MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Strange rules/rejection at SS  (Read 14344 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 03, 2012, 06:45 »
0
I got a bunch of rejections today ( public domain photos) for the following reason: ''We require public domain images to be older than 150 years old.''. Has anyone received a message like that?

Is this a new rule on SS? The big majority of PD designs, drawings were made between 1860-1900. It doesn't make any sense.


ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #1 on: June 03, 2012, 09:10 »
0
Tis the Silly Season once again!

Attila has reappeared almost exactly one year after his/her first appearance last year.

Attila has run many regulars away with what are deemed by many ridiculous rejections that are unwarranted and done by someone who has no experience at all.

Or they are testing a new computer reviewing program?

« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2012, 11:22 »
0
I wonder if there is some country somewhere that grants copyright for 150 years (or age of artist + something that might add up to 150 years)?

Generally in the US it is just the age of mickey mouse plus something to keep Disney happy, but I can see them picking some arbitrary older time just to cover their backsides.

Whatever their policy might be, it would be nice if it was consistent and well communicated.

« Reply #3 on: June 03, 2012, 11:31 »
0

« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2012, 11:36 »
0
The funny part is that i contacted the books editure (that is in business even today) before uploading any PD images on SS  and they confirmed that the designs and illustrations are in Public Domain. I have send a message to SS telling them that i have writen proof that the illustrations are in PD.

« Reply #5 on: June 03, 2012, 11:56 »
0
I got a bunch of rejections today ( public domain photos) for the following reason: ''We require public domain images to be older than 150 years old.''. Has anyone received a message like that?

Is this a new rule on SS? The big majority of PD designs, drawings were made between 1860-1900. It doesn't make any sense.

I had the same rejection last week on a public domain image from 1883.   >:(

« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2012, 12:28 »
0
they're making it up as they go - it was never a reason given before - and they Still are rejecting images > 150 years old - eg from the1500s if you dont provide a releasse from the artist! 

« Reply #7 on: June 03, 2012, 12:55 »
0
I got a bunch of rejections today ( public domain photos) for the following reason: ''We require public domain images to be older than 150 years old.''. Has anyone received a message like that?

Is this a new rule on SS? The big majority of PD designs, drawings were made between 1860-1900. It doesn't make any sense.

I had the same rejection last week on a public domain image from 1883.   >:(

I had a bunch of PD photos accepted  ( 30. May) this week. when were your images rejected? Might be this a new review rule regardin PD photos? or just a uninformed reviewer...
« Last Edit: June 03, 2012, 13:02 by nicku »

« Reply #8 on: June 03, 2012, 13:06 »
0
I got a bunch of rejections today ( public domain photos) for the following reason: ''We require public domain images to be older than 150 years old.''. Has anyone received a message like that?

Is this a new rule on SS? The big majority of PD designs, drawings were made between 1860-1900. It doesn't make any sense.

I had the same rejection a couple of weeks ago on a public domain image from 1883.   >:(

I had a bunch of PD photos accepted  ( 30. May) this week. when were your images rejected? Might be this a new review rule regardin PD photos? or just a uninformed reviewer...

Mine was rejected on May 17th. 


« Reply #10 on: June 03, 2012, 17:26 »
0
Thanks, Scott! 

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #11 on: June 03, 2012, 17:32 »
0
Hi folks,

I'm looking into this one - I'll post what I find out.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
Thank you because there have been a bunch of Bogus rejections as of lately.

Isolated on white rejected for poor lighting, shadows and or WB and then there is the old LCV of images that by far have very good CV, there are even case where releases were with images and the reviewer still rejected for no release? Hows that?

Any help is appreciated.

Is there any way we can do away with LCV because what is seen by a reviewer as LCV (because he/she doesn't like it) turns out after numerous resubmissions to become a number one seller in ones port!

« Reply #12 on: June 03, 2012, 17:37 »
0
Yes, and while you are at it, also study what "editorial" really means. It's not necessary for an image to be "newsworthy" to be a good (selling) editorial image. In fact, images that aren't "newsworthy" have a longer selling period. I have a street scene from a particular city that is shot in 2006 and it keeps selling (most likely because similar newer shots would not be accepted any more :)). And the image could never be commercial RF, because there's a lot of people, signs and logos.

You really should think about the "editorial" in a broader context to give the buyers more options.

I just searched for some travel images to be used on an editorial website. It's almost eerie how almost none of the photos have any people in them.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2012, 17:41 by Perry »

« Reply #13 on: June 03, 2012, 19:22 »
0
Hi folks,

I'm looking into this one - I'll post what I find out.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
Thank you because there have been a bunch of Bogus rejections as of lately.

From years of experience.....Scott will not EVER have influence on reviews. 

Isolated on white rejected for poor lighting, shadows and or WB and then there is the old LCV of images that by far have very good CV, there are even case where releases were with images and the reviewer still rejected for no release? Hows that?

Any help is appreciated.

Is there any way we can do away with LCV because what is seen by a reviewer as LCV (because he/she doesn't like it) turns out after numerous resubmissions to become a number one seller in ones port!

Wim

« Reply #14 on: June 04, 2012, 04:02 »
0
Hi folks,

I'm looking into this one - I'll post what I find out.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Hi Scott,

If you guys read this forum then I wonder why some of us are still getting these inconsistent reviews.
Not everyone is replaceable and not everyone depends on one agency. Although SS is by far the best earning agency for many of us they have already forced us into venturing other territories because of these inconsistent reviews. There are a lot of big sellers and newcomers with potential in stock that have become a victim of this.
Some of us newcomers try to make it in the stock industry and will not let some incompetent reviewers get in our way, we take action, either by uploading somewhere else or leaving the agency alltogether, it's that simple, action = reaction.

Take care Scott and thanks for your involvement in this forum.

Regards,
Wim

« Reply #15 on: June 04, 2012, 04:15 »
0
Why upload a public domain photo on a microstock website?

« Reply #16 on: June 04, 2012, 05:54 »
0
Why upload a public domain photo on a microstock website?

Because microstock is not just pretty models posing and beautifully drawn Illustrations...


« Reply #17 on: June 04, 2012, 06:05 »
0
I know! But I don't see the point of downloading a public domain picture and putting it for sale on a micro/macrostock website.
Are buyers really interested in paying for images that they can find for free somewhere else?

« Reply #18 on: June 04, 2012, 06:23 »
0
I know! But I don't see the point of downloading a public domain picture and putting it for sale on a micro/macrostock website.
Are buyers really interested in paying for images that they can find for free somewhere else?
I think we are talking about scanning old books etc. and retouching and keywording images. Images that aren't necessarily available anywhere yet. Not just uploading some "ready" stuff.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2012, 06:27 by Perry »

« Reply #19 on: June 04, 2012, 06:27 »
0
I think we are talking about scanning old books etc. and retouching and keywording images. Images that aren't necessarily available anywhere yet. Not just uploading some "ready" stuff.

Oh,ok. Now it make some more sense. At first I thought that it was just uploading a public domain image as you found it on the internet.

« Reply #20 on: June 04, 2012, 07:25 »
0
Scott: In case you missed it on the Shutterstock Forum,

Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:56 am       

I would like to call for an end to the Limited Commercial Value rejection. As a contributor and buyer for many years, that specializes in isolated objects, I know what sells. I know that everyday objects, isolated, and photographed well, are much sought after. I've done very well here and on all of the top eight microstock sites selling such objects.

Within the last few months, I've been getting this rejection for the first time, even when the same photo is accepted and sells on the other top seven agencies. Obviously Shutterstock has undergone a shakeup in the reviewing process. The rejection email gives a link to Shutterbuzz, that tries to explain "the most commonly questioned reason of all for submitters" It goes on to explain that the reviewers are well trained and that they are artists and photographers themselves. Therein lies the flaw for this kind of rejection. They are not in marketing. They may well know technical merits, but not have clue as to what buyers are looking for. It's a different side of the brain. Artistry versus Marketing.

Therefore, I respectfully call for the end of this kind of rejection, and stick to judging a photo on it's artistry and technical merit, and not speculating on what the graphic community is hunting for. As a buyer, I can testify that you just never know what the next project is going to require.

Wim

« Reply #21 on: June 04, 2012, 07:59 »
0
Therefore, I respectfully call for the end of this kind of rejection, and stick to judging a photo on it's artistry and technical merit, and not speculating on what the graphic community is hunting for. As a buyer, I can testify that you just never know what the next project is going to require.

Spot on Danny!
On top of that we're not the kind who up large batches at a time filled with similars. Those even seem to be the lucky ones probably because reviewers don't want to check their images one by one and just accept the whole batch. Meanwhile we're working our .ss off to put the best quality we can in every single image, even add clipping paths.
It seems the worst quality you up these days the more chance of acceptance, that goes for photographers and illlustrators, judging by the latest imagery that gets accepted. I always wonder how on earth some people get their snapshots trough inspection and that makes me very suspicious of how things are run behind the scenes.
In the end it's a one way street anyway, I don't think they really care.

Wim

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #22 on: June 04, 2012, 08:14 »
0
Scott: In case you missed it on the Shutterstock Forum,

Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:56 am       

I would like to call for an end to the Limited Commercial Value rejection. As a contributor and buyer for many years, that specializes in isolated objects, I know what sells. I know that everyday objects, isolated, and photographed well, are much sought after. I've done very well here and on all of the top eight microstock sites selling such objects.

Within the last few months, I've been getting this rejection for the first time, even when the same photo is accepted and sells on the other top seven agencies. Obviously Shutterstock has undergone a shakeup in the reviewing process. The rejection email gives a link to Shutterbuzz, that tries to explain "the most commonly questioned reason of all for submitters" It goes on to explain that the reviewers are well trained and that they are artists and photographers themselves. Therein lies the flaw for this kind of rejection. They are not in marketing. They may well know technical merits, but not have clue as to what buyers are looking for. It's a different side of the brain. Artistry versus Marketing.

Therefore, I respectfully call for the end of this kind of rejection, and stick to judging a photo on it's artistry and technical merit, and not speculating on what the graphic community is hunting for. As a buyer, I can testify that you just never know what the next project is going to require.
A Big +1

« Reply #23 on: June 04, 2012, 11:08 »
0
Yes, let's have 10 million more amateur shapshots, please.
I think that at least 90% of these LCV rejections are entirely justified.

« Reply #24 on: June 04, 2012, 11:29 »
0
Yes, let's have 10 million more amateur shapshots, please.
I think that at least 90% of these LCV rejections are entirely justified.

If your point is that amateur snapshots should be rejected because the quality isn't up to professional levels, then I agree with you. But who is expert enough to say that it should be rejected because it has "Limited Commercial Value"? My point is that that kind of rejection makes no sense and has no merit. How can a reviewer that lives in one country possibly grasp what buyers from the rest of the world might want? Rejections should be based on quality, no bias.

Wim

« Reply #25 on: June 04, 2012, 12:14 »
0
Yes, let's have 10 million more amateur shapshots, please.
I think that at least 90% of these LCV rejections are entirely justified.

Are you blind? it's the amateur shots that do get accepted and the quality that gets rejected. Do you ever check the latest imagery?
My god, some people amaze me.
You probably confuse us with newcomers that don't know a thing about a good stock image.
It's no use Danny, to some isolations are probably also snapshots that don't sell anymore, while they can't even create a single proper isolation ;)

I'm going for another try to let this one go, it always turns out this way, if contributors are not on the same page then agencies/reviewers can do whatever they please.

Good luck Tabimura...

Wim

« Reply #26 on: June 04, 2012, 12:19 »
0
http://blog.elenaphoto.com/?p=100

Read it Tabimura and then go tell Elena she don't know wth she's talking about  ::)

I'm outta here, good luck to all.


traveler1116

« Reply #27 on: June 04, 2012, 12:32 »
0
The LCV rejection could just mean that your image isn't very good, it's nicer than saying that.  Without seeing examples it's almost always pointless to discuss rejections, especially for LCV.

« Reply #28 on: June 04, 2012, 13:04 »
0
Hi Scott,

Any news from the review team regarding my photos?

Regards,

Nick

« Reply #29 on: June 04, 2012, 13:07 »
0
The LCV rejection could just mean that your image isn't very good, it's nicer than saying that.  Without seeing examples it's almost always pointless to discuss rejections, especially for LCV.


Okay, here was my latest rejection from Shutterstock for LCV. There are many variations from others at shutterstock that were accepted and are selling.



So, it wasn't rejected for quality. It wasn't rejected because they have too many. The ones that they have accepted are selling, so it can't be the subject matter. Maybe the reviewer hates pictures of remote controls? I could point out other examples but the point is that the reason (LCV) is absurd. Of course it has commercial value, or there wouldn't be any photos of remote controls on the site.

Pick it apart for other reasons but not LCV.

« Reply #30 on: June 04, 2012, 13:27 »
0
Hi Scott,

Any news from the review team regarding my photos?

Regards,

Nick

Sorry Nick. Looks like I'm highjacking your thread. I'll get off my soapbox now. I got excited when I saw someone from Shutterstock respond. Good luck!

« Reply #31 on: June 04, 2012, 16:30 »
0
@Wim - cheers mate, good luck to you too. I just saw the article on Elena's blog is from Feb 2011, didn't bother reading it. I might be lucky to be blind and produce snapshots, 'cuz I can't remember getting a LCV rejection ;D not in the last 2 years at least.

@rimglow - make a search after "remote control isolated" on SS, you'll get nearly 5000 images. HOW MANY of these do you think they want? You need to expand a bit.


ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #33 on: June 04, 2012, 17:01 »
0
Hi All,

I've been discussing this with the team and should be able to follow up by end-of-day tomorrow.

Thanks for your patience!    

Best,

Scott
Excellent thanks for the update.

« Reply #34 on: June 04, 2012, 17:43 »
0
Hi All,

I've been discussing this with the team and should be able to follow up by end-of-day tomorrow.

Thanks for your patience!    

Best,

Scott

great, i've got hundreds of editorial images that were rejected as 'not newsworthy' but sell just fine when accepted elsewhere as editorial

« Reply #35 on: June 05, 2012, 01:50 »
0
Hi All,

I've been discussing this with the team and should be able to follow up by end-of-day tomorrow.

Thanks for your patience!    

Best,

Scott

Thanks Scott... I hope the review process regarding this types of files will be clarified. Is not logical to accept only over 150 years old PD files because 90% of the most representative designs and illustrations were made between 140 and 100 years ago.

« Reply #36 on: June 05, 2012, 02:01 »
0
Scott, while you're at it, I think you might have one inspector who use to sleep over stacks of pending images and keeps them in that state for too many days. Give him / her a nudge, will you?


« Reply #37 on: June 05, 2012, 03:16 »
0
Hi Scott, If you can take this with you. Lately I got rejections on vintage postcards with this reason : 'At this time, we are not accepting this type of content in our collection'. As I sell these well (still) I love to know the reason. Thanks

« Reply #38 on: June 05, 2012, 03:31 »
0
@rimglow - make a search after "remote control isolated" on SS, you'll get nearly 5000 images. HOW MANY of these do you think they want? You need to expand a bit.

I think there are 2 kinds of LCV:

1. This is crap and will never sell
2. Could sell loads but we have plenty already (HCV for contributor but LCV for site).

« Reply #39 on: June 05, 2012, 04:13 »
0
It would be very nice to have an exact year how old images should be to be considered as public domain. At least at some point the limit at IS was 1884, which sounds quite reasonable. 150 years (=1862) is a long shot.

« Reply #40 on: June 05, 2012, 04:18 »
0
@rimglow - make a search after "remote control isolated" on SS, you'll get nearly 5000 images. HOW MANY of these do you think they want? You need to expand a bit.

I think there are 2 kinds of LCV:

1. This is crap and will never sell
2. Could sell loads but we have plenty already (HCV for contributor but LCV for site).

Yup.

« Reply #41 on: June 05, 2012, 04:23 »
0
It would be very nice to have an exact year how old images should be to be considered as public domain. At least at some point the limit at IS was 1884, which sounds quite reasonable. 150 years (=1862) is a long shot.


  Is not accurate to have a year as the PD limit. there are many publications in PD from 1910 or 1920. is a little bit complicated with the publications beyond 1900. It's depend of the country , depends if the publications had buy the rights from the original artist or only had some sort of RF license.... and many many more.

  Some sort of IS strategy ( upload the first page of the book in the model release section, or provide proof that the publication is in PD) is more reasonable for SS.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2012, 06:25 by nicku »

« Reply #42 on: June 05, 2012, 05:54 »
0
@rimglow - make a search after "remote control isolated" on SS, you'll get nearly 5000 images. HOW MANY of these do you think they want? You need to expand a bit.

I think there are 2 kinds of LCV:

1. This is crap and will never sell
2. Could sell loads but we have plenty already (HCV for contributor but LCV for site).

So....Shutterstock's new ad campaign should be "Limited Content for Limited Brains"?

There is only one kind of LCV. Images that haven't sold in 5 years. If you want to weed out content, then it would be hard to argue against removing those, to make way for fresh material. Just don't have a reviewer try to be a marketing genius.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2012, 06:06 by rimglow »

« Reply #43 on: June 05, 2012, 06:13 »
0
There is only one kind of LCV. Images that haven't sold in 5 years. If you want to weed out content, then it would be hard to argue against removing those, to make way for fresh material.

+1

Wim

« Reply #44 on: June 05, 2012, 06:27 »
0
@rimglow - make a search after "remote control isolated" on SS, you'll get nearly 5000 images. HOW MANY of these do you think they want? You need to expand a bit.

I think there are 2 kinds of LCV:

1. This is crap and will never sell
2. Could sell loads but we have plenty already (HCV for contributor but LCV for site).

So....Shutterstock's new ad campaign should be "Limited Content for Limited Brains"?

There is only one kind of LCV. Images that haven't sold in 5 years. If you want to weed out content, then it would be hard to argue against removing those, to make way for fresh material. Just don't have a reviewer try to be a marketing genius.

And a BIG +1

Currently reviewing is a bingo game. We can analyze it as much as we want but we will never know what's really going on behind the scenes, same goes for the agencies btw, they don't seem to have a clue what their reviewers are up to.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #45 on: June 05, 2012, 09:40 »
0
I have a little bit of inside first hand knowledge that you will not like what you are going to hear about rejections and the reviewers and the process.

So we are in for a long ride people so buckle up.

« Reply #46 on: June 05, 2012, 22:46 »
0
I have a little bit of inside first hand knowledge that you will not like what you are going to hear about rejections and the reviewers and the process.

So we are in for a long ride people so buckle up.

Well it looks like a few of the Snobs with your greater then God attitude finally got what you wanted.

is this what you talking about?


« Reply #47 on: June 06, 2012, 09:05 »
0
Hi Scott,

Any news?

BR,

Nick.

« Reply #48 on: June 06, 2012, 09:41 »
0
Hello All,

Sorry for the delay.  

Regarding questions that came up about our policy with respect to public domain images:

Public domain images are typically those images for which the copyright has expired. Generally, it is safe to say that any image (published or unpublished) created before 1892 or by a U.S. artist who died prior to 1942 is in the public domain in the United States. It is not however easy to determine if an image fits those criteria and is in fact in the public domain.  As copyright laws vary from country to country, determining the copyright status of images created outside of the United States is more complex.  

Unfortunately, researching and verifying the copyright status of public domain images is not practical as part of the review process. On occasion, our policies have attempted to be more forgiving, but we can no longer accept public domain images.  For the foreseeable future we will be adhering to our existing guidelines, which prominently state "submissions must be wholly owned by the submitter. Found or public domain images or footage cannot be submitted under any circumstances."

http://submit.shutterstock.com/guidelines.mhtml

Thanks for your understanding and we sincerely apologize for any confusion.

There are no plans to remove public domain images that are currently in the collection, but we reserve the right to do so as we perform routine reviews and quality assurance.  

In addition, thank you for the feedback regarding our other review policies and communications.  As always, our goal is to have and maintain the best submission experience and your feedback is helpful.

Best Regards,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

« Reply #49 on: June 06, 2012, 12:15 »
0
Yap...

It's All Over Folks .  :(

drugal

    This user is banned.
« Reply #50 on: June 06, 2012, 13:15 »
0
You gonna have to create original content of your own, instead of scanning stuff. How terrible.

« Reply #51 on: June 06, 2012, 13:53 »
0
Not too surprising. I always assumed this would happen.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #52 on: June 06, 2012, 13:58 »
0
It's a new conspiracy.  They're selling my images just to suck me in.   ;)

« Reply #53 on: June 07, 2012, 00:48 »
0
You gonna have to create original content of your own, instead of scanning stuff. How terrible.

Selling PD photos not mean stealing someone photos and selling them. You provide the buyer a high resolution ( non copyrighted) PD photo that is not accessible elsewhere (not even on the internet). Many people are willing to pay for that copy....  Now it's over. SS was the biggest PD seller. Other agencies accept PD illustrations ( RF or editorial) but sales are at a fraction compared with SS).

So... like i said It's all over now folks.

« Reply #54 on: June 07, 2012, 22:22 »
0
It could be only a matter of time before every non-natural item will require a property release...

(and even some natural items, for example a certain >million year old rock in Australia).

RacePhoto

« Reply #55 on: June 13, 2012, 15:58 »
0
It could be only a matter of time before every non-natural item will require a property release...

(and even some natural items, for example a certain >million year old rock in Australia).


It's not a rock it's a friggin MOUNTAIN!  ;D

I'm thinking of claiming the oceans and people can pay me for rights to shoot photos of water? I mean good thing that the world powers agreed that space was unprotected, or we might have the Russians owning all rights to the dark side of the Moon. USA Sea of Tranquility and who knows who gets which valleys on Mars.

And always remember that some idiot in France placed a copyright on the smiley face and even worse, some bigger idiots granted him that right in French courts! Give Me a Break!

I'll just be a bad boy again and post this infringing image... 

« Reply #56 on: June 16, 2012, 13:57 »
0
actually the smiley face was invented by harvey Bell in 1962

refreshing my memory from wikipedia
"In 1967, Ball's design was used in an advertising campaign for Seattle-based University Federal Savings & Loan. This was later used when the man behind this campaign, David Stern, ran for Seattle Mayor in 1993"


steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #57 on: June 16, 2012, 15:05 »
0
How about this for a rejection reason at Shutterstock:

Maybe not the greatest picture in the world, maybe the lighting isn't that good and the background is a mix of different shades of grey. The concept - pressing the screen of an imaginary smartphone - might not be the best - perhaps not a lot of commercial value? All good reasons for rejection.

But - the one that the reviewer chose was: Long nails

Steve

« Reply #58 on: June 17, 2012, 02:16 »
0
The irony is that hcv must surely be the new lcv. Check out the collection of "women headphone" shots.  Do SS really need 24,284 of them (and I'm sure there are lots more on the way)? How many of those won't sell within five years? Half of them? Three quarters of them?

I've just noticed that one supplier owns 10% of all those images. I guess that trying to flood the market with similars is a good strategy for the HCV categories.  With two or three thousand similars in a search you must have a fair chance of some of them being high enough up to get noticed.

The sales per image of an LCV shot where only half-a-dozen like it have got accepted will probably be higher than the sales per image of the most popular, highly copied, concept.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2012, 02:31 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #59 on: June 17, 2012, 05:45 »
0
....  The sales per image of an LCV shot where only half-a-dozen like it have got accepted will probably be higher than the sales per image of the most popular, highly copied, concept.

It's a lot easier to get a "half-a-dozen like it" image accepted at SS than the "1000's like it already" because they lose nothing rejecting something where the buyer is spoiled for choice, the popular ones tend to keep selling (no competition) and some can have a first sale after being on line forever.

RacePhoto

« Reply #60 on: June 17, 2012, 09:59 »
0
actually the smiley face was invented by harvey Bell in 1962

refreshing my memory from wikipedia
"In 1967, Ball's design was used in an advertising campaign for Seattle-based University Federal Savings & Loan. This was later used when the man behind this campaign, David Stern, ran for Seattle Mayor in 1993"


Yes, but follow this link. I didn't have time to find the outcome. Just that there's some cretin in France with Smiley World who claims the rights to the smiley face in the yellow ball.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/business/worldbusiness/05smiley.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #61 on: June 17, 2012, 10:31 »
0
actually the smiley face was invented by harvey Bell in 1962

refreshing my memory from wikipedia
"In 1967, Ball's design was used in an advertising campaign for Seattle-based University Federal Savings & Loan. This was later used when the man behind this campaign, David Stern, ran for Seattle Mayor in 1993"


Yes, but follow this link. I didn't have time to find the outcome. Just that there's some cretin in France with Smiley World who claims the rights to the smiley face in the yellow ball.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/business/worldbusiness/05smiley.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
And here is more info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smiley


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Strange Rejection

Started by dbvirago Adobe Stock

13 Replies
7234 Views
Last post October 18, 2006, 15:26
by a.k.a.-tom
7 Replies
5035 Views
Last post January 29, 2008, 12:10
by leaf
21 Replies
7698 Views
Last post March 30, 2009, 21:55
by DanP68
2 Replies
2124 Views
Last post February 12, 2010, 04:26
by Opla
4 Replies
2668 Views
Last post May 16, 2013, 11:33
by Beppe Grillo

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors