Author Topic: Strange rules/rejection at SS (Read 3696 times)

nicku · « **on:** June 03, 2012, 06:45 »

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 · « **Reply #1 on:** June 03, 2012, 09:10 »

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?

pancaketom · « **Reply #2 on:** June 03, 2012, 11:22 »

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.

jarih · « **Reply #3 on:** June 03, 2012, 11:31 »

How about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries'_copyright_length

nicku · « **Reply #4 on:** June 03, 2012, 11:36 »

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.

Karimala · « **Reply #5 on:** June 03, 2012, 11:56 »

Quote from: nicku on June 03, 2012, 06:45

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.

cascoly · « **Reply #6 on:** June 03, 2012, 12:28 »

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!

nicku · « **Reply #7 on:** June 03, 2012, 12:55 »

Quote from: Karimala on June 03, 2012, 11:56

Quote from: nicku on June 03, 2012, 06:45
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...

Karimala · « **Reply #8 on:** June 03, 2012, 13:06 »

Quote from: nicku on June 03, 2012, 12:55

Quote from: Karimala on June 03, 2012, 11:56
Quote from: nicku on June 03, 2012, 06:45
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.

scottbraut · « **Reply #9 on:** June 03, 2012, 15:41 »

Hi folks,

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

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Karimala · « **Reply #10 on:** June 03, 2012, 17:26 »

Thanks, Scott!

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #11 on:** June 03, 2012, 17:32 »

Quote from: scottbraut on June 03, 2012, 15:41

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!

Perry · « **Reply #12 on:** June 03, 2012, 17:37 »

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.

Mantis · « **Reply #13 on:** June 03, 2012, 19:22 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on June 03, 2012, 17:32

Quote from: scottbraut on June 03, 2012, 15:41
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 »

Quote from: scottbraut on June 03, 2012, 15:41

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

Stepunk · « **Reply #15 on:** June 04, 2012, 04:15 »

Why upload a public domain photo on a microstock website?

nicku · « **Reply #16 on:** June 04, 2012, 05:54 »

Quote from: Stepunk on June 04, 2012, 04:15

Why upload a public domain photo on a microstock website?

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

Stepunk · « **Reply #17 on:** June 04, 2012, 06:05 »

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?

Perry · « **Reply #18 on:** June 04, 2012, 06:23 »

Quote from: Stepunk on June 04, 2012, 06:05

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.

Stepunk · « **Reply #19 on:** June 04, 2012, 06:27 »

Quote from: Perry on June 04, 2012, 06:23

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.

rimglow · « **Reply #20 on:** June 04, 2012, 07:25 »

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 »

Quote from: rimglow on June 04, 2012, 07:25

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 · « **Reply #22 on:** June 04, 2012, 08:14 »

Quote from: rimglow on June 04, 2012, 07:25

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

Tabimura · « **Reply #23 on:** June 04, 2012, 11:08 »

Yes, let's have 10 million more amateur shapshots, please.
I think that at least 90% of these LCV rejections are entirely justified.

rimglow · « **Reply #24 on:** June 04, 2012, 11:29 »

Quote from: Tabimura on June 04, 2012, 11:08

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.