron

« Reply #14 on: November 20, 2013, 11:05 »
-1
Sure, when was that logo restriction implemented, surely from the early days.

« Reply #15 on: November 20, 2013, 11:09 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:45 by Audi 5000 »

pieman

  • I'm Lobo
« Reply #16 on: November 20, 2013, 11:33 »
0
I received this email from Istock:

Dear iStock Member,

 After serious consideration, we feel that the adult oriented content in this file (18234425) is not suitable for our broad Royalty Free license and we have decided to remove it. Please note future uploads of similarly explicit content may be rejected.

 iStock Content Team

Attached is the image in question.


Here is the deactivation notice on the file you are referencing:

Logo (isolated/main focus)

Please read the section on Logos & Corporate Branding in our editorial training manual
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=939&sp_rid=&sp_mid=4538780#11

This file includes, as the main focus, content that may be subject to copyright protection. We regret that it cannot be licensed in our Editorial collection.

Thank you very much for your understanding
iStock Content Administrator

I'm not sure how you would have received the Adult Content notification. If you are so inclined please feel free to forward the email you received to Contributor Relations. We will take a looksee to see if there is something happening on the notification process.

« Reply #17 on: November 20, 2013, 11:36 »
0
make sure you deactivate the other 100 as well

pieman

  • I'm Lobo
« Reply #18 on: November 20, 2013, 11:40 »
+2
make sure you deactivate the other 100 as well
I'm sure they will be removed in time.

« Reply #19 on: November 20, 2013, 11:42 »
0
make sure you deactivate the other 100 as well
I'm sure they will be removed in time.

thanks!

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #20 on: November 20, 2013, 11:44 »
+3
I'm not sure how you would have received the Adult Content notification. If you are so inclined please feel free to forward the email you received to Contributor Relations. We will take a looksee to see if there is something happening on the notification process.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357634&page=1
and
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357630&page=1

Ron

« Reply #21 on: November 20, 2013, 12:03 »
-1
Another IS cock up coming as a surprise to them. LOL

« Reply #22 on: November 20, 2013, 12:09 »
-4
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:45 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #23 on: November 20, 2013, 13:12 »
0
Sure, when was that logo restriction implemented, surely from the early days.
Ron. Istock editorial started in 2010. They started allowing images showing brands as part of that. After a while they decided that pictures where logos were the main subject were leaving the files open to misuse, so they are no longer allowed. That was fairly recently. So now they are reviewing images and taking some down. No big deal and no reason for a minor mistake by an inspector to be used as basis ugly attacks and 7th grade level humor.
.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 13:16 by landbysea »

Ron

« Reply #24 on: November 20, 2013, 13:16 »
0
And here I am, thinking my humor was at least 8th grade level.  :o I always love it when people tell other people they shouldnt attack someone, and throw in a few insults themselves. Its ok, point taken, principal.  ;)

« Reply #25 on: November 20, 2013, 14:07 »
+1
Sure, when was that logo restriction implemented, surely from the early days.
No big deal and no reason for a minor mistake by an inspector to be used as basis ugly attacks and 7th grade level humor.
.
If I only had a nickel for everytime I've heard THAT one, I could retire....Ron, I gave you a heart because I DO believe your humor is at least 8th grade level :)

« Reply #26 on: November 20, 2013, 15:18 »
-6
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahh. Incompetent hacks.
Really. An Incompetent hack? Ha Ha. A tired inspector hits the wrong rejection button. OK I get a laugh out of that. So what's the difference, the file is being rejected anyway. To call an inspector an incompetent hack kind of makes you look like a heartless idiot. I  do 100s of inspections a day. Not for istock. Sometimes I click a wrong button. Well I guess when you are not using you professional name you can get away with being as ugly as you want. I love hitting the reject button.

Ron

« Reply #27 on: November 20, 2013, 15:20 »
0
Jaysus, its a vote down massacre today on MSG.  :'(

Ron

« Reply #28 on: November 20, 2013, 15:22 »
0
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahh. Incompetent hacks.
Really. An Incompetent hack? Ha Ha. A tired inspector hits the wrong rejection button. OK I get a laugh out of that. So what's the difference, the file is being rejected anyway. To call an inspector an incompetent hack kind of makes you look like a heartless idiot. I  do 100s of inspections a day. Not for istock. Sometimes I click a wrong button. Well I guess when you are not using you professional name you can get away with being as ugly as you want. I love hitting the reject button.
OK, are you saying you reject images based on who the photographer is, and what he/she says in forums??

« Reply #29 on: November 20, 2013, 15:53 »
0
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahh. Incompetent hacks.
Really. An Incompetent hack? Ha Ha. A tired inspector hits the wrong rejection button. OK I get a laugh out of that. So what's the difference, the file is being rejected anyway. To call an inspector an incompetent hack kind of makes you look like a heartless idiot. I  do 100s of inspections a day. Not for istock. Sometimes I click a wrong button. Well I guess when you are not using you professional name you can get away with being as ugly as you want. I love hitting the reject button.
OK, are you saying you reject images based on who the photographer is, and what he/she says in forums??
I am saying you don't know who is in the forum and to laugh and ridicule people that inspect your images is probably not very wise.

Ron

« Reply #30 on: November 20, 2013, 16:04 »
0
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahh. Incompetent hacks.
Really. An Incompetent hack? Ha Ha. A tired inspector hits the wrong rejection button. OK I get a laugh out of that. So what's the difference, the file is being rejected anyway. To call an inspector an incompetent hack kind of makes you look like a heartless idiot. I  do 100s of inspections a day. Not for istock. Sometimes I click a wrong button. Well I guess when you are not using you professional name you can get away with being as ugly as you want. I love hitting the reject button.
OK, are you saying you reject images based on who the photographer is, and what he/she says in forums??
I am saying you don't know who is in the forum and to laugh and ridicule people that inspect your images is probably not very wise.
So you are saying reviewers are not impartial?

« Reply #31 on: November 20, 2013, 17:36 »
+2
Sure, when was that logo restriction implemented, surely from the early days.
Ron. Istock editorial started in 2010. They started allowing images showing brands as part of that. After a while they decided that pictures where logos were the main subject were leaving the files open to misuse, so they are no longer allowed. That was fairly recently. So now they are reviewing images and taking some down. No big deal and no reason for a minor mistake by an inspector to be used as basis ugly attacks and 7th grade level humor.
.

What ugly attacks?  I mean a notice like that just cries out for schoolboy humour..

Sue is right though, we have seen files moving around collections by software that should have been done by eye (even if the contributors' eyes) and its a complete mess, then they do something by eye which would be a breeze with a simple select statement...

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #32 on: November 20, 2013, 17:45 »
0
I guess it might not even be an inspector mistake, but somehow they have changed the linking so that an inspector correctly hitting the 'logo' button now triggers the 'adult content' button.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 18:05 by ShadySue »

Ron

« Reply #33 on: November 20, 2013, 17:47 »
+2
They have mis-wired the whole freaken site, so that sounds very plausible

« Reply #34 on: November 20, 2013, 18:47 »
+5
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahh. Incompetent hacks.
Really. An Incompetent hack? Ha Ha. A tired inspector hits the wrong rejection button. OK I get a laugh out of that. So what's the difference, the file is being rejected anyway. To call an inspector an incompetent hack kind of makes you look like a heartless idiot. I  do 100s of inspections a day. Not for istock. Sometimes I click a wrong button. Well I guess when you are not using you professional name you can get away with being as ugly as you want. I love hitting the reject button.
OK, are you saying you reject images based on who the photographer is, and what he/she says in forums??
I am saying you don't know who is in the forum and to laugh and ridicule people that inspect your images is probably not very wise.

Well, they've given themselves the track record of incompetence, not me.  Does the phrase 'pattern of performance' mean anything to you?

« Reply #35 on: November 22, 2013, 14:24 »
+1
Wow! What a train-wreck of a thread - and it started so well, too.

All I can say is that I think it shows tremendous moral courage by iStock to list McDonald's as an "Adults Only" sort of place, which is exactly what it should be (I should point out that I don't venture in there myself, if I want to go somewhere at night I prefer a cosy strip-club). 

I doubt if an American-based company would have had the courage to take a stand against Big Mac. Go, Canucks!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
4065 Views
Last post February 28, 2011, 17:43
by click_click
938 Replies
99541 Views
Last post April 30, 2014, 18:36
by deryl1975
11 Replies
2392 Views
Last post October 01, 2014, 13:42
by Freedom
13 Replies
3339 Views
Last post April 16, 2015, 12:00
by tickstock
3 Replies
674 Views
Last post January 27, 2017, 09:54
by russianbeardedman

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors