It's getting ridiculous and is killing the enjoyment of taking photographs.

So far I am finding my experience uploading to SS very positive. Ok, I had a few initial rejections but on the whole I am experiencing good results getting images into the collection, especially ones IS rejected over and over. I can't wait until I can flick the switch and get them all live to start earning. Only 15 days to go !

Quote from: Herg on December 29, 2011, 07:00
So far I am finding my experience uploading to SS very positive. Ok, I had a few initial rejections but on the whole I am experiencing good results getting images into the collection, especially ones IS rejected over and over. I can't wait until I can flick the switch and get them all live to start earning. Only 15 days to go !

are the IS rejected shots being accepted by SS ?

Quote from: gemmy12 on December 29, 2011, 14:52

Quote from: Herg on December 29, 2011, 07:00
So far I am finding my experience uploading to SS very positive. Ok, I had a few initial rejections but on the whole I am experiencing good results getting images into the collection, especially ones IS rejected over and over. I can't wait until I can flick the switch and get them all live to start earning. Only 15 days to go !

are the IS rejected shots being accepted by SS ?

Mine have been, almost universally.  And several have sold in the 100's and have had EL's.  The usual rejection at IS ... look too Photoshopped.  Another reason I stopped uploading to IS earlier this year.

Quote from: w7lwi on December 29, 2011, 16:35

Quote from: gemmy12 on December 29, 2011, 14:52

Quote from: Herg on December 29, 2011, 07:00
So far I am finding my experience uploading to SS very positive. Ok, I had a few initial rejections but on the whole I am experiencing good results getting images into the collection, especially ones IS rejected over and over. I can't wait until I can flick the switch and get them all live to start earning. Only 15 days to go !

are the IS rejected shots being accepted by SS ?

Mine have been, almost universally.  And several have sold in the 100's and have had EL's.  The usual rejection at IS ... look too Photoshopped.  Another reason I stopped uploading to IS earlier this year.

Okay. I will try my IS rejected photos in SS the.. who knows they might get selected.

You never know unless you try.  And what's the absolute worst that can happen?  They get rejected.  Hardly the end of the world.  Not like you'll be thrown into prison or something.   

Quote from: Herg on December 29, 2011, 07:00
So far I am finding my experience uploading to SS very positive. Ok, I had a few initial rejections but on the whole I am experiencing good results getting images into the collection, especially ones IS rejected over and over. I can't wait until I can flick the switch and get them all live to start earning. Only 15 days to go !

Oh by then they will all be "old" files and go to the back. (just kidding!) 

I uploaded a shot yesterday that I figured had less than a 20% chance of getting accepted. It has shadows! (oh no, the Sun casts a shadow...) Got the accepted email this morning. Now if it sells, that's even better!

i thought rejections couldnt get any sillier but today i  got several rejections from SS because the images were taken in a national park! [in this case gettysburg]


a search for national park gives 138,000 images and gettysburg alone gives 708!  not to mention all the nature and scencis taken in grand canyon, yosemite, acadia, rainier et al, which often doet have national park in the desc!

per usual, no reponse as yet from SS 'support'

Quote from: cascoly on December 29, 2011, 20:41
i thought rejections couldnt get any sillier but today i  got several rejections from SS because the images were taken in a national park! [in this case gettysburg]


a search for national park gives 138,000 images and gettysburg alone gives 708!  not to mention all the nature and scencis taken in grand canyon, yosemite, acadia, rainier et al, which often doet have national park in the desc!

per usual, no reponse as yet from SS 'support'

From http://home.nps.gov/applications/digest/permits.cfm?urlarea=permits

The National Park Service permits commercial filming and still photography when it is consistent with the park's mission and will not harm the resource or interfere with the visitor experience.

When is a permit needed?
All commercial filming activities taking place within a unit of the National Park system require a permit. Commercial filming includes capturing a moving image on film and video as well as sound recordings.

Still photographers require a permit when
1.      the activity takes place at location(s) where or when members of the public are generally not allowed; or
2.      the activity uses model(s), sets(s), or prop(s) that are not a part of the location's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities; or
3.      Park would incur additional administrative costs to monitor the activity.

So it seems to me that unless you're shooting models or bringing props, commercial photography is allowed, and without a permit.

Quote from: Herg on December 22, 2011, 11:40
What I find strange with SS is the fact they turn down a distant tractor crop spraying in a field, 

Would that be a distant green tractor, by any chance? John Deere have, apparently, managed to copyright the colour green on tractors.

Quote from: cascoly on December 29, 2011, 20:41
i thought rejections couldnt get any sillier but today i  got several rejections from SS because the images were taken in a national park! [in this case gettysburg]


a search for national park gives 138,000 images and gettysburg alone gives 708!  not to mention all the nature and scencis taken in grand canyon, yosemite, acadia, rainier et al, which often doet have national park in the desc!

per usual, no reponse as yet from SS 'support'

Just can't wait for the answer on this one. You are correct, it's free to shoot, we own those parks, as long as none of the things KB pointed out are going on.

Yes you discovered part of it. Don't put National Park in the description and they might get accepted. Someone in review land may be confusing the National Trust and Heritage of the UK that claim to own rights to almost everything, including a mountain in Australia.

Can you imagine John Deere suing because one of their tractors is in a shot ? It's free advertising for a start.

Quote from: Herg on December 30, 2011, 13:04
Can you imagine John Deere suing because one of their tractors is in a shot ? It's free advertising for a start.

Yes we can. You need to know that if a company doesn't defend and protect their trademark, it potentially becomes public domain and generic. One of the most aggressive is Coke!

They go to places that sell other products (usually syrup dispensers) and order a "Coke" is they get a Royal Crown, Pepsi, or something else brown cola, they slap a notice on them. Usually they go to small shops and places that are never going to go to court, and then when the retailer admits to their error and promise not to do it again, Coke drops the lawsuit. This shows the courts that they are defending their Trademark.

The reason Ford came out against the use of their images, is they are defending and protecting their copyrights, designs and trademark.

A trademark is said to be genericized when it began as distinctive but has changed in meaning to become generic. Some examples: Aspirin, Butterscotch, Escalator, Kerosene,Thermos, Yo-yo, Zipper.

OK so we know it's just some green and yellow, but it's actually the specific green, not Any Green tractor. (that doesn't mean the reviewer is trained on this legal point)

Many times you can use an image of something and sell it, but you can't use the name of the company in the keywords or description.

Gas Lighter may get through, but if you use Zippo, they should reject it. Oh I hope I'm not giving the agencies more ideas? You can't use brand names in keywords or descriptions. Don't bother.

On the other hand a green and yellow tractor in the distance of a photo, is not the subject and shouldn't be cause for rejection? Oh well, here we are again. If they would give a specific reason on the rejection, we'd know?

Quote from: Herg on December 30, 2011, 13:04
Can you imagine John Deere suing because one of their tractors is in a shot ? It's free advertising for a start.

It would depend totally on how the image was used whether it would be regarded as free advertising, which is why they have to jump on even a tiny infraction otherwise precedents are established.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 29, 2011, 22:37

Quote from: Herg on December 22, 2011, 11:40
What I find strange with SS is the fact they turn down a distant tractor crop spraying in a field, 

Would that be a distant green tractor, by any chance? John Deere have, apparently, managed to copyright the colour green on tractors.

Absolutely not, it's their specific green with their specific yellow:
http://www.deere.com/wps/dcom/en_US/footer/legal.page?

Quote from: ShadySue on December 30, 2011, 18:16

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 29, 2011, 22:37

Quote from: Herg on December 22, 2011, 11:40
What I find strange with SS is the fact they turn down a distant tractor crop spraying in a field, 

Would that be a distant green tractor, by any chance? John Deere have, apparently, managed to copyright the colour green on tractors.

Absolutely not, it's their specific green with their specific yellow:
http://www.deere.com/wps/dcom/en_US/footer/legal.page?

Oh, I stand corrected then.

I can't help wondering, though, whether a slightly incorrect colour balance would get round this. Or what if the tractor is photographed in coloured light or a warming or cooling PS filter was applied? In any of those cases it would not be their specific green and yellow, but I bet the lawyers would still want to sue (fees being colour blind, an' all).

Quote from: RacePhoto on December 30, 2011, 07:59

Quote from: cascoly on December 29, 2011, 20:41
i thought rejections couldnt get any sillier but today i  got several rejections from SS because the images were taken in a national park! [in this case gettysburg]


a search for national park gives 138,000 images and gettysburg alone gives 708!  not to mention all the nature and scencis taken in grand canyon, yosemite, acadia, rainier et al, which often doet have national park in the desc!

per usual, no reponse as yet from SS 'support'

Just can't wait for the answer on this one. You are correct, it's free to shoot, we own those parks, as long as none of the things KB pointed out are going on.

Yes you discovered part of it. Don't put National Park in the description and they might get accepted. Someone in review land may be confusing the National Trust and Heritage of the UK that claim to own rights to almost everything, including a mountain in Australia.

yep, that quoted text was familiar -- i remember now specifically looking at the NP site some years ago when I was planning to use some images in an online Civil War  game I was designing.  All my NP images in the batch i mentioned easily meet the standard

re including 'NP' in the description i've always seen that as a tradeoff - lighting some dim, but wrong, memory of a reviewer - versus helping buyers  who are looking for site specific images.  eg just sold a coupla editorial images of the  Steamboat Cowboy Downhill where 'skiing steamboat' was the search used

I suppose this one would get rejected too?  For any number of reasons.



Just another Enzo, with strange lines in the sky?

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 01, 2012, 19:30
I suppose this one would get rejected too?  For any number of reasons.



Just another Enzo, with strange lines in the sky?

That would be accepted by SS from some individuals.

Quote from: Mantis on January 02, 2012, 00:41

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 01, 2012, 19:30
I suppose this one would get rejected too?  For any number of reasons.

Just another Enzo, with strange lines in the sky?

That would be accepted by SS from some individuals.

I really don't think so. Copyright, poor composition. The sky is scrod. Color balance off. Soft and lacking definition and I'm sure there are more. It was just something I found from 2009 while I was backing up photos. Joke about the Enzo's which are going up in value because every time one has an accident there are less in the world.

The Enzo can accelerate to 100 km/h (62.5 mph) in 3.7 seconds and can reach 100 mph in 6.6 seconds. The ¼ mile (0.4 km) time is 10.8 seconds and the top speed is estimated at 225 mph.

The Enzo was initially announced at the 2002 Paris Motor Show with a limited production run of 349 units and priced at US$643,330. The company sent invitations to existing customers, specifically, those who had previously bought the Ferrari F40 and Ferrari F50. All 349 cars were sold in this way before production began. Later, after numerous requests, Ferrari decided to build 50 more Enzos, bringing the total to 399.

On November 8, 2005, Ferrari announced that it would build one additional Enzo, bringing the total to 400. The car, chassis #ZFFCZ56B000141920, was auctioned by Sotheby's Maranello Auction on June 28, 2005 to benefit survivors of the 2004 Tsunami for €950,000 (US$1,274,229), almost twice its list price. This sum was presented to Pope Benedict XVI, while Formula One driver Michael Schumacher gave the Pope a steering wheel to commemorate the donation. This wheel included a plaque which read, "The Formula 1 World Champion's steering wheel to His Holiness Benedict XVI, Christianity's driver."

Enzos typically trade above $1,000,000 at auction.

Maybe Editorial?