Author Topic: Fed up with 123RF (Read 23529 times)

DevonSun · « **on:** January 25, 2010, 06:39 »

OK so we all get rejections and my port is tiny AND i am still learning but...

26 files and 18 rejections on 123RF.
No Sales and no reasons for rejection.. just 'Rejected' in bold red letters. How am i supposed to use that as feedback for improvement?!

The latest rejections which actually had a comment attached are ridiculous.

This image (which has sold today on GL) for instance:

http://graphicleftovers.com/graphic/search-light-city/

Rejected by 123RF because "This image requires you to provide and attach the proper model or property releases."

They want a property release for a made-up city horizon?! Give me a break. Are the reviewers actually LOOKING at the images or just glancing at them before pressing the 'trash' button.

This image was also rejected for the same reason:
http://www.dreamstime.com/girl-in-dress-image12626211

So.. fed up, i emailed 123RF this morning (uk) and await a response to the following:

"After getting a lot of rejections since signing up i need some clarification please after the latest rejections reasons given as 'property release required.'

It's good if 123 have high criteria to meet but i need more than 'rejected' as feedback to enable improvement on my side to meet that criteria.

After 26 files uploaded 18 are rejected with one pending (and i suspect that will be rejected also.)

The latest reason for rejection are in part unrealistic and frankly absurd: (filenumber***) Search lights pointing into a night sky above a silhouette city horizon (illustration). You guys want a property release for a city? An obviously fabricated horizon created from imagination?! That doesn't make sense neither is it possible to fulfill.

I understand the model release question for the 'girl in dress' (filenumber***) but can confirm this is original artwork and i retain all copyright to it.

On a last note i see a lot of the preview thumbnail images in the 'history' section are not showing up. Is that a reason for rejection also?

Thanks in advance for answering these points so i can improve matters."

ibogdan · « **Reply #1 on:** January 25, 2010, 07:06 »

I also had in November 2009 an image rejected with no reason. They always provide a reason for rejection but this time there was nothing, just rejected. Of course, that particular image was approved on the other agencies. Weird.

DevonSun · « **Reply #2 on:** January 25, 2010, 07:10 »

Quote from: ibogdan on January 25, 2010, 07:06

I also had in November 2009 an image rejected with no reason. They always provide a reason for rejection but this time there was nothing, just rejected. Of course, that particular image was approved on the other agencies. Weird.

It is weird. Makes you feel something odd is going on there. I only recently realised that others were getting reasons for rejection after looking at the forums. Previously i had thought everyone had either 'approved' or 'rejected' as myself with no reason given as that's been the standard i've been used to until the 'property release' statement today.

I also can't access the forums to post. Sign in doesn't work (like i am locked out or something). Starting to get paranoid here lol

FD · « **Reply #3 on:** January 25, 2010, 10:23 »

I emailed them the past week after 40% rejections (unusual). They confirmed it's no glitch and they got much stricter. The reason is always "lighting". I think we will have to live with it. After my email they reverted one shot. They only accepted studio overwhites of models with a Canon 5DII - no urban/industrial and nothing of Nikon D200.
I just gave them 30 Editorials to see how they will react.
Earnings: with a much larger port now, I have 6.58$ this month, and I had 15.50$ January 2009. They are probably panicking...

fotografer · « **Reply #4 on:** January 25, 2010, 10:36 »

I've had a few refused there lately that all the big 4 approved.

donding · « **Reply #5 on:** January 25, 2010, 10:53 »

devonson.....I know it's not funny but I have got to laugh because the reason is so stupid. I swear they must have blind people doing their reviews now!!!!! That reason is ridiculous. They are going to end up losing alot of their contributors over these rejections because they are not a big money maker for many and they will just go their own way. I've been on there ...I think 6 months and only have $10.00+ dollars on there. They aren't worth my time if they start doing this. Actually they aren't worth my time anyway

DevonSun · « **Reply #6 on:** January 25, 2010, 11:25 »

No worries donding.. i laughed when i got that rejection as well.

Normally it's a groan of "ugh now what have a got to fix".

I'm just thankful it wasn't a property release request for the stars in that image. I've lost God's address

stockastic · « **Reply #7 on:** January 25, 2010, 11:41 »

Compared to SS, IS, DT, FT, the sales I got at 123 were so microscopic that they weren't bothering with and I closed the account.

All the microstocks are trying to get more selective in what they accept, which isn't a bad thing.. Unfortunately, by the time you have millions of photos it's a bit late. They end up rejecting new photos that are actually better than what they have. I think "Lighting" is becoming a catchall term for something that's hard to define - they want a certain "look". At least part of this has to be thumbnail appeal, and in general they seem to favor simple, clean and bright (high tonal value) images. Beyond that it gets hard to verbalize.

donding · « **Reply #8 on:** January 25, 2010, 12:03 »

Quote from: DevonSun on January 25, 2010, 11:25

No worries donding.. i laughed when i got that rejection as well.

Normally it's a groan of "ugh now what have a got to fix".

I'm just thankful it wasn't a property release request for the stars in that image. I've lost God's address

That is true....now you could proubably get it if you pray...or forge his name on a property release....I'm sure he wouldn't mind

PowerDroid · « **Reply #9 on:** January 25, 2010, 13:09 »

My way to deal with 123RF rejections? I don't care. They just don't generate enough money for me to spend the brain power worrying about it. I don't even know what my acceptance ratio is. They've been in my upload rotation since the beginning, and it's easy to upload there, so I keep doing it. I make just enough money there to make it worthwhile, but I frankly don't care if my ratio is 100, 50 or 25 percent.

On the flip side, however, my revenue there has been pretty flat for several months, while I'm having BMEs on the sites that matter. THAT'S what will make me seriously consider dropping 123RF from my rotation. If things continue to stagnate or even go down, I'll drop them, whether they're accepting all my work or not.

camera shy · « **Reply #10 on:** January 25, 2010, 13:36 »

I just submit backgrounds and abstracts to them now, and even then I get the occasional "lighting" rejection

reviews@123rf · « **Reply #11 on:** January 25, 2010, 21:52 »

Quote from: DevonSun on January 25, 2010, 06:39

The latest rejections which actually had a comment attached are ridiculous.

This image (which has sold today on GL) for instance:

http://graphicleftovers.com/graphic/search-light-city/ [nofollow]

Rejected by 123RF because "This image requires you to provide and attach the proper model or property releases."

They want a property release for a made-up city horizon?! Give me a break. Are the reviewers actually LOOKING at the images or just glancing at them before pressing the 'trash' button.

This image was also rejected for the same reason:
http://www.dreamstime.com/girl-in-dress-image12626211 [nofollow]

Hi Devonsun,

A quick check on your account showed that the files that you mentioned above were rejected because they had appeared to be corrupted. If you were to log in to your account, at the History page-- Rejection, you will see that the image thumbnail does not show and instead a square box with a red X is shown. This is because the file wasn't fully uploaded. Hence, only the word "Rejected" in red is shown.

donding · « **Reply #12 on:** January 25, 2010, 22:07 »

Quote from: reviews@123rf on January 25, 2010, 21:52

Quote from: DevonSun on January 25, 2010, 06:39

The latest rejections which actually had a comment attached are ridiculous.

This image (which has sold today on GL) for instance:

http://graphicleftovers.com/graphic/search-light-city/

Rejected by 123RF because "This image requires you to provide and attach the proper model or property releases."

They want a property release for a made-up city horizon?! Give me a break. Are the reviewers actually LOOKING at the images or just glancing at them before pressing the 'trash' button.

This image was also rejected for the same reason:
http://www.dreamstime.com/girl-in-dress-image12626211

Hi Devonsun,

A quick check on your account showed that the files that you mentioned above were rejected because they had appeared to be corrupted. If you were to log in to your account, at the History page-- Rejection, you will see that the image thumbnail does not show and instead a square box with a red X is shown. This is because the file wasn't fully uploaded. Hence, only the word "Rejected" in red is shown.

Why didn't he address the property model release question???

FD · « **Reply #13 on:** January 26, 2010, 04:46 »

Quote from: donding on January 25, 2010, 22:07

Why didn't he address the property model release question???

Ever watched a politician on TV answer a series of questions? He always picks the easiest one.

DevonSun · « **Reply #14 on:** January 26, 2010, 06:32 »

My question exactly donding.

Received that email this morning and popped on to post it but found it here already.

Ok 123rf.. that answers in part the rejection reasons but...

1. My files are not corrupted. I don't say i never make mistakes but.. they are the same files from the same folder that is submitted to various others sites without a problem occurring. I suggest the problem must be happening at the 123rf system end.

2. It would have been nice if a note was left to this effect on the rejection page pointing out the rejection reasons at the time.

3. I would still like an explanation as to why a property release is required for a fictitious city skyline.

DevonSun · « **Reply #15 on:** January 26, 2010, 06:35 »

[/quote]
.... instead a square box with a red X is shown. This is because the file wasn't fully uploaded....
[/quote]

A minor point... but actually there is no 'red X' showing. Only a little white box. Perhaps because i am using firefox or something..

DevonSun · « **Reply #16 on:** January 26, 2010, 07:48 »

Just re-uploaded some images via the web form (instead of FTP) and those thumbnails seem to be ok.
Must be an FTP problem.

All i have to do now is wait for the rejections lol

donding · « **Reply #17 on:** January 26, 2010, 10:33 »

Quote from: FD-amateur on January 26, 2010, 04:46

Quote from: donding on January 25, 2010, 22:07
Why didn't he address the property model release question???
Ever watched a politician on TV answer a series of questions? He always picks the easiest one.

You got that one right

donding · « **Reply #18 on:** January 26, 2010, 10:36 »

Quote from: DevonSun on January 26, 2010, 06:32

My question exactly donding.

Received that email this morning and popped on to post it but found it here already.

Ok 123rf.. that answers in part the rejection reasons but...

1. My files are not corrupted. I don't say i never make mistakes but.. they are the same files from the same folder that is submitted to various others sites without a problem occurring. I suggest the problem must be happening at the 123rf system end.

2. It would have been nice if a note was left to this effect on the rejection page pointing out the rejection reasons at the time.

3. I would still like an explanation as to why a property release is required for a fictitious city skyline.

They must have gotten nervous about all the chatter on this sight about the rejections. We'll have to see if the address the property release question on here.

DevonSun · « **Reply #19 on:** January 26, 2010, 10:58 »

I have emailed those same questions back to them so i will await with baited breathe for the answers.

elvinstar · « **Reply #20 on:** January 26, 2010, 13:01 »

I have been having problems with ftp to them lately. It signs me in then keeps signing me back out of the ftp program so the images are only partly uploaded. That could be why your files are "corrupted."

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #21 on:** January 26, 2010, 13:06 »

Quote from: elvinstar on January 26, 2010, 13:01

I have been having problems with ftp to them lately. It signs me in then keeps signing me back out of the ftp program so the images are only partly uploaded. That could be why your files are "corrupted."

they seem to be making a lot of changes. I have written to support about not being able to access the forum and have been told to follow them on Twitter. Also said that the forum was in the process of being eliminated.

Not sure what other changes are being made but I can no longer access the site without "logging in" for each session. That started about a week ago ... the day I made a negative comment here about their Editorial Images request.

sharpshot · « **Reply #22 on:** January 26, 2010, 13:27 »

Looking at my earnings, I don't seem to get many extended licenses there now, they can make a big difference on a low earning site. I hope they try to make sure their buyers use an appropriate license. It is strange how some sites sell EL's regularly and others don't

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #23 on:** January 26, 2010, 15:24 »

Quote from: sharpshot on January 26, 2010, 13:27

Looking at my earnings, I don't seem to get many extended licenses there now, they can make a big difference on a low earning site. I hope they try to make sure their buyers use an appropriate license. It is strange how some sites sell EL's regularly and others don't

I had one today, my first 123rf sale of the year. I usually get one or two a month on a very small portfolio. Maybe I should try a few editorials?

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #24 on:** January 26, 2010, 19:01 »

I closed my account early in 2009.. sales were lousy... and I couldn't stand the way the accounting of sales was handled on the site...

=tom

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Fed up with 123RF (Read 23529 times)

DevonSun

ibogdan

DevonSun

FD

fotografer

donding

DevonSun

stockastic

donding

PowerDroid

camera shy

reviews@123rf

donding

FD

DevonSun

DevonSun

DevonSun

donding

donding

DevonSun

elvinstar

WarrenPrice

sharpshot

WarrenPrice

a.k.a.-tom

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors