Absolutely agree.

They are totally ridiculous in that regard. I have a feeling they're using editors who have experience with photography only and are applying those criteria to video footage, which is utterly moronic.

I've got 20 years experience in video and film editing, and their reasons for rejection are beyond words, showing absolutely no knowledge of the subject, no sense of how footage is used in editing or what makes it potentially useful or not.

I sent them some of my best selling material recently, animations of starfields in three versions, one is straight, one is spinning left and one is spinning right. And they reject 2 of those for being "too similar". Do I need to say more?

I sent them some of my best night time, low light wild animal footage (sells regularly on SS and P5) and they reject it for being "grainy".

Anyone who has spent even a couple of days working in professional video editing needs no further clarification or examples.

Those people are idiots. Even after I complained and even got an apology from staff (kudos), the next batch of uploads got butchered even more and with even more ridiculous reasons for rejection.

Needless to say, I've given up on them. My upload capacity is limited and coupled with extra hassle of preparing weighted keywords (!) they're simply not worth the bother - I've got plenty of other agencies to upload to in my off-time. Until their editorial policy vis-a-vis footage changes, they're simply not worth the bother of any professional stock footage producer. Frankly, it is bordering on insulting. A pity.