pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: bleah  (Read 5382 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Greg Boiarsky

« on: March 02, 2007, 11:24 »
0
I rarely complain about rejections.  They're part of the game.

But, having 16 of 19 perfectly reasonable, model-released images rejected is annoying, particularly when 15 of the rejections were for "copyright violations."  I cloned out every brand name; the photos on the walls were my own; all technology was generic (phones, monitors, etc.).  The photos were of a man in a home office.  What am I supposed to do, remove all the technology and items that personalize the office?

Sheesh.  Well, maybe my note to support will change their decisions.


« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2007, 17:00 »
0
Where was this, Professor?     8) -tom

modify:  Yeah, I'm an idiot,  all I have to do is read the name of the thread... sorry...              I really DO have a high IQ....honest.....      LOL

« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2007, 19:44 »
0
keep us updated of the reply from support.

Greg Boiarsky

« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2007, 20:14 »
0
Well, they wrote back and had two problems with the images.  First, they took exception to the photos on the wall in the background.  Even though the photos were mine, they needed a release.  Then, they had a problem with the fact that you could see the windows symbol on one of the keys in the keyboard.  Give me a blinking break--I looked at the photos, and not one of the symbols on the keyboard is visible.

This is a load of garbage.  If they didn't like the photos, fine; there were some exposure problems that 123rf caught, and I have no problem with that kind of rejection.  But, stupid BS reasons that have no connection with reality?  Give me a break. 

While I'll still upload to this site, if I get any more of this kind of stupid response I'll pull my portfolio after my next payout.  If that happens before the end of the century, of course.

keep us updated of the reply from support.

dbvirago

« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2007, 13:24 »
0
I've had many rejects at DT for copyright where I had to dig to find the reason. One was good seller elsewhere - a bicycle in a rack at the beach. Bikes have logos all over the place and I spent a lot of time cloning them out. Shot was accepted everywhere except DT.

On the bike rack, there was a partial, torn, weathered sticker that showed part of a logo that I couldn't make out. It's the white spot at left center. At 100%, I still can't make out what it says or was.


« Reply #5 on: March 07, 2007, 13:40 »
0
Unfortunately if part of the logo is recognisable, then they have a point. A logo that may not be recognisable to you may be obvious to someone else. However, it does seem a bit stringent. Its a great picture and deserves good sales. Will you remove the logo and re-submit, or are you worried that they might want model releases for the ant size people on the pier?  ;)

Greg Boiarsky

« Reply #6 on: March 07, 2007, 13:43 »
0
I think what we're saying is that no part of any logos are recognizable.  The rationale they're offering is bogus.

Unfortunately if part of the logo is recognisable, then they have a point. A logo that may not be recognisable to you may be obvious to someone else. However, it does seem a bit stringent. Its a great picture and deserves good sales. Will you remove the logo and re-submit, or are you worried that they might want model releases for the ant size people on the pier?  ;)

eendicott

« Reply #7 on: March 07, 2007, 14:01 »
0
Sometimes I think you just have to roll with the punches.  This image of mine was initially rejected for "copyright issues"



I sent an email back to the reviewer explaining that all logos had been removed and the image was of a Lotus Elise which is not trademarked.  The reviewer responded that the "Lotus" logo on the center of the rim of the tires needed to be cloned out.

Here's the thing, those rims are traveling at about 50 mph.  Anyone viewing the image at 100% would see that it's all a blur.  There was no logo - just a swirl of green.

I figured I'd humor the reviewer so I did some cloning (made it look obvious) and re-submitted with an explanation of what I did.  The image was accepted.

At the same time, I've seen images there that have been accepted that have blatant copyright infringements - the golden arch on a McDonalds french fry box, the numbered jersey of a competitor at a rock climbing event (which identifies the competitor), etc., etc..

It's very frustrating.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2007, 14:27 by eendicott »

« Reply #8 on: March 07, 2007, 22:02 »
0
Now you got me started....
I am so annoyed with those guys I have pretty much stopped uploading.  They are extremely inconsistent which is extremly annoying.  I got pictures rejected for model release issues that used the same model release as many others which are uploaded and selling.  One picture gets rejected another in the same batch of the same model (mostly my kid) get's accepted.
 
Replies by support are slow and inconsistent as well.  One example: one person in support told me to upload a reworked model release under a new but similar name and they would switch it out another person told me to email them the new and improved model releases and they would switch it out.  Now what am I suppposed to do?   I suspect that whatever I do the job won't get done.

Also I am kind of sick of their customer service in general. The prevailing notion seems to be: "we are working sooo terribly hard and we won't take any crap (or suggestions) from you pesky photographers."  Well, hello, I am working hard too and don't want to apologize every time I ask a question or point out a possible improvement.  When I posted something along to this effect on the Forum recently the post was removed within hours for some bogus reason. 

Okay, done venting now - its still bugs me, though.

Thanks for listening  ;)

Tina

« Reply #9 on: March 08, 2007, 01:25 »
0

... Also I am kind of sick of their customer service in general ...


We are not the customers. We are the suppliers.

It may seem like a small point, but it does put things in a different perspective (and maybe help keep blood pressure down   :)  ).

If you think about it, it's 100% their prerogative to choose what they sell and what they don't sell, and we can't really argue against their choice.

If you bear that in mind, and just keep supplying, it makes does this business a bit easier to handle.

eendicott

« Reply #10 on: March 08, 2007, 08:42 »
0
We are not the customers. We are the suppliers.

It may seem like a small point, but it does put things in a different perspective (and maybe help keep blood pressure down   :)  ).

If you think about it, it's 100% their prerogative to choose what they sell and what they don't sell, and we can't really argue against their choice.

If you bear that in mind, and just keep supplying, it makes does this business a bit easier to handle.

You are absolutely correct and I learned to take this position early on.  However, even suppliers have to figure out how much it costs to supply that product.  If it takes 10 hours of work to get one picture up on the site, and at another site, it takes 2 hours of work to get the same picture on their site, and I can have a reasonable expectation of making the same amount of money or more (based on my hourly rate as well as my overhead for supplying that company), then as a supplier, I need to make the business decision as to whether or not my efforts are worth the return.

That's why I quit submitting to the other agencies and became exclusive in the first place (despite people accusing me of being lazy).

The problem is, the way things have evolved, different business models are looking more and more attractive to this supplier  :)

« Reply #11 on: March 08, 2007, 09:40 »
0
yeah, your right, we are suppliers - tellingly there is no "supplier service" department.  I guess you might argue that support fills that function but my point was: support I am not getting but attitude I am getting a lot.  Well, that's what's happening in an industry where supplier power is very limited   :(.




 

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results