Quote from: cascoly on August 03, 2014, 12:42

...

if they're selling digital images for download they are in direct violation of ebay rules and it's only a matter of time before they're banned from ebay completely

you must deliver a physical product and creating CDs on demand thru ebay takes a lot of work for tiny prices

So selling digital images in ebay is not allowed? I just read about this here http://www.ebay.com/gds/Copyrights-Publicity-Rights-and-Selling-Photos-/10000000177102630/g.html and also found some vendors in ebay who sell digital images and when you buy them the vendor sends the file attached in e-mail.

ebay requires that any digital photography be delivered in physical form -- print or CD.  the article just talks abnout copyright which is aseparate issue.

if you find people selling digital images for download you should report them to ebay as they are hurting legitimate ebay sellers

Quote from: meneldor on August 06, 2014, 03:25

Quote from: cascoly on August 03, 2014, 12:42

...

if they're selling digital images for download they are in direct violation of ebay rules and it's only a matter of time before they're banned from ebay completely

you must deliver a physical product and creating CDs on demand thru ebay takes a lot of work for tiny prices

So selling digital images in ebay is not allowed? I just read about this here newbielink:http://www.ebay.com/gds/Copyrights-Publicity-Rights-and-Selling-Photos-/10000000177102630/g.html [nonactive] and also found some vendors in ebay who sell digital images and when you buy them the vendor sends the file attached in e-mail.

ebay requires that any digital photography be delivered in physical form -- print or CD.  the article just talks abnout copyright which is aseparate issue.

if you find people selling digital images for download you should report them to ebay as they are hurting legitimate ebay sellers

I am not sure. Read their policy here: newbielink:http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/downloadable.html [nonactive]

Examples of digitally delivered goods that you can list on eBay as long as you follow the requirements above:
MP3 music you wrote, recorded, and own all the rights to
Homemade movies you created and own the rights to
Computer software you created and own the rights to
Software that you're authorized to sell online by the owner, the owner's authorized agent, or the law
Digital art you captured yourself and own the rights to or that you're authorized to sell online by the owner, the owner�s authorized agent, or the law
Photos you captured yourself and own the rights to
Recipes you created yourself and own the rights to

2 days ago, Shutterstock accepted this photo (and it sold almost immediately, which is nice):


Glass Pedestrian Bridge and Aquarium at Sunset 24mm by Trevarthan, on Flickr

But rejected this photo:


Glass Pedestrian Bridge and Hunter Museum at Sunset by Trevarthan, on Flickr

With the reason, "We do not accept images of modern architecture or images where the architecture is the main focus."

I contacted them immediately for clarification, because both photos contain modern architecture in the same proportion, and the focus in both photos in on the bridge itself. I waited 2 days, but didn't receive a reply, despite their usual 24 hour contact us reply time.

Any ideas why they might have rejected that?

I'm guessing the problem is the modern building on left. Architects now often copyright there building designs.

I'm guessing the problem is the modern building on left. Architects now often copyright there building designs.

SS' definition of 'modern' varies with the reviewer, and also with your keywords

2 days ago, Shutterstock accepted this photo (and it sold almost immediately, which is nice):


Glass Pedestrian Bridge and Aquarium at Sunset 24mm by Trevarthan, on Flickr

But rejected this photo:


Glass Pedestrian Bridge and Hunter Museum at Sunset by Trevarthan, on Flickr

With the reason, "We do not accept images of modern architecture or images where the architecture is the main focus."

I contacted them immediately for clarification, because both photos contain modern architecture in the same proportion, and the focus in both photos in on the bridge itself. I waited 2 days, but didn't receive a reply, despite their usual 24 hour contact us reply time.

Any ideas why they might have rejected that?

comparing the two images, my guess (not expertise, as i am not an architecture nor IP lawyer)
it's not the bridge, but the building to the left which is very unique in design.
it's much like the design of say for automobiles? how do u know it's a Maserati, Lambo, Mercedez,etc..
all protected as intellectual property. even a shot of the rim will fall under this.

Update on this... SSTock asked me to clone out the billboards:

"Dear Jesse,

Your e-mail is appreciated.

I have checked your image with our Legal Department.

As per their decision, you may consider a resubmission, if you clone out the billboards on the right side of the image. (The Hunter Invitational, and the Enjoy music...)

After retouching those out, please consider a resubmission, and add the following Note To Review:

 ATTN REVIEWER: See an Admin about this batch (re:case #01113477)

Please remember: This note does not guarantee approval.

Please feel free to contact us if you have any additional questions.

Best regards,

Mate Toth
Contributor Success
Shutterstock"

Unfortunately, after I did so (spending at least an hour in the process) and resubmitted, I received another rejection:

Model Release--A complete & accurate Shutterstock approved model and/or property release is required.
We do not accept images of modern architecture or images where the architecture is the main focus.

I mean, I already knew the architecture was an issue. I was asking for clarification only. It's highly annoying being asked to do additional work with the implication that compliance will yield acceptance (but not the guarantee), only to be shut down for exactly the same reason. Sigh.

This seems to be a pattern with microstock. Ask a hard question, be asked to do more work and resubmit, and get rejected again. It's like a "stupid tax" or something.

Quote from: trevarthan on August 16, 2014, 16:35

Sigh.

This seems to be a pattern with microstock. Ask a hard question, be asked to do more work and resubmit, and get rejected again. It's like a "stupid tax" or something.

move on, don't waste any more of ur energy on a beating a dead horse.
from the looks of things, u know how to take good photographs,
so go n shoot generic objects,etc which will have a wider usage . this will not only give u more
approval thus bigger port, but also the wasted energy u spent on this topic,
could have well been used for u to shoot other items
that do not invite reviewer ping-pong.

my point being, even if u got this shot approved, the usage is limited.
save urself the headache, my friend 

This is some of the best advice I've seen in a while! Heck, copy this last statement and make a template of it! We've all gone thu this before! And in the end the finally approved image NEVER SOLD!

Since you have the photo already, why not submit it as editorial (according to SS's editorial guidelines, which I'm not familiar with).

I can't believe that in five pages nobody seems to have mentioned composition, while everybody is obsessing over sensor spots, focus, DOF etc.
The photos I've seen strike me more as technical records of architectural design, rather than attractive photos. I also have difficulty imagining what sort of use they would have for advertisers. Stock landscape images need to convey a feeling ("nice place for a holiday or conference") and/or a broad sense of place (Pyramids say "Egypt", camels say "Arabia" etc etc), or even just an emotion such as tranquility (eg http://fineartamerica.com/featured/end-of-the-day-paul-cowan.html).  A picture of a museum building may be useful for nothing other than advertising that museum (unless the museum is a landmark or symbolises a place) and does the museum need to go to a stock site to get a picture of itself?
So I would counsel thinking about composition (how to make it look especially attractive) and usage (who will want this subject and for what).

For crying out loud. You accept this crap from me:



And this even crappier image:



But then I get a clue and take a 6 shot focus stacked, HDR masterpiece like this:



And your door goons reject it for ...

Quote

Trademark--Image / Metadata potentially infringes on intellectual property rights.
Composition--Image is poorly composed and/or poorly cropped.
Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues, unfavorable lighting conditions, and/or incorrect white balance.

Honestly... I'm starting to wonder why I'm even trying. 

all three photos are fine, especially the last.
But look at the rejection reasons, that basically say:
not relevant for stock, there could be trademarks, and lighting is strange.
all is true.
the point is your are not in a photoclub where you try to impress other photographers. Instead you are on a marketplace where you want to make customers  pay for your images. So you need to think about the customers needs and that is not interesting light, or interesting compositions.

If you put a woman with a shopping bag on the bridge it will be much more stockworthy, but still the bridge and buildings are distracting, unles you aim for a special modernistic urban impression. And are there customers for that?

all three photos are fine, especially the last.
But look at the rejection reasons, that basically say:
not relevant for stock, there could be trademarks, and lighting is strange.
all is true.

They don't say that, really. But that's what I took away from it too.

Am I twice as likely to be rejected if there is a colorful sunset in the photo? I was wondering all night if that was the red flag that got me.

the point is your are not in a photoclub where you try to impress other photographers.

I resent that a little. I'm just trying to portray the scene at it's best and most beautiful. I think that's what most travel photographers do.

Instead you are on a marketplace where you want to make customers  pay for your images. So you need to think about the customers needs and that is not interesting light, or interesting compositions.

I saw a photo from istock on facebook a few months ago of this scene. It was clearly a purchased stock image and shutterstock didn't have the same version. The one it had was weak, IMO, so I started shooting it.

I'm also wondering if they're rejecting me because I have three different photos of the same scene at this point, ignoring the fact that this one is technically the best.

However, none of the photos on shutterstock are at sunset with a colorful sunset, so I thought the time of day would be useful for some advertisers. Was I wrong? If that's the case, I can always reshoot, waiting for a colorless sunset with clouds, like this:


Ross's Landing with Fluffy White Clouds by Trevarthan, on Flickr



I just need to know if sunset colors are something to avoid.

If you put a woman with a shopping bag on the bridge it will be much more stockworthy, but still the bridge and buildings are distracting, unles you aim for a special modernistic urban impression. And are there customers for that?

Not a bad idea at all. It's just a different kind of photo from what I see mostly for travel photos. Usually I'll have to shoot with higher shutter speeds and use f2 instead of f8, or else keep the model extremely still. I'm not opposed. This was just the low hanging fruit.

Thanks for the feedback, btw. I appreciate it.