They've deactivated a yellow flamed photo of mine recently. It's selling almost daily, sometimes a few times a day. Is this happening to you too?

Of course, there's something you're not telling or showing us.

Copyright issue?

Whatever the reason, after way over 100 sales?!?

That being said, here's a c/p "We feel that location and subject(s) featured in this image would require special permissions or clearance to be licensed commercially, and would make it unsuitable as Royalty-Free content." . A MR was signed by the model and the location is public. I'm speechless, thousands of dollars to be lost for me and a lot more for them. I think it's just bad business.

funny thread..

Why not resubmit it as Editorial?

Picture? 

Things change.

So it must be the location that's the problem?  Was the model on the Eiffel Tower at night or in front of Sydney Opera House?

Another pointless thread where we don't have any of the facts and are expected to comment on something completely blind.

Since the photo is selling on a dozen sites and was also selling at IS for a year, it obviously is one of their blunders (besides having to have a release every single time, but in that case they at least stick to the same standards)

Quote from: stan on August 15, 2012, 09:25
Since the photo is selling on a dozen sites and was also selling at IS for a year, it obviously is one of their blunders (besides having to have a release every single time, but in that case they at least stick to the same standards)

Not necessarily, but we can't comment unless we see the photo in question. Link to it on one of your other sites.
Otherwise, as mentioned above, this is a pointless thread.

OK, then it's a pointless thread. I do understand you, but it's also pointless being anonymous and linking to your images;)

The point I was getting across was, that I can't understand how they can change their standards all of a sudden and afford to loose thousands of dollars that easily. I was also curious if they're doing random sweeps of the library and deactivate files, if that's something they started doing, because it has never happened to me (at IS or elsewhere)

Quote from: stan on August 15, 2012, 09:45
OK, then it's a pointless thread. I do understand you, but it's also pointless being anonymous and linking to your images;)

The point I was getting across was, that I can't understand how they can change their standards all of a sudden and afford to loose thousands of dollars that easily. I was also curious if they're doing random sweeps of the library and deactivate files, if that's something they started doing, because it has never happened to me (at IS or elsewhere)

Link to a copy on your own site or dropbox or Flickr or something. Presumably it wouldn't have to be a full-sized image.
Standards do change constantly on iStock, and presumably elsewhere. A couple of years back it was luxury boats, cars and guitars, among others. Sometimes it's a general principle,sometimes a manufacturer contacts them and tells them to remove their product.
It's also true that when they do a sweep, your image might get expunged months before someone else's, so they pile up sales and you don't. I guess the counter is that they are thereby running more chance of being sued if the property owner finds the image being used in a way that they don't like.
I was going to suggest, as mentioned above, editorial: but having a 'model' isn't allowed under the new editorial rules, except in a very few specified circumstances where they're incidental to the image.

Quote from: ShadySue on August 15, 2012, 10:01

Quote from: stan on August 15, 2012, 09:45
OK, then it's a pointless thread. I do understand you, but it's also pointless being anonymous and linking to your images;)

The point I was getting across was, that I can't understand how they can change their standards all of a sudden and afford to loose thousands of dollars that easily. I was also curious if they're doing random sweeps of the library and deactivate files, if that's something they started doing, because it has never happened to me (at IS or elsewhere)

Link to a copy on your own site or dropbox or Flickr or something. Presumably it wouldn't have to be a full-sized image.
Standards do change constantly on iStock, and presumably elsewhere. A couple of years back it was luxury boats, cars and guitars, among others. Sometimes it's a general principle,sometimes a manufacturer contacts them and tells them to remove their product.
It's also true that when they do a sweep, your image might get expunged months before someone else's, so they pile up sales and you don't. I guess the counter is that they are thereby running more chance of being sued if the property owner finds the image being used in a way that they don't like.
I was going to suggest, as mentioned above, editorial: but having a 'model' isn't allowed under the new editorial rules, except in a very few specified circumstances where they're incidental to the image.

Linking to anyplace, could just lead an admin from IS to throw it into images.google, say of that's the guy badmouthing us and there goes a few more of my  good or this time even bestsellers. So no thanks, although I know you're trying to help and I appreciate it. Since you all can't really judge the decision without a photo, we can certainly discuss the policy and how it can be so different to all the other sites. Which you did in the second paragraph and it does make sense what you wrote. But just a part of a building, that is blurred too (OOF) isn't really the same as guitars, yachts etc. But OK, what's done it's done, I'm happy I'm still selling it at all the rest of my outlets, although sales of the file were good at IS (2nd best, I think). Indeed, it wouldn't cut under editorial, you can't shoot models, they can't pose for you etc.

Quote from: stan on August 15, 2012, 09:45
I can't understand how they can change their standards all of a sudden and afford to loose thousands of dollars that easily.

It's because they could lose tens or hundreds of thousands if the owner of the property sues them.

Quote from: stan on August 15, 2012, 10:10

Linking to anyplace, could just lead an admin from IS to throw it into images.google, say of that's the guy badmouthing us and there goes a few more of my  good or this time even bestsellers.

Are you a Stan or a mouse?
OK, here's what to do if you're that nervous:
Moderate your earlier posts to something like, "I recently had this file deactivated at iStock. Anyone have any suggestions why?" then post to the image.
Ask anyone who has quoted you 'badmouthing' them (hey, it was an opinion and most of us have said much worse) to modify their quotes.
Good to get this sorted properly, and any of us who stand to have an image deactivated for the same reason can do so ourselves, which is psychologically so much better than having it deactivated.

OK, tnx guys, makes sense. I mean I can understand their point of view. It's just a shame I had to be the unlucky one, since it seems it happens rarely, no one reported it happening to him.

Quote from: stan on August 15, 2012, 10:22
OK, tnx guys, makes sense. I mean I can understand their point of view. It's just a shame I had to be the unlucky one, since it seems it happens rarely, no one reported it happening to him.

It happens. I've got a photo from a well-known tourist site with some tiny people at the base which I had to submit as editorial. There are  'similars' in the main collection from years back when standards were slacker, also with tiny people, which wouldn't be allowed nowadays. I doubt very much if there are releases, as if the 'togs had had a flashmob of models there, they'd surely have made much more use of the releases (i.e. plenty of other pictures in the nearby area). But there you have it.
If one of the others gets sued, you are the lucky one.  And as an indie you can sell on your other sites once you have risk-assesed the image to your own satisfaction.

Quote from: stan on August 15, 2012, 10:22
OK, tnx guys, makes sense. I mean I can understand their point of view. It's just a shame I had to be the unlucky one, since it seems it happens rarely, no one reported it happening to him.

I've posted about this happening to me.  It wasn't a flame image but it was selling.  I didn't agree with them and inquired about it but they refused to reactivate the image, so that was that.  I've seen other people have the same problem.  I'm sure istock are correct 99% of the time but sometimes they might be over cautious.  Other times they allow images that I'm sure shouldn't be sold as RF and aren't allowed on other sites.  It's their site though, so there isn't much point complaining about it.

One of the more curious rules is that for certain locations if you're shooting for editorial (e.g. you've got a tourist groups in the interior of particular buildings, you need written permission - via the currently-unavailable consent form), but there there can easily be existing photos of these locations in the main collection without people, and even since editorial was introduced.
I can't get my head around that one!
Also that they won't accept certain photos because they "regard them as professional athletes" even though the stated rules of the event say that they must be amateurs.
It's their ball, and there are always other outlets for indies and RM for exclusives.

I can understand why you are gutted, but I to have had good sellers deleted as well as newly accepted content. My view to the deleted good sellers is "well that made $500 for 2 hours work, not bad" and to the newly accepted images deactivated "bugger, I should have known better"

Not much else one can do.

It happened to me several years ago. An image that was selling extremely well was taken down after several months. I sent an email to the admin. Nothing changed. I moved on.

I found out later that IS was right to take the image down (issues related to the design of the thing). 

I actually forgot about the image - thanks for the reminder. It might work out as editorial.

 it depends from wich angle or point you look on to things. - maybe they did not (i am sure actually they did not) change standards, but image actually was mistakenly approved in the first place.
- or if it is really on public location - you can contact support and resolve this matter in a... well maybe not really short time, but reasonable time i am sure.
**you sound a bit like american irs (you nou these thieves ) who  say this and that, but on a simple demand: "show me the law" (under which  irs operates ), -they did never do this. -no one ever saw the low. - similarly - we did not see your image. if it is online on other sites, what is the problem for linking image for us? -i believe that ms community is not hostile, but friendly.

Quote from: stan on August 15, 2012, 00:38
They've deactivated a yellow flamed photo of mine recently. It's selling almost daily, sometimes a few times a day. Is this happening to you too?

Well yellow is considered uggly, so im not surprised.

The thing that annoys me is that I've just had some disabled for "trademark". Can't they just change them to editorial use.

Checked the search and there are more than 200 still in the search however when you click on some of them they come up with file not found. Looks like everyones got the chop.