I uploaded 20 editorial images to iStock on the 26th of March.  Today, some 19 days later, 13 of them were inspected.  To my surprise, all of these 13 images were rejected.  The photos were all taken at the 'No Carbon Tax' rally, which was held in Canberra, on the 23rd of March.  I thought I had followed all of iStock's requirements for describing editorial images correctly...in fact, I spent quite a bit of time reading up how they wanted everything set out and done.

Some of the images were rejected for this reason:

The main subject of this image appears to be a known person whose likeness may be protected or cannot be licensed for royalty-free use, including editorial. 

Well, yes, these images do contain known persons......they are Australian politicians, on stage, addressing the 'No Carbon Tax' rally.   Here is one of the images that were rejected for this reason: http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photography-no-carbon-tax-rally-image18918772

The other batch of images were rejected for this reason:

**Please provide a descriptive caption that explains who is in the photo.

The caption information for this submission is either too brief and does not describe the scene successfully, or it is unclear, or both. The caption is where you supply the 4 W's: Where was the image made? When was the image made? Who or what is in the image? What is happening in the image? Please provide adequate information, clearly, and entirely in English.

Please provide captions in this format:

City, Country - Month Date, Year: Caption descriptive text.

and.........

here is what I provided with the image:

Caption
Canberra, Australia - March 23, 2011: No Carbon Tax Rally, 23 March, 2011, Canberra, Australia

Description:
Protesters at the No Carbon Tax Rally, 23 March, 2011, Canberra, Australia

Here is one of the images that was rejected for this reason: http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-no-carbon-tax-rally-image18918009

I'm just not sure how to placate iStock's inspectors.  Is it me that's got it all wrong, or is it them?

Oh, and by the way, all of these images have been accepted as editorial content on Dreamstime, Shutterstock, Featurepics, Scanstockphoto, Panthermedia, and 123RF.  They have been online on some of these sites for over two weeks!

That is interesting.  My first editorial batch was loaded on March 26.  Still no word but your post is discouraging.  My images also have been online at other sites for two weeks.  And, they are selling.

Depending on the results, this may be my last (and only) attempt to upload editorial at iStock.  They sure are slow?

The "no celebrities" rule probably has more to do with avoiding treading on Getty's toes than anything else, and I believe they said that big political names fell into that category.

As far as the caption rejections, it's hard to give you a suggestion without seeing the image, but you need more details about what's going on, exactly where (street; outside a certain building; something about who the crowd was or how big it was. There are tons of examples already on the site and you can ask in the editorial forum if you're unsure about what to include. One thing that has caused rejections for others is copying from Wikipedia for the caption description.

Look at examples here here, and here for the type of caption you need to produce.

I agree the caption is lacking in detail (for IS editorial criteria) and would include some brief information on what they are protesting against. What exactly is this carbon tax, does it merely tax vehicle emissions or electricity consumption or what does it entail and how would it affect these people? I would also provide more specific location information, such as "Protesters gather in front of the Town Hall in Canberra...". A simple one-liner caption won't usually cut it for IS - especially when half your caption repeats the same information. Basically, caption the images in such a way where someone (like me) living outside of Oz could look at the image, read the caption, and get a basic yet good understanding of what is going on:

Canberra, Australia - March 23, 2011: Thousands of protesters gather near blahblah Square on a Sunday afternoon to protest against the government's proposed new Carbon Tax. Under the new environmental tax, residents would be required to pay additional taxed based on vehicle mileage and blahblah.

Hope that helps.

There is a 200 word limit at Shutterstock.  Does iS allow for more detail?

ed:  oops... I think that is 200 characters vice words?

QuoteAs far as the caption rejections, it's hard to give you a suggestion without seeing the image, but you need more details about what's going on, exactly where (street; outside a certain building; something about who the crowd was or how big it was. There are tons of examples already on the site and you can ask in the editorial forum if you're unsure about what to include. One thing that has caused rejections for others is copying from Wikipedia for the caption description.

Ok, I'll accept that I haven't provided enough information about what was going on.

QuoteThe "no celebrities" rule probably has more to do with avoiding treading on Getty's toes than anything else, and I believe they said that big political names fell into that category.

I wouldn't have thought members of the Australian federal opposition, such as Bronwyn Bishop, Warren Truss, Sophie Mirrabella, or even their leader, Tony Abbott, would fit into the category of 'big' political names.  Probably half of the Australian population wouldn't know who some of them are!

Quote from: pdx on April 14, 2011, 22:53
I agree the caption is lacking in detail (for IS editorial criteria) and would include some brief information on what they are protesting against. What exactly is this carbon tax, does it merely tax vehicle emissions or electricity consumption or what does it entail and how would it affect these people? I would also provide more specific location information, such as "Protesters gather in front of the Town Hall in Canberra...". A simple one-liner caption won't usually cut it for IS - especially when half your caption repeats the same information. Basically, caption the images in such a way where someone (like me) living outside of Oz could look at the image, read the caption, and get a basic yet good understanding of what is going on:

Canberra, Australia - March 23, 2011: Thousands of protesters gather near blahblah Square on a Sunday afternoon to protest against the government's proposed new Carbon Tax. Under the new environmental tax, residents would be required to pay additional taxed based on vehicle mileage and blahblah.

Hope that helps.

Yes, that is a great help!   I'll add more content, and see how they go!   Thank you!

I wish I could say Istock is the only Micro that is a pain when it comes to editorial. I am getting very close to saying screw it, and post them all as RM where captions aren't micro-managed.

That said, here is some more heartburn from Istock that I just can not figure out. They want EXIF data in the image, even though I have input everything required (or so I thought) through Deep Meta. I don't put any EXIF data in editorials for the precise reason, that every Micro wants captions, descriptions, and keywords different on these things...and so manual entry seemed to be the way to go. Of course eventually someone was going to scream WRONG! Sigh.

Here is the rejection...

The EXIF data of your photograph is missing and is required for this image to be approved at iStockphoto for editorial use.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The caption information for this submission is either too brief and does not describe the scene successfully, or it is unclear, or both. The caption is where you supply the 4 W's:
Where was the image made? When was the image made? Who or what is in the image?
What is happening in the image? Please provide adequate information, clearly, and entirely in English.

Please provide captions in this format:

City, Country ? Month Date, Year: Caption descriptive text.

Here is what they have on file through Deep Meta...

Harvest Moment Ice Sculpture Close-Up

Caption
Fairbanks, USA - March 5, 2011: Harvest Moment Ice Sculpture, 2011 World Ice Art Championships

Description:
Fairbanks, USA - March 5, 2011: Harvest Moment Ice Sculpture, 2011 World Ice Art Championships

Keywords:
alaska, art, blue, carving, championship, cold, competition, detail, fairbanks, fish, harvest, ice, illuminated, marine, night, outdoor, sculpture, scales, winter, sea, ocean

Well I think I answered my own question. I thought Shutterstock was the worst when it came to Editorials. Now it seems they have been easily topped.


Do not alter or modify your EXIF data in any way. The information in the EXIF must match the information you give us in the caption. We will reject all images with stripped or modified EXIF data.

Unfortunately since my JPG's don't start out with any real EXIF data in them, I by default have to break their modification rule...because there is only one place any of the data comes from....me!!! GRRR!

What . do they think is so important about the Exif data? As far as I can see there is only one fact in it that might interest them and that is the date, which depends entirely on what you tell your camera to say.

Is there anything else?

Archive film photo scans are obviously banned outright.

It's too difficult on istock/getty to submit editorial they reject any I submit saying 'The information in the description field for this image is either too brief, unclear, or doesn't describe the scene successfully.' this is total rubbish what do they want - an essay? god it's like being bad at school.
They want far too much in the description which means a lot of work for little money or none if it doesn't sell. Why can't they realise that people won't want to do that? They want too much basically

I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what iStock Editorial is. It's more iStock Creative Unreleased. They don't want news or competitive sports, that's covered for them by different Editorial contracts.

Any image taken with a digital camera should have its EXIF data left in place. If you're scanning film, add that to the description.

Hopefully, Mr Phillip Minnis, you found your answer. Your patience should be commended.

But if not, we will try to find your answer and aim to get back to you in another 15 years (give or take a week).

I used to live down in Canberra, from 2008 to 2021.

Honestly, it's not that you messed up, it's just iStock being picky. They're very strict with politicians and public figures, often because of policies connected to Getty Images. They also expect more detailed captions, almost like a short explanation of the event. And EXIF data has to match. Other agencies are just more relaxed about it.