Isn't there a naked person in front of photo?  The reasons they come up with. Bigstock just rejected a sunrise for being too soft. No other agency complaint about that image. I had an editorial photo rejected where people are sitting and relaxing in a public square of a city. Maybe they need to be actively doing something for being accepted as editorial?

Isn't there a naked person in front of photo?  The reasons they come up with. Bigstock just rejected a sunrise for being too soft. No other agency complaint about that image. I had an editorial photo rejected where people are sitting and relaxing in a public square of a city. Maybe they need to be actively doing something for being accepted as editorial?

No one is naked there, that guy has a light colored T-shirt. There were other images in the batch with people competing on a race, actively doing something, also too offensive.  Probably, they just push a button, no matter which one.

I was joking. I put a smiley behind my sentence. Well,  I had people sitting on benches next to a fountain, 2 women with their young children. Maybe one or two people walking. A photo of the high street in the city was accepted. I don't know how well editorial photos sell. I wanted to go out to take photos of an event. Maybe now I won't bother. SS wanted a property release form for something that is public and isn't on their list. That was also an editorial. DT at least tells you why they don't want something.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

LOL political correctness gone mad. I bet the reviewer was a progressive leftie.

Quote from: Dodie on September 09, 2016, 03:28

Quote from: Chichikov on September 09, 2016, 03:04

This blue tent is a kind of phallic symbol, maybe they find this offensive?

I had to google that, it blows my mind just how inventive people can be. That is a worldwide known Red Bull event tent.

I was joking too.
But this does not change the fact that it is a phallic symbol

If you say so. This must be some kind of "man thing", women don't care about symbols, just the facts.
I was joking too.

Quote from: Chichikov on September 09, 2016, 04:18

Quote from: Dodie on September 09, 2016, 03:28

Quote from: Chichikov on September 09, 2016, 03:04

This blue tent is a kind of phallic symbol, maybe they find this offensive?

I had to google that, it blows my mind just how inventive people can be. That is a worldwide known Red Bull event tent.

I was joking too.
But this does not change the fact that it is a phallic symbol

If you say so. This must be some kind of "man thing", women don't care about symbols, just the facts.
I was joking too.

More that a "man thing" it is more a "psychiatrist thing", and as you know in psychiatry is all about sex.
In (antique) symbology it is well know that the triangle pointed-up is a male symbol, and the triangle pointed-down is a female symbol.

That's what I think it is. This wouldn't be the first time that images got rejected for silly, unrelated reasons. edit: But I do notice some keywords that don't apply, like racecar, derby, etc. Even though that is where the event might be, no racecars can be seen. But maybe that is allowed because it is editorial? Also, it looks like it might be separating red and bull, so neither term makes sense. But still, not offensive, so...

Seriously, I think that you could be right.
Two or three days ago I have got an image rejected because there was one irrelevant keyword (only one) in the keywords list.
This never happened before.
If it is really like this it can be a good way to fight keywords spamming. 

Well, I was batch editing keywords and most images had racecar on them. On this one the track is behind those people in the background, you are right, not visible but not exactly spamming either. Buyers who are interested of this specific event know that it is a race.
They were not real cars but improvised, homemade vehicles like this one: http://www.123rf.com/photo_62167624_cluj-napoca-romania--september-3-2016-unidentified-racer-drives-a-diy-racecar-with-toy-pigs-down-the.html

When I saw the list of rejected images, I didn't even check any further. Just now I see that 3 were approved.

No, I didnt think you were spamming, just wondering if the keywords had anything to do with the rejection, not the rejection reason.
Soapbox cars...it was a big thing where I grew up in Ohio...the big nationwide event was about an hour away, in Akron, Ohio. 

Every editorial I uploaded lately was rejected either for "poor composition", which is a matter of taste, or for this new reason:
"Image Unsuitable as Stock Photo / Too Offensive / Improper for General Viewing"
It sounds like I would have uploaded some porn.

This is how the "too offensive"looks like: https://www.dreamstime.com/editorial-photography-people-relaxing-socializing-outdoors-red-bull-soapbox-race-september-cluj-napoca-romania-image76726087

Maybe the reviewer is Thai and is offended by the Red Bull heir and his actions in Thailand that spells total corruption and inequality.

He is literally getting away with killing someone. The whole situation is rather disgusting.

Maybe the reviewer is Thai and is offended by the Red Bull heir and his actions in Thailand that spells total corruption and inequality.

He is literally getting away with killing someone. The whole situation is rather disgusting.

That's the situation with VIP progenitures all around the world. I don't blame them or the parents, the real people to blame are the people who should but don't take action against them (you know who).

I don't know how this turned into a conversation about political correctness, killing people, international politics, etc.  This is a picture you could show to a small child.  Nothing offensive at all.  Obviously some numb nuts hit the wrong rejection button.

Well... we had a funny rejection; "Shutterstock stock footage rejection double standards: Release Not Needed"