Anybody has that happen? Timeline experience. Should I add to my description clarifying that similar photos are already in their database?

Thanks

Quote from: Read_My_Rights on June 20, 2008, 13:58
Should I add to my description clarifying that similar photos are already in their database?

Thanks

If this means that you have knowingly uploaded something that is against the rules, with the argument that there are others breaking the rules as well, then you are wasting your time. There are many older images in the collection waiting to be culled for various violations of present day policy. There are also new files slipping through the cracks which should have been rejected.

The best you can hope for is that if you have notified them of a newer file in violation, you may succeed in getting it pulled from the collection. However they are *never* going to approve yours if it is in violation.

Feel free to wait it out though. You can consider it a valuable learning experience.

This has happened to me only once. My image sat there for almost a week before I hit the cancel button and reuploaded. The identical 're-upped' image was approved.

This too happened only once to me also.
Only it sat there in review for over 2 months.

I finally deleted it and did not bother to upload it again.

Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason

I've had this a few times.
Nothing to worry about, if it was about a violation of rules you would have got a rejection.
It just means the reviewers not sure whether to pass it or not and needs someone else to have a look.
It can take a few weeks in my experience.

It was a long time ago, but one of my files that ended up in Executive Review got a rejection for copyright because of a small POW-MIA flag flying at the Massachusetts State House. I found some information on the site of the designers of that logo explaining that they wanted to put it into the public domain, forwarded that to iStock, and the file was approved.

Sometimes there's a lot of ambiguity about what is or isnt' OK to use in a shot. The only evidence that's worth looking for, if you know what it is that they might be questioning, is information that shows it isn't copyrighted or trademarked content. As was noted above, finding existing files in the collection is a waste of effort.

I had that a few times and they were all related to  MR  so I re- uploaded the MRs and got the files approved  so I guess it 's  nothing to worry about.

I've had a couple, a wee while ago now, they sat for a while, but I can't remember how long now.

I think mine got that way through potential copyright/property rights issues..

Cheers, Me.

Quote from: stokfoto on June 21, 2008, 23:29
I had that a few times and they were all related to  MR  so I re- uploaded the MRs and got the files approved  so I guess it 's  nothing to worry about.

same here. it's usually when there are no faces associated with the people...sometimes they just want the release, otherwise they've all been accepted.

Quote from: Read_My_Rights on June 20, 2008, 13:58
Should I add to my description clarifying that similar photos are already in their database?

MR issues are sometimes the case, but this comment by the OP suggests that there might be some other reason.

But perhaps the responses are only in regard to the last person to add on, rather than the actual person who started the thread.

Quote from: bittersweet on June 22, 2008, 14:38

Quote from: Read_My_Rights on June 20, 2008, 13:58
Should I add to my description clarifying that similar photos are already in their database?

MR issues are sometimes the case, but this comment by the OP suggests that there might be some other reason.

But perhaps the responses are only in regard to the last person to add on, rather than the actual person who started the thread.

okay, in response to the top of the thread; I usually get 1 - 2 of these a month. The ones that do not require a release i simply leave alone. Eventually they all have been approved. Don't worry about it, leave them up there and there's a better than average chance they'll get through. Surley if he/she were doing something against policy, IS would simply decline the image.

Thanks for the input.