pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: New rejection reason: Too Offensive  (Read 5238 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 09, 2016, 01:16 »
0
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


« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2016, 02:14 »
0
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?


« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2016, 03:04 »
+1
This blue tent is a kind of phallic symbol, maybe they find this offensive?

« Reply #3 on: September 09, 2016, 03:18 »
+1
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.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2016, 04:01 by Dodie »

« Reply #4 on: September 09, 2016, 03:28 »
+1
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.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2016, 03:58 by Dodie »

« Reply #5 on: September 09, 2016, 04:16 »
0
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


« Reply #6 on: September 09, 2016, 04:18 »
0
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 :D :D
« Last Edit: September 09, 2016, 04:22 by Chichikov »

« Reply #7 on: September 09, 2016, 04:55 »
+3
LOL political correctness gone mad. I bet the reviewer was a progressive leftie.

« Reply #8 on: September 09, 2016, 07:16 »
0
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
Well, for events SS asks press credentials lately, for 123, photos are too offensive. I had no problems with DT, BS, DP, except they don't sell. There were 33 degrees C in the shadow (91F) when I shot these images. I think I'm done with events for a while but you may have more luck.

« Reply #9 on: September 09, 2016, 07:23 »
0
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 :D :D

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.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2016, 07:27 by Dodie »

« Reply #10 on: September 09, 2016, 07:31 »
0
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.

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...
« Last Edit: September 09, 2016, 07:44 by cathyslife »

« Reply #11 on: September 09, 2016, 08:09 »
0
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 :D :D

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. 
« Last Edit: September 09, 2016, 08:16 by Chichikov »

« Reply #12 on: September 09, 2016, 08:39 »
0
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...

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.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2016, 08:47 by Dodie »

« Reply #13 on: September 09, 2016, 09:10 »
0
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.  :)

angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #14 on: September 09, 2016, 09:44 »
+2
I got one of those at 123 of a picture of a baby - I guess the baby somehow offended the reviewer ... It was a closeup too - no naked person in the background or anything ...

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #15 on: September 09, 2016, 10:14 »
+1
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.


« Reply #16 on: September 09, 2016, 10:41 »
0
I got one of those at 123 of a picture of a baby - I guess the baby somehow offended the reviewer ... It was a closeup too - no naked person in the background or anything ...
It's very hard to understand these inconsequent reviews. In my other batch only two images were approved with a closeup of small children painting, everything else about that race (in the landscape) was "blur/out of focus", only for 123.

« Reply #17 on: September 09, 2016, 10:47 »
0
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).

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #18 on: September 09, 2016, 11:07 »
0
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).

Up to a point I agree, but one must consider that to take action in some countries amounts to the death penalty (off the books of course). For in this case, even the police are powerless and in fear, even though it was one of their own killed by this thug.

« Reply #19 on: September 11, 2016, 00:12 »
+4
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.

« Reply #20 on: February 27, 2017, 09:02 »
+2
I recently had a photo rejected for being "too offensive", it was my 5 month old male dog standing on his back leggs so you could see it is a male dog. Very pornographic  :) :) :)

« Reply #21 on: February 27, 2017, 09:27 »
0


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2691 Views
Last post December 05, 2008, 20:50
by stormchaser
New rejection reason

Started by dbvirago Dreamstime.com

7 Replies
2166 Views
Last post January 15, 2015, 21:14
by Nikovsk
8 Replies
3789 Views
Last post March 30, 2016, 05:45
by HappyBunny
11 Replies
3467 Views
Last post June 16, 2016, 17:49
by superdone
6 Replies
2709 Views
Last post August 17, 2016, 23:34
by jazz42

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results