MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => 123RF => Topic started by: shiyali on June 25, 2011, 03:36
-
I submitted some images to 123rf today and next to each new file there is a check box, next to it, it says
Consider for inclusion to 123RF Editorial if rejected.
The box is checked by default. Never saw that before, I searched the FAQ and the blog but cannot find anything about this. I am not sure what it means. Does anyone know?
-
I noticed that too, interesting, I hope editorial category is not free on 123rf? ;)
-
I hope they are not planning to put copyright rejections straight into an editorial category. Doing so would blur the lines and possibly lead to legal problems.
Mind you, there are already "identifiable faces in crowds" pictures out there in the micros. I reported one where I could name several people in the image to iStock and they weren't interested in taking it down (it did belong to an exclusive, though, which may have ring-fenced it).
-
Well, I just don't understand how they can make rejected non-editorial images into editorial. Doesn't make sense to me.
-
It must be for images rejected only for trademarks or recognizable people.
-
Well, it makes sense in some cases:
e.g., a central location in a large town (such as oxford street, alexanderplatz, ...)
it's almost impossible to avoid crowds and ads on buildings, and it's not even newsworthy in the sense some sites indend it - so it's useless to write a full editorial caption (with date, time, place, event...) yet that picture may be useful and legal as editorial
my only doubt with recognisable people in crowds is: what if someone finds their husband/wife with a lover in my picture? will they try to find and kill me (even if it's editorial)?
-
Well if it's for the trademarks and so on it's really nice. Especially since I last had my photo rejected on some stock for 'trademarks' because of the information 'do not feed the bears'. :D
-
Well if it's for the trademarks and so on it's really nice. Especially since I last had my photo rejected on some stock for 'trademarks' because of the information 'do not feed the bears'. :D
I had one rejected for text 'salvataggio'. It means 'rescue', they thought it was the name of the boat.
-
123rf also rejects many shots of building exteriors and most shots of interiors.
i'm happy if this becmes the new policy and i think it should be available from more agencies - let the agency decide whether my image fits their RF or editorial criteria. if an image is accepted as editorial, it woud probably need additional editorial desc, so the photographer could still decide. [eg, shutterstock has an anally specific template for editorial]
that said, 123rf has the most generous editorial review i've seen -- and they accept [and sell] a higher % of my editorial than RF images
-
Alex, Anglee, can you please make this option unchecked by default? It's prone to mistakes and I'm not sure it can be repaired if someone forgets to uncheck it.
-
donīt see a downside really.. like someone said majority of rejections are for trademark etc so I believe Edtiorial might be interesting, have a few placed as Editorial by myself and they sell nicely.. keep up the good work 123RF
-
I'm pretty sure it was unchecked yesterday morning when I submitted and last night when I submitted it was checked. They must want it there.
-
Hi All!
As you may already know, we have implemented a new feature on our site, the Checkbox "If my submissions are unfit for RF, I agree to allow them to be accepted into the Editorial Section provided they are deemed to be newsworthy." is now apparent when you submit images to be processed.
We implemented this because we understand that contributors are (at times) unable to obtain/acquire releases for street photography and other images. Therefore, in order to save your time to re-uploading to the Editorial section, we're going to shunt these into Editorials for you.
Hence, our reviewers will only accept your submissions into Editorial section as below:
1) Upon your agreement {By marking/checking the Checkbox}.
2) Submissions contain trademarked content, brand, logos and/or without Property Release OR Model Releases
3) Submissions are deemed to be of a newsworthy nature.
The box is checked by default because reasons as below:
1) To ensure submissions that are good but not suitable for RF section can be accepted into Editorial section quickly.
2) Maximize profit of contributors.
3) Increase Editorial content.
4) If the submissions are NOT newsworthy, we will not push it to Editorial in the first place.
We hope that this will clear any doubts you may have.
Thank you.
Regards,
Anglee
-
@Anglee This is a great idea.
-
I really can't understand why most of microstock sites think that the word "editorial" equals "newsworthy".
There is a huge market for "non-newsworthy" editorial images, for example unreleased travel photography, new products in-use, etc., but it's very difficult to get images like that accepted at many sites.
Rejecting non-newsworthy editorial images is not a very bright idea and creates a huge gap in the collection.
And If I ever happen to shoot the most newsworthy image of the year, I won't be uploading it to microstock sites...
-
does anyone know what the contributor earnings % is for editorial image? is it the same as RF except that it is for editorial use only? I can't find any info on 123rf FAQ :(
thanks
-
I am confused with the RF vs Editorial concept, I thought microstock sites had RF commercial vs RF editorial. Is it not so? What is Editorial license, then, in the microstock world?
-
I really can't understand why most of microstock sites think that the word "editorial" equals "newsworthy".
There is a huge market for "non-newsworthy" editorial images, for example unreleased travel photography, new products in-use, etc., but it's very difficult to get images like that accepted at many sites.
Rejecting non-newsworthy editorial images is not a very bright idea and creates a huge gap in the collection.
And If I ever happen to shoot the most newsworthy image of the year, I won't be uploading it to microstock sites...
Exactly. A photo of a mere airplane with its company logo is not nwesworthy, but may illustrate an article about air travel.
-
Perry are you in 123RF? I am following you but in their case they are approving "almost" everything related to news or not newsworthy and BETTER they are actually selling it, so everything is good no??
-
Perry are you in 123RF? I am following you but in their case they are approving "almost" everything related to news or not newsworthy and BETTER they are actually selling it, so everything is good no??
That's my experience with them too. They are the only site which accepted the image below, which is not news and it's had 8 downloads to date.
(http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/komar/komar1009/komar100900005/7675979-london-uk--august-15-2010-a-mounted-poster-of-the-english-rock-band-the-beatles-no-other-group-in-hi.jpg)
-
does anyone know what the contributor earnings % is for editorial image? is it the same as RF except that it is for editorial use only? I can't find any info on 123rf FAQ :(
% paid is the same, but my editorial portfolios, while smaller, earn about 2x what my RF images do - makes sense since i tend to shoot travel and people stock in the first place, rather than studio and isolated
-
Perry are you in 123RF? I am following you but in their case they are approving "almost" everything related to news or not newsworthy and BETTER they are actually selling it, so everything is good no??
That's my experience with them too. They are the only site which accepted the image below, which is not news and it's had 8 downloads to date.
([url]http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/komar/komar1009/komar100900005/7675979-london-uk--august-15-2010-a-mounted-poster-of-the-english-rock-band-the-beatles-no-other-group-in-hi.jpg[/url])
That's a photo of a photo, I wouldn't shoot that in ANY case. So what, we can start now taking shots of all the posters or photos from Jim Morrison to Lady Gaga and get sales out of that? So lame.
As someone well pointed above, if I shoot editorial it wouldn't be for micros anyway.
-
but the 4 guys in that picture are quite famous, so isn't it editorial and newsworthy whatever they do? including - and especially - posters of when they were fab? just asking
-
That's right mate, they're famous. But I'm not ok with shooting someone else's photo... even if 123RF or whatever micro agency thinks it's good editorial.
-
That's right mate, they're famous. But I'm not ok with shooting someone else's photo... even if 123RF or whatever micro agency thinks it's good editorial.
There's a boundary somewhere between a pile of old record covers with one showing on top and a picture of someone else's photo. I believe Alamy (or is it Getty? Not sure where I saw it) have at least one set of scanned Beatles record covers. Whoever it is, it seems very tacky to me.
I think 123 would do far better to have photographers who understand the difference between editorial (unreleased with faces/logos) and commercial, rather than having reviewers sift whatever turns up into the appropriate category.
On the other hand, the editorial caption rejections from other sites are frequently silly. They want to play at being news agencies without understanding what that means and then set rigid caption styles when any half-baked news agency would edit the captions for house style itself as long as the required information was there.
-
On the other hand, the editorial caption rejections from other sites are frequently silly. They want to play at being news agencies without understanding what that means and then set rigid caption styles when any half-baked news agency would edit the captions for house style itself as long as the required information was there.
exactly - the rigid captioning is just plain silly - there's basic info like what, where, when, but i doubt many buyers would decline to buy because someone used Sep rather than SEP, or placed the date after the place. combine that w reviewers who just dont know what they're doing and it's pathetic.
-
exactly - the rigid captioning is just plain silly - there's basic info like what, where, when, but i doubt many buyers would decline to buy because someone used Sep rather than SEP, or placed the date after the place.
And let's not forget a missing comma, or (in some cases) the inclusion of a state name -- yes, I've seen rejections for that, too.
Best of all, the 1000s of Getty ("EdStock") photos recently (and continually) added use a different caption format, one that would be rejected if used by an iStock contributor! ::)
-
Hi All,
The commission will always be 50% nett, either Editorial or RF.
Let's me have a brief explanation about the main difference between RF and Editorial.
RF concept
1) Image is mainly for commercial usage. For example, advertising or promotion
2) Image does not contain any trademarked content, logo or brand
3) Image is attached with Model Release and Property Release.
Editorial concept
1) Image is mainly for non-commercial usage. For example, newspaper, magazine or educational purposes.
2) Image contains trademarked content, brand, logos
3) Image without Property Release OR Model Releases
You may refer to our Licensing (http://www.123rf.com/license.php?referredBy=Angel&src=123rfangel) for more information.
Hope this can clear your doubt.
And, don't forget about our 123RF's 10th Millions Image Upload Frenzy (http://www.123rf.com/blog/blog.php?idblog=b1000185&referredBy=Angel&src=123rfangel) Party!
All the best!
Regards,
Anglee
-
Hi All,
The commission will always be 50% nett, either Editorial or RF.
Just had to quote this, maybe for future reference.
-
That's a photo of a photo, I wouldn't shoot that in ANY case. So what, we can start now taking shots of all the posters or photos from Jim Morrison to Lady Gaga and get sales out of that? So lame.
As someone well pointed above, if I shoot editorial it wouldn't be for micros anyway.
That's one way of looking at it, but I didn't see it like that obviously. This is my editorial caption. "A mounted poster of the English rock band The Beatles. No other group in history has generated more public thirst for merchandise than did The Beatles."
Hence the editorial value.