MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: New feature on 123rf? What's this?  (Read 17225 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 25, 2011, 03:36 »
0
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?


« Reply #1 on: June 25, 2011, 06:02 »
0
I noticed that too, interesting, I hope editorial category is not free on 123rf? ;)

« Reply #2 on: June 25, 2011, 06:16 »
0
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).

« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2011, 18:32 »
0
Well, I just don't understand how they can make rejected non-editorial images into editorial. Doesn't make sense to me.

« Reply #4 on: June 25, 2011, 18:44 »
0
It must be for images rejected only for trademarks or recognizable people.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #5 on: June 25, 2011, 18:49 »
0
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)?
« Last Edit: June 25, 2011, 18:53 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #6 on: June 26, 2011, 06:37 »
0
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

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #7 on: June 26, 2011, 12:12 »
0
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.

« Reply #8 on: June 26, 2011, 12:20 »
0
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

Xalanx

« Reply #9 on: June 26, 2011, 16:49 »
0
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.

« Reply #10 on: June 26, 2011, 17:30 »
0
dont 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

« Reply #11 on: June 26, 2011, 19:29 »
0
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. 


« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2011, 00:58 »
0
@Anglee This is a great idea.

« Reply #14 on: June 27, 2011, 05:25 »
0
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...
« Last Edit: June 27, 2011, 05:30 by Perry »

« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2011, 07:25 »
0
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

« Reply #16 on: June 27, 2011, 08:49 »
0
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?

« Reply #17 on: June 27, 2011, 08:53 »
0
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.

« Reply #18 on: June 27, 2011, 09:02 »
0
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??

« Reply #19 on: June 27, 2011, 09:54 »
0
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.


« Reply #20 on: June 27, 2011, 10:00 »
0
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

Xalanx

« Reply #21 on: June 27, 2011, 15:06 »
0
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.




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.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #22 on: June 27, 2011, 15:44 »
0
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

Xalanx

« Reply #23 on: June 27, 2011, 15:52 »
0
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.

« Reply #24 on: June 27, 2011, 18:29 »
0
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
24 Replies
7951 Views
Last post March 11, 2012, 08:37
by digitalexpressionimages
37 Replies
23176 Views
Last post April 29, 2016, 16:52
by Zero Talent
7 Replies
4480 Views
Last post February 04, 2015, 23:48
by PixelBytes
2 Replies
3295 Views
Last post April 20, 2019, 16:53
by ShadySue
Feature request

Started by whtvr2 Adobe Stock

5 Replies
3897 Views
Last post June 18, 2020, 18:00
by Tenebroso

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors