Author Topic: BigStock don't understand Editorial (Read 10377 times)

Eco · « **on:** October 18, 2008, 01:13 »

Now that BigStock accept Editorial images I submitted a few that are also on some of the other Microstock sites. Normally I don't submit editorial images to MS (they go to Alamy), but since I have these already on MS I submitted them to BigStock. Imagine my surprise when most of them was rejected for ridiculous reasons. Here are some examples:

This image of Valentino Rossi: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-1138025-motogp-racing-valentino-rossi-phakisa-racetrack-welkom-south-africa-april.html
was rejected for "Potential copyright / trademark / privacy issue with photo (could be: copyrighted art, visible logo, license plate number, etc)"

There were several more from this event that were also rejected and yes I made 100% sure I clicked the "editorial" box when submitting the images.

This image of a Himba boy was accepted: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-1706686-a-young-himba-boy-with-traditional-cultural-decorations-kaokoland-namibia.html,

but this one: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-1706687-a-himba-child-raised-in-a-traditional-rural-village-kaokoland-namibia.html rejected for "not editorial. Recognizable person without Model Release..."

I did send them an e-mail, but just beware if you intend to send them some editorial images. They are currently clueless what an editorial image is.

travelstock · « **Reply #1 on:** October 18, 2008, 02:57 »

All the more reason to stick with Alamy for editorial content...

Pixart · « **Reply #2 on:** October 18, 2008, 11:30 »

Me too. I wondered if the shots didn't get in the editorial cue.

hali · « **Reply #3 on:** October 18, 2008, 12:39 »

me three...

i sent some editorial shots... with logos, signs, of my city...
and some people shots without model releases, and even stated i didn't have model releases , so i want it for editorial use only.

they all got rejected with the same copyright issue, privacy,etc... scripts like all of you had.
and even a note that this is not what editorial usage is meant for.

i imagine they hired lots of extra for the christmas holiday rush, as they announced,
but these reviewers, or even their RF reviewers haven't the faintest idea what editorial is really meant for.

like you said, that's why we have Alamy.
but some of my editorial pics were shot before Alamy, so i couldn't upsize it for them without degradation .

i like BigStock a lot, along with DST, i think they're my best micro.
but this is a bit on the ridiculous, i have to agree.
aren't these reviewers trained or tested before hiring?

cascoly · « **Reply #4 on:** October 19, 2008, 13:40 »

this thread should probably be a subset of the inane reviewer one

BigStock has no consistency in what their reviewers consider editorial

http://www.bigstockphoto.com/photo/view/3776341

was accepted as editorial, similar shots in the series were rejected later for 'recognizable person' even tho submitted as editorial

stormchaser · « **Reply #5 on:** October 20, 2008, 02:12 »

The reviewers at Big are morons. I recently had a desert panorama rejected saying something like "there is something wrong with the length and width - the photo is squashed". And a host of other insane rejections as well, yet all were accepted and are sellng at iStock - go figure that one.

Based on what I have seen there lately, the comments about the editorial rejections do no not surprise me.

hali · « **Reply #6 on:** October 20, 2008, 09:46 »

as i said before , i like BigStock. but lately, yes, i've been getting the most atrocious rejection comments too.
i like to think it's the temp reviewers they just hired for the annuounced " christmas rush ".
they are an embarassment to BigStock. i would rather have a late review than a quick review with such inane remarked rejection.

stormchaser · « **Reply #7 on:** October 20, 2008, 17:19 »

You're right. I would have been happy to just cut down the review time, like to half of what it was, but have people with a brain doing the task.

What was it - 8 to 10 days at one point? I'd be happy with 3 or 4 days or so, with consistent and sensible reviews instead of some of this crap attempt at rapidfire turnaround they have now. What a joke.

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #8 on:** October 20, 2008, 19:38 »

Quote from: hali on October 20, 2008, 09:46

as i said before , i like BigStock. but lately, yes, i've been getting the most atrocious rejection comments too.

I've always like BigStock. And I still do! Been with them since mid-2006. But I too have been getting some off-the-wall rejects. Same story, stuff that IS is selling, I'm getting kicked down from BigStock.

Oh well, I know they all have their rules and regs (and quirks). I continue to upload at BigStock. And, I still do like them.

=tom

Eco · « **Reply #9 on:** October 21, 2008, 01:36 »

I received a reply from BigStock today after I queried their understanding of what an editorial image is. They apologized for the mistake and most of the rejections were reversed.

khwi · « **Reply #10 on:** October 21, 2008, 10:57 »

Quote from: Eco on October 21, 2008, 01:36

I received a reply from BigStock today after I queried their understanding of what an editorial image is. They apologized for the mistake and most of the rejections were reversed.

good for u!
at least they listen

Newsfocus1 · « **Reply #11 on:** October 23, 2008, 03:34 »

Joined them last week after seeing the announcement about editorial photos. Had my first editorial sale after four days (an archive shot of former P.M. Margaret Thatcher) so was encouraged by that. Next batch didn't go so well. Three photos of a Shell petrol station rejected as not being of interest for editorial but two others from the same set accepted?! A Barclays Bank sign rejected as not being of editorial use. Errh well I was under the impression there is a world wide banking crisis and every newspaper/web site/tv report is crammed with bank signage photos. Seems a bit hit and miss as to what they deem editorial. All the same I shall keep uploading as it seems a good site. Regards, David

cascoly · « **Reply #12 on:** October 23, 2008, 13:55 »

Quote from: khwi on October 21, 2008, 10:57

Quote from: Eco on October 21, 2008, 01:36
I received a reply from BigStock today after I queried their understanding of what an editorial image is. They apologized for the mistake and most of the rejections were reversed.

good for u!
at least they listen

i had exactly the same response after getting some editorials rejected -- all were later accepted - without even having to re-upl and submit [DT & cut could take the hint here -- they both require a complete resubmit if the reviewer screws up]

any rejection that doesnt involve changes to the image [keywords, release, desc, etc] shouldbe avaialble for the photog to edit & resubmit

Bateleur · « **Reply #13 on:** October 23, 2008, 15:24 »

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on October 20, 2008, 19:38

Quote from: hali on October 20, 2008, 09:46
as i said before , i like BigStock. but lately, yes, i've been getting the most atrocious rejection comments too.

I've always like BigStock. And I still do! Been with them since mid-2006. But I too have been getting some off-the-wall rejects.

Same for me. I like them, but some of their reasons for rejection have me scratching my head. One image - accepted at IS, SS, DT, SX etc - was rejected for 'dust spots' in the sky.

They were birds.

hali · « **Reply #14 on:** October 24, 2008, 15:45 »

Quote from: Bateleur on October 23, 2008, 15:24

Same for me. I like them, but some of their reasons for rejection have me scratching my head. One image - accepted at IS, SS, DT, SX etc - was rejected for 'dust spots' in the sky.

They were birds.

that poor BigStock reviewer(s) must be walking around seeing a lot of dust spots in the sky

Lcjtripod · « **Reply #15 on:** December 15, 2008, 12:50 »

I personally think that most of the problems with BigStock rejects that do not make any sense at all are from new reviewers that are not properly supervised.

By supervised I mean: All accepted and rejected images from any new reviewer should have to be double checked by a very experience reviewer that does know th business needs and policy's, Once they get it right then turn them lose to be on their own.

I have pulled out most of my hair over issues with stupid rejects.

I think that many of the new reviewers have been fired or just let go as conditions are improved at BigStock at this time.

-Larry

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: BigStock don't understand Editorial (Read 10377 times)

Eco

travelstock

Pixart

hali

cascoly

stormchaser

hali

stormchaser

a.k.a.-tom

Eco

khwi

Newsfocus1

cascoly

Bateleur

hali

Lcjtripod

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors