Is it just me, or are iStock taking legal based objections to images to a whole new level of paranoia?  I know there was a separate thread about the change of policy on domestic buildings, but the problem seems to be more widespread than that.  And my last few rejections don't even appear to give the option of re-submitting as editorial (or at least the standard little sentence about re-submitting as editorial is missing - I haven't actually tried to do so yet). 

The current policy in respect of my images at least seems to be: if its a building, and whether it is submitted as editorial or not, property release or nothing.  The silliest example so far:  Photo of an Australian War Cemetery in France.  There is a large plain memorial stone with the words "Their Name Liveth for Evermore".  (The quote is from Ecclesiasticus 44.14, selected by Rudyard Kipling in the 1920s and used on all Commonwealth WWI cemeteries).  The rejection was on the grounds of, of all things, privacy!!!  That is, it has been put in the same category as license plates or signatures.  Even if the reviewer meant copyright, it is still completely baseless. (And, no, the font would not be protected in these circumstances).

I also just had a photo deactivated because of copyright issues - it is of a restaurant window in an old European city, taken from the street, which has writing on the shutters.  I am 99% certain I  submitted it as editorial because in this circumstance, I would agree it should be.  So, this gets back to my query whether the current policy is property release or nothing?

I am considering just not submitting any photos with any images or any sort of building, or basically anything shot outdoors in a city, to iStock anymore because its just getting a bit too frustrating.  As best as I can tell, if you submit any request to Scout for review, it just sits there for weeks or months.   

Yep, had same issue with inconsistent reviews of same building facades.  Oh, and my other personal favourite you reminded me of, the blurb about castles not being allowed unless ruins?  I had one rejected on those grounds - it was of ruins of course.

Agree re editorial, but I guess what I have noticed the last week or two is that the standard sentence about re-submitting as editorial is missing, so wondering if they are not accepting them as either category? And I am pretty sure the deactivated image referred to above was in editorial.  I have tried now to resubmit some as editorial and will see what happens.

I wouldn't care too much if it wasn't for the resubmit process being cumbersome, unless there is a shortcut I don;t know about, I have to go through the whole disambiguation and category process again each time.

I don't really blame the reviewers: I don't understand how the process works but I am guessing that these issues are decided by people with technical not legal training.  I just wish they received better guidance maybe.

thanks, reassuring to know

I did have to resubmit an image of the new visitor center at Port Canaveral as editorial. It is a rather distinctive building but a public one built by the Port authority and I took the image from the street. I did not even submit the great images I took from a later night shoot.