Maybe the mods will remove the thread,so C&P here:

Author     Message
Julia161
103 posts
<10
   
Message edited at 09/25/2009, 23:40:59 PM by Julia161    Quote
   Hi, I recently had a rejection of an i-pod image with no logos. I sent the letter to administration and got the answer that the design of an i-pod is copyrighted and can't be used on stock. At the same time this picture was approved and sells on other stocks, but this I thought was not important because each site has its own policy. No problem. But yesterday I found this image

   http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-pen-image5213380   

of Monblanc fountain pen, from which even the logo star and brand name were not removed. The picture sells well and already has 2d level. Does the author have property release fom Monblanc company? If yes than how is it possible to understand when looking at picture information? If not then, please, someone explain why this picture was approved on DT and mine of an i-pod was not?

Same question I have for "too many of the same series" refusals. Many of my images are refused because of this. But at the same time I permanently see on Dreamstime huge series of recently approved images for ex. like this:

   10955210,10955192,10955160,10955149,10955124,10955121,10955095,10955090,10955070,10955068 ,10955055,10955050,10955035,10955026
 
If you look at this artist's portfolio you will see that it all consists of huge series of almost the same images. Nothing personal, but again I'd very much like to understand, why images of different contributors are treated so differently.
Thank you if someone answers this question.

P.s. for some reason after posting this message I can't see the pictures inserted in it, but the links and pictures numbers are at least visible, so if you press them you'll definitely understand what I mean. Sorry for this inconvenience, if I find how to fix it i will.
 


   Uploaded files: 206 | Total Sales: 31
Doninny
224 posts
50
   
Message posted at 09/25/2009, 23:16:21 PM by Doninny    Quote
   I find it difficult to understand refusals sometimes. I have had things refused only to find the same image already accepted. My normal answer to my questions is that the other images were appoved sometime ago before changes were made. Hmmmmm
Nikon D300 Nikon D50

   Uploaded files: 67 | Total Sales: 28
Julia161
103 posts
<10
   
Message edited at 09/25/2009, 23:42:37 PM by Julia161    Quote
   
Originally posted by Doninny:
Quoted Message: I find it difficult to understand refusals sometimes. I have had things refused only to find the same image already accepted. My normal answer to my questions is that the other images were appoved sometime ago before changes were made. Hmmmmm


No. I checked the dates. They were approved recently, and they are continuing to be approved. And many of this images have the difference of +/- few millimeters cropping. Just have a look at them. Is this user's plate of pasta such a unique object compare to others that it needs to be shot from all possible angles and distances or what? If yes, then I'd like to know what exactly makes it so unique. But don't tell me about technical skills of this guy, because the point is not this but "too many of the same".


   Uploaded files: 206 | Total Sales: 31
Bbostjan
106 posts
79
   
Message posted at 09/26/2009, 01:44:25 AM by Bbostjan    Quote
   A difficult question indeed.
I also had a rejection recently due to too much similarity. It was about photos of bank notes. One photo was of US dollar the other was of Australian dollar. I didn't bother with resubmission. I got photo accepted on other stock site and it is selling there.

Canon 400D; EF50 1.4

   Uploaded files: 259 | Total Sales: 255
Thefinalmiracle
1103 posts
44
   
Message posted at 09/26/2009, 03:02:28 AM by Thefinalmiracle    Quote
   Check for logos/trademarks in the rejected images which will be obviously absent in approved ones. even the word 'ipod' on the player is trademark. Addtitionally also know that some agencies dont even allow the word ipod in keywords.
Canon Rebel XSI / 450D with Canon 18-55mm IS Lens & Tamron 7...

   Uploaded files: 3929 | Total Sales: 6587
Julia161
103 posts
<10
   
Message posted at 09/26/2009, 03:07:01 AM by Julia161    Quote
   
Originally posted by Bbostjan:
Quoted Message: A difficult question indeed.
I also had a rejection recently due to too much similarity. It was about photos of bank notes. One photo was of US dollar the other was of Australian dollar. I didn't bother with resubmission. I got photo accepted on other stock site and it is selling there.



Same situation I have permanently. My "same" images are far from being so much the same as this plates of pasta. But they are refused. And this plate of pasta spams all the "garlic" search. I have only one garlic picture approved. And on this picture is exactly the garlic. Not something else. But because of huge series of absolutely similar plates with pasta my only approved picture of real garlic has almost no chance to be noticed by buyers searching this key-word. Why we all the time speak about quality, creativity and diversity when the true criterias of editors choices are something different? Please, dear editors, explain the clear criterias of images approvement.


   Uploaded files: 206 | Total Sales: 31
Julia161
103 posts
<10
   
Message edited at 09/26/2009, 03:17:04 AM by Julia161    Quote
   
Originally posted by Thefinalmiracle:
Quoted Message: Check for logos/trademarks in the rejected images which will be obviously absent in approved ones. even the word 'ipod' on the player is trademark. Addtitionally also know that some agencies dont even allow the word ipod in keywords.


Do you mean that the word "Monblanc" and the logo is not trademark? This word is also used in description and key-words. On my i-pod picture there was not a single word or logos. Nothing. Just the ipod itself. Here is the picture
   http://www.********photo.com/photo/view/5777075  Yes, I used the word "ipod" in key-words and description, but if you search for "ipod" you find loads of pictures on DT where this word is used in description and key-words.

Again the link not visible... don't know how to correct.

.

CClapper wrote: "A reviewer on one site may not think a photo has commercial value, while a reviewer on another site thinks it does."

As far as I know, often the same reviewers work for different sites/agencies........

I agree with you: Refusements are all in the game....even if they are hard to understand....move on!
 

Regards!

With regard to similars, especially one vertical and one horizontal, they should be clearer about their policy because rejections (as far as I know) hurt your search results.  The same goes for limited commercial value or not what we are looking for or whatever they say now, why not post a list of things not to submit.  Some images that have been rejected at DT for "not what we are looking for"  have sold for over 1,000 times at IS, maybe it's bad business but it's their business.

Vertical x horizontal is totally ok.  Different setups is totally ok if they are really different - changing a round plate for a square plate isn't that much different. 

Now I know how some people say they can produce 100+ usable images in one day.   

Vertical x horizontal is totally ok.  Different setups is totally ok if they are really different - changing a round plate for a square plate isn't that much different. 

Now I know how some people say they can produce 100+ usable images in one day.   

Sometimes its hard to tell what will sell, I shot a bunch of doors from a city in Ecuador and a lot were rejected for being similar.  Yes they all were doors, all different doors, the thing is that on SS some sell well and some don't sell at all but who knows which will be the ones to sell.  Obviously not me, the ones that sold were the ones I thought I shouldn;t upload while the ones I liked sold well.  Who knows, DT punishes rejects by lowering your place in the search so just don't upload any similars even if they might be the ones people want, I guess that's the lesson.

On the contrary, I believe this is the exception rather than the rule, as it is my understanding that most of the sites do not allow their reviewers to review elsewhere.

I am fairly certain this is correct.

Take a look at this thread: http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_18691

And then take a look at the photographer that has sooo many pctures of the same series approved: http://www.dreamstime.com/Antoniomp_info

and... look at this:

Antoniomp is favorite photographer for:
Petarneychev (2,668)

hahaha petarneychev is one of the DT moderators/admins/reviewers   (and the guy who said that "a sale is a sale")

It makes me think about favoritism policies  

Nothing really new. I noticed this well over a year ago at DT. In fact one DT contributor who was Faved at one time by one of the DT admins was proven a thief, having uploaded 1000 or so photos in a very short time. A high number of the portfolio images were recognized as stolen. The offending portfolio was finally removed when one high ranking seller there found some of his images had been snatched.
 
See this very old thread

http://www.microstockgroup.com/dreamstime-com/here%27s-a-mystery-see-if-you-can-solve-it-on-dreamstime/

I think it is perfectly valid to upload a vertical and horizontal view of an object (in this case plates of food).  However, as Alias points out, when something is isolated on white vertical or horizontal is irrelevant because the buyer can easily crop or add white space to get any orientation they want.

Jonathan's suggestion posted in another thread, about creating a square image that can be cropped either way, would be an ideal solution for a lot of these pictures.

I've got a buddy who buys images, usually from FT, and before he does the search he decides whether he needs a vertical or horizontal image to fit the slot he wants to drop it into. He then clicks the appropriate Horizontal or Vertical button to exclude all others. Square images won't appear on either search option btw. It doesn't even occur to him that he could buy a larger image and simply crop it.

I hadn't thought of that.  This does offer validation for uploading both orientations, even isolated. 

Not sure what the solution is then.  There has to be some middle ground where we upload enough views to satisfy the buyers and turn up in relevant searches, but without uploading dozens of practically identical images like the linked portfolio.  Definitely that appears to be overkill.