MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => 123RF => Topic started by: gwhitton on March 19, 2012, 12:05
-
Its been a long while since I sent images into 123RF, and I was bit disturbed to get property release rejection for shots taken from a perfect legal location, of very non-descript buildings, and subjects (no possibility of architectural copyright liabilities). What's even stranger is I had a bunch accepted that easily suffered from any of the same "property" problems the others might have had.
I'm kind of figuring the real reason was LCV, but if it was, I wish they'd stop with the BS rejection reasons, because if they start rejecting every shot of a human created subject from a public road way, you might as well not bother submitting anymore.
-
you might as well not bother submitting anymore.
That's just what I did ;)
-
pretty much, 80 submitted, all of them which were to do with building, a wall, a window or a door got rejected.
-
I agree, it's ridiculous. And unlike Photodune, where weird property release rejections are just one of many aspects of their reviewers randomness, it really appears to be a specialty at 123RF...
I love how they put a series of completely nondescript signs (i.e. road signs and the like) into editorial via their "submit to editorial if not accepted" option. what? Might as well refuse - for editorial I am sure nondescript road signs have quite LCV... ::)
-
I love how they put a series of completely nondescript signs (i.e. road signs and the like) into editorial via their "submit to editorial if not accepted" option. what? Might as well refuse - for editorial I am sure nondescript road signs have quite LCV... ::)
not sure why you wouldn't want your images to go in as editorial
123 does have one of the strictest rules on property releases, but they also have the far-and-away best editorial process i've seen - unlike other agencies, the submitter doesnt have to waste time trying to decide to submit as rf or editorial, and then resubmitting, and following anal punctuation rules for captions. instead, you just let 123 decide how they want to deal with a particular image. they also have the best editorial acceptance i've found - es[pecially for travel images and others where it would be impossible to get mpodel releases, but other agencies reject as LCV or 'not newsworthy'
-
Hey all,
Please refer our "Property Release (http://www.123rf.com/blog/blog.php?idblog=b1000205&referredBy=Angel&src=123rfangel)" article for better understanding of Why and When a Property Release is needed.
If you are in doubt of Property Release rejection, please email [email protected] and we will recheck and explain to you.
Thanks,
Anglee
-
Please refer our "Property Release ([url]http://www.123rf.com/blog/blog.php?idblog=b1000205&referredBy=Angel&src=123rfangel[/url])" article for better understanding of Why and When a Property Release is needed.
If you are in doubt of Property Release rejection, please email [email protected] and we will recheck and explain to you.
as i noted earlier, i understand your rules but think they're overly exclusive
eg
===Any Exterior / Interior of properties that is individually owned or by an Organization.
so, basically, no images taken in any city or village in the world; and for interiors, not even images that are generic - eg, a glass of beer in a bistro, a staircase,
==========Places that require an entrance fee (eg ; Museums, War Memorial Sites, Theaters, Music Halls, Performing Art Centers, Amusement Park Rides)
an entrance fee is not a prohibition of photography
========= Any Building Exterior that is famous for its architectural design and is a Main Focus of the Image
this is redundant as you've already forbidden ANY exterior shots
=====Photography at a tourist attraction is generally considered legal, UNLESS explicitly prohibited by posted signs.
this contradicts your previous prohibiton if a place charges an entrance fee
-
I love how they put a series of completely nondescript signs (i.e. road signs and the like) into editorial via their "submit to editorial if not accepted" option. what? Might as well refuse - for editorial I am sure nondescript road signs have quite LCV... ::)
not sure why you wouldn't want your images to go in as editorial
123 does have one of the strictest rules on property releases, but they also have the far-and-away best editorial process i've seen - unlike other agencies, the submitter doesnt have to waste time trying to decide to submit as rf or editorial, and then resubmitting, and following anal punctuation rules for captions. instead, you just let 123 decide how they want to deal with a particular image. they also have the best editorial acceptance i've found - es[pecially for travel images and others where it would be impossible to get mpodel releases, but other agencies reject as LCV or 'not newsworthy'
Are you serious? You don't understand why I wouldn't want an isolated, empty blue sign to be limited to editorial use? What would anybody do with that as editorial?!
As for the rest you are saying, I wholeheartedly agree. It's the best implementation of editorial I have seen.
-
I agree, it's ridiculous. And unlike Photodune, where weird property release rejections are just one of many aspects of their reviewers randomness, it really appears to be a specialty at 123RF...
I love how they put a series of completely nondescript signs (i.e. road signs and the like) into editorial via their "submit to editorial if not accepted" option. what? Might as well refuse - for editorial I am sure nondescript road signs have quite LCV... ::)
At least with photodune u get short turn around time on the reviews (except for the last couple of weeks) and for me I'm having regular sales every week, with these mobs it takes ages just for them to say "no"... over some bs reason cause apparently I need to get someone to sign a sheet of paper for a generic window or brick wall...
-
Please refer our "Property Release ([url]http://www.123rf.com/blog/blog.php?idblog=b1000205&referredBy=Angel&src=123rfangel[/url])" article for better understanding of Why and When a Property Release is needed.
Yeah well, maybe your reviewers should read that blog post, too. I had every single picture of Mayan ruins at Tulum put into Editorial. They are on every other site without issue, and squarely fit the exception for well-known landmarks.
-
I love how they put a series of completely nondescript signs (i.e. road signs and the like) into editorial via their "submit to editorial if not accepted" option. what? Might as well refuse - for editorial I am sure nondescript road signs have quite LCV... ::)
not sure why you wouldn't want your images to go in as editorial
123 does have one of the strictest rules on property releases, but they also have the far-and-away best editorial process i've seen - unlike other agencies, the submitter doesnt have to waste time trying to decide to submit as rf or editorial, and then resubmitting, and following anal punctuation rules for captions. instead, you just let 123 decide how they want to deal with a particular image. they also have the best editorial acceptance i've found - es[pecially for travel images and others where it would be impossible to get mpodel releases, but other agencies reject as LCV or 'not newsworthy'
Are you serious? You don't understand why I wouldn't want an isolated, empty blue sign to be limited to editorial use? What would anybody do with that as editorial?!
As for the rest you are saying, I wholeheartedly agree. It's the best implementation of editorial I have seen.
sorry if i misunderstood - you said roadsigns, not empty blue signs - i see no reason why they wouldnt be acceptable as rf; and any rf rejection would also hold for editorial review. most of my images that 123 rejects are due to lack of release [at other sites i would mark many of them editorial in the first place]