Author Topic: SS Application Critique, Please... (Read 1822 times)

ShadySue · « **Reply #25 on:** January 21, 2012, 17:59 »

Quote from: trofia on January 21, 2012, 17:41

I will follow the force and dare the submission in the next coming days. I am learning a lot of things searching similar images already on SS.
For example, I learned that the majority of the shots of the Colosseum in Rome are RF. Only few are Editorial, the ones with some people around the image. In my pic some tourists are visible veeeery far, so I will play safe and submit it as Editorial...
I also noticed that many photo with people in the shadow and not recognizable are submitted as RF. Strange...I wouldn't risk. I think DT is more strict about people in images and they want them to be submitted as Editorial...

As far as I can see, Editorial photos are sold RF on SS.
I think you're getting your head round what's editorial and what's acceptable as 'can be used for editorial and commercial purposes'.
I haven't looked that closely into SS, but if it's anything like iStock, there will be old shots in the 'commercial' collection which wouldn't be acceptable there nowadays, or which just 'slipped through'.

lbarn · « **Reply #26 on:** January 21, 2012, 18:07 »

Quote

For example, I learned that the majority of the shots of the Colosseum in Rome are RF. Only few are Editorial, the ones with some people around the image. In my pic some tourists are visible veeeery far, so I will play safe and submit it as Editorial...
I also noticed that many photo with people in the shadow and not recognizable are submitted as RF. Strange...I wouldn't risk. I think DT is more strict about people in images and they want them to be submitted as Editorial...

The real question is when were those popular building shots accepted? And those with people in them the same question. It is very likely that there were accepted several years ago before the rules were adjusted. Sometime last year SS stopped accepting buildings with property releases if they were "the main subject", this type of architectural shot still is commonly accepted by Istock and Dreamstime. I would use caution when searching the library for shots like yours and thinking that since some already exist, that similar ones of yours would easily get in, due to the rule change last year.

trofia · « **Reply #27 on:** January 21, 2012, 18:18 »

Yes, but I hit the tab "New". So they should be the newest shots accepted...

I can see that the oldest images are technically less advanced...

too bad they do not put the date!

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #28 on:** January 21, 2012, 18:47 »

The image# is how they determine old vs new.

Older images are like # 33000000 or smaller and newer are like 93000000 and larger quite easy actually.

If you are already signed with SS go to Shutterbuzz and look at the restrictions if you dare.
Here is the link and the Colosseum is not on the list of restrictions.

http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/legal/stock-photo-restrictions

dbajurin · « **Reply #29 on:** January 21, 2012, 20:15 »

Quote from: trofia on January 21, 2012, 17:41

I think DT is more strict about people in images and they want them to be submitted as Editorial...

That's not true.

trofia · « **Reply #30 on:** January 23, 2012, 08:10 »

Passed the Entry application with flying colors! 9 out of 10 were accepted...only the black and white building was rejected for LCV. Maybe the best shot...
Anyway I am very happy but now have to make decisions. I am an exclusive for DT and traveling for a month in March, so won't have a lot of time to dedicate to stock in March'April. I opted out the settings on SS, so my images are not online yet. How long can I keep my account and images "frozen"? Can I be not active for 2-3 months?
Anyway, I would like to thank everybody for your support and tips!

RacePhoto · « **Reply #31 on:** January 23, 2012, 12:58 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on January 21, 2012, 18:47

The image# is how they determine old vs new.

Older images are like # 33000000 or smaller and newer are like 93000000 and larger quite easy actually.

If you are already signed with SS go to Shutterbuzz and look at the restrictions if you dare.
Here is the link and the Colosseum is not on the list of restrictions.

http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/legal/stock-photo-restrictions

Small complication. SS and the other sites make up their own rules. Sometimes in the middle of the game. Just because they missed something, doesn't mean it's allowed (legally). Also just because they prohibit something, it doesn't mean it's not legal to sell RF images of that subject. Italy is complicated and a mess.

Italy: The Italian copyright law does not contain any exception for pictures from public places. Therefore, only "fair use" of images is permitted (according to copyright act, §70 and §70 1-bis), unless they don't portray any object still under copyright (as recent buildings, subjects to architect's copyright) nor any cultural heritage asset, subject to a fee and other restriction due to the cultural heritage and landscape law.

The following are considered cultural heritage assets: state owned things with some artistic, historic, archeologic or ethnoantropologic interest; libraries, galleries, museums and archives collections; other items declared cultural heritage by the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities unless explicitly removed on a case by case basis.

The national catalog of cultural heritage assets is not publicly accessible.

The Colosseum Rome - Flavian Amphitheater in fact, is protected. But if the sites are accepting photos for sale, I'm sure not going to bring it to their attention. And I suspect the Italian laws and the MCHA of Italy, aren't going to complain either.

In other areas I've had things deemed Editorial only, when they aren't, and had things refused for possible copyright violation, which are clearly Public Domain. (and I won;t complain but I think there are some things they take that are clearly protected...) That's the way the ball rolls. Whatever the agency says, is their personal rule and it shouldn't be confused with the actual laws.