Interesting thread at DT about refusals, take a look (favoritism??)

[PedroV]

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 

[PedroV]

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.

[gostwyck]

I see what you mean about Antoniomp. I'd seen him before and wondered how he was getting away with such an absurd amount of 'similars'. Now we know.

There's absolutely no way that I could get 18 images of the same plate of pasta accepted or 21 images of tomatoes stuffed with tuna, etc, etc (not that I'd want to as it is a pointless waste of time). I struggle sometimes just to get a horizontal and vertical version of the same shoot accepted and yet my 'Downloads per image figure' is nearly 20x that of Antoniomp. Hmm.

[epantha]

.

[cathyslife]

Regarding the ipod, I had a similar rejection. I photographed my niece dancing and she had ipod earbuds in. No ipod was even showing. It was rejected, with the explanation that earbuds were unique to Apple and that they couldn't be photographed. The ipod is similarly unique and therefore I would assume it can't be photographed and most definitely you can't use it as a keyword as the name is copyrighted.

That being said, I have also seen many instances of this same type of favoritism on ALL the sites, not just DT. A reviewer on one site may not think a photo has commercial value, while a reviewer on another site thinks it does. That is a subjective preference and I can see where there would be rejections and acceptances. But a logo is a logo and the ipod is trademarked and copyrighted...that should hold true across the boards for EVERYONE. It really bothers me that this stuff continues to happen.

The only consolation is that the person who photographs the ipod and gets away with the acceptance could be putting themselves in danger of a lawsuit. If someone purchases that photo and uses it on a nationwide promotion and apple gets wind of it, the photographer could be history. Large companies take these types of matters very seriously.

It really galls me, but I always end up thinking that I just have to find something else to photography and move on. What goes around, comes around comes to mind.

[weknow]

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!

[bittersweet]

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

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.

[traveler1116]

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.

[alias]

It would be stupid for them to reject horizontal and vertical images as too similar given that the images would be used differently on a page.

Exception being an objected isolated, in which case the only difference would be empty space.

[madelaide]

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.   

[PedroV]

Only you need is be an admin "favourite photographer" and you can get lots and lots of images accepted 

[traveler1116]

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.

[Fred]

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.

Actuallly, it our business too (but we can vote with our feet!)  If DT is going to factor acceptance rate into search results then they need to be particularly careful about rejections for bogus reasons and favoritism.

fred

[cathyslife]

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.

[cascoly]

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.

[youtube][/youtube]

i agree completely - problem is, the day after getting rejects as "too similar" i'll get shots from the next batch accepted;   if reviewers are paid by # of reviews, it's far easier to reject for 'similar' since you can do it with thumbnails.   it's frustrating since our income is dependent on factors totally outside of the content and quality of our work.

i would stop sending similars if i could figure out which f the 10 DIFFERENT images all agencies will accept, but each agency will accept 1-4 of a given series, and the ones chosen are not the same ones.  it's unfortunate since bits are so cheap there's no reason not to offer everything of quality

there is a solution to this and some enterprising new agency could use it to REALLY distinguish themselves - accept ALL technically correct images, but develop a search and display algorithm that actually helps the user.  eg, if i enter "fall leaves" i'd first get images showing a range from detailed macros to panoramic landscapes, and the user can then drill down; when there's a series of similar images by one photographer, determined by image analysis, only 1 is shown, with indication of 'more'

the technology's there - the work is in designing the user interface



steve

[stormchaser]

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/

[RolMat]

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

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.

.

[lisafx]

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.

[gostwyck]

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.

Trouble is some buyers don't think that way. 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.

He hates spending time searching (he's a printer and is working to a client's rough brief) as he thinks it is a waste of his valuable time. He's never really considered charging a 'search fee' as often the projects are very small.

[lisafx]

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.

[gostwyck]

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.

I'd like to see upload limits based on the individual contributor's sales and acceptance record __ similar to IS but perhaps not as severe. It would save hugely on admin costs and it would improve the overall quality of the library and searches.

Of course doing what Antoniomp does is a fairly pointless exercise anyway as any sales are likely to be spread amongst virtually identical images and will slow promotion to the higher levels.