Author Topic: Worst rejection reason, proven wrong? (Read 3919 times)

CD123 · « **on:** March 14, 2013, 10:26 »

Can sometimes just shake my head at some of the rejection reasons of some sites, which got proven 100% wrong later on. The best one normally is in the category "not commercial enough" (the "will not sell" type). Then, afterwards, it turns out to be one of your best sellers at the sites (or at least the large ones) it got approved at. Would have made a difference if they said that it might not sell on their site (due to their specific customer base).

Except for the infamous "similar" rejections, any other experiences?

icefront · « **Reply #1 on:** March 14, 2013, 10:35 »

Most of the time inspectors have the bad luck to reject best sellers and in the same batch approve the lowest seller/quality.
As for the "specific customer base" - that simply doesn't exists. It's a theory based on assumptions.
Somebody somewhere had a very good point: inspectors aren't buyers, especially because they spend their time looking at images, NOT buying images/creating designs so how they can be sure what has commercial value??? They are only guessing...

CD123 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 14, 2013, 10:40 »

Quote from: icefront on March 14, 2013, 10:35

Most of the time inspectors have the bad luck to reject best sellers and in the same batch approve the lowest seller/quality.
As for the "specific customer base" - that simply doesn't exists. It's a theory based on assumptions.
Somebody somewhere had a very good point: inspectors aren't buyers, especially because they spend their time looking at images, NOT buying images/creating designs so how they can be sure what has commercial value??? They are only guessing...

IMO then they should not have the option to reject images for that reason.

cthoman · « **Reply #3 on:** March 14, 2013, 10:56 »

My favorite was an artifact rejection on a vector.

disorderly · « **Reply #4 on:** March 14, 2013, 11:01 »

Mine was a rejection for the wrong model release. It was in fact the right release; the model changed her look so much she didn't look like herself.

CD123 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 14, 2013, 11:18 »

Quote from: disorderly on March 14, 2013, 11:01

Mine was a rejection for the wrong model release. It was in fact the right release; the model changed her look so much she didn't look like herself.

Interesting that you brought that up. I just scanned some pictures of my wife I took 21 years ago and realized that I can not use it with a model release with her picture attached, as I probably would have received the same rejection reason. Luckily not all sites requires a MR with a picture.

You should perhaps just have used one of the pictures from your shoot.

disorderly · « **Reply #6 on:** March 14, 2013, 11:53 »

Quote from: CD123 on March 14, 2013, 11:18

Quote from: disorderly on March 14, 2013, 11:01
Mine was a rejection for the wrong model release. It was in fact the right release; the model changed her look so much she didn't look like herself.
Interesting that you brought that up. I just scanned some pictures of my wife I took 21 years ago and realized that I can not use it with a model release with her picture attached, as I probably would have received the same rejection reason. Luckily not all sites requires a MR with a picture.

You should perhaps just have used one of the pictures from your shoot.

I did. But her look changed during the shoot: blonde to brunette, different makeup. I guess I could have put a couple of head shots on the release, but it never occurred to me that it would be a problem.

CD123 · « **Reply #7 on:** March 14, 2013, 11:55 »

Quote from: disorderly on March 14, 2013, 11:53

Quote from: CD123 on March 14, 2013, 11:18
Quote from: disorderly on March 14, 2013, 11:01
Mine was a rejection for the wrong model release. It was in fact the right release; the model changed her look so much she didn't look like herself.
Interesting that you brought that up. I just scanned some pictures of my wife I took 21 years ago and realized that I can not use it with a model release with her picture attached, as I probably would have received the same rejection reason. Luckily not all sites requires a MR with a picture.

You should perhaps just have used one of the pictures from your shoot.

I did. But her look changed during the shoot: blonde to brunette, different makeup. I guess I could have put a couple of head shots on the release, but it never occurred to me that it would be a problem.

Oh, got you

Allsa · « **Reply #8 on:** March 14, 2013, 12:36 »

My funniest rejection was when my 3d rendered mermaid image was rejected because I didn't provide a model release.

CD123 · « **Reply #9 on:** March 14, 2013, 13:43 »

Quote from: Allsa on March 14, 2013, 12:36

My funniest rejection was when my 3d rendered mermaid image was rejected because I didn't provide a model release.

Big mistake Allsa, I always get my mermaids to sign a MR upfront.

tab62 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 14, 2013, 14:17 »

my best rejection was by CD telling me 'What the heck were you thinking during the photo session!" lol!

CD123 · « **Reply #11 on:** March 14, 2013, 14:22 »

Quote from: tab62 on March 14, 2013, 14:17

my best rejection was by CD telling me 'What the heck were you thinking during the photo session!" lol!

That's bad! On the bright side, at last you can be sure that it was no computerized review or drop down refusal reason, you got very personal attention.

PS What where you thinking about?

w7lwi · « **Reply #12 on:** March 14, 2013, 16:44 »

How about the infamous Composition rejection on an image isolated on white. A true isolation with no stray pixels on the BG.

heywoody · « **Reply #13 on:** March 14, 2013, 16:54 »

Quote from: Allsa on March 14, 2013, 12:36

My funniest rejection was when my 3d rendered mermaid image was rejected because I didn't provide a model release.

I've had a few of those across a number of sites but my people had legs

CD123 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 14, 2013, 17:08 »

Quote from: heywoody on March 14, 2013, 16:54

Quote from: Allsa on March 14, 2013, 12:36
My funniest rejection was when my 3d rendered mermaid image was rejected because I didn't provide a model release.

I've had a few of those across a number of sites but my people had legs

With the very high level of "tracing"/"painting"/"Sketching" software these days, it must be a nightmare for a reviewer to guess if the origin was a picture or not. I actually made a model release for 3D generated images with any human features. I declare in it that the "model" was computer generated and that the software was therefore the originator. The MR was never rejected and my 3D's where accepted. Maybe worth your while to create an MR for that, as well as self drawn/created images. They want a MR, so give them one.

flotsom · « **Reply #15 on:** March 14, 2013, 18:35 »

My favourite was being asked for a property/model release of a tree next to a stream, not sure which needed the release but I was tempted to upload one with a leaf print for a signature.

Lizard · « **Reply #16 on:** March 14, 2013, 18:52 »

I just adore those cases when illustrations are rejected for white balance reason

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Worst rejection reason, proven wrong? (Read 3919 times)

CD123

icefront

CD123

cthoman

disorderly

CD123

disorderly

CD123

Allsa

CD123

tab62

CD123

w7lwi

heywoody

CD123

flotsom

Lizard

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors