Author Topic: Coronavirus editorial rejections (Read 742 times)

rene · « **on:** March 19, 2020, 09:33 »

Did they change editorial rules? For the first time I got random, seems to me, rejection related to street images in Covid-19 lockdown cities. Below given reasons:

++Please remove references to lockdowns or other current events. We cannot accept news/current events content in iStock's Creative Unreleased collection - such content will be rejected. Please edit your caption to simply describe literally what is seen in the image without reference to current events. Thank you.

++Uploads to the Creative or Creative Unreleased collection will be rejected if they are News, Sport, Entertainment or Event Coverage. If you wish to upload such images, you will first need to apply to Getty Images to become an Editorial contributor for that site. Please note that Editorial Photo contracts are generally only offered to working photo-journalists. More info here: https://contributors.gettyimages.com/workwithus/ArticleView.aspx?article_id=1105

ShadySue · « **Reply #1 on:** March 19, 2020, 12:31 »

Quote from: rene on March 19, 2020, 09:33

Did they change editorial rules? For the first time I got random, seems to me, rejection related to street images in Covid-19 lockdown cities. Below given reasons:

++Please remove references to lockdowns or other current events. We cannot accept news/current events content in iStock's Creative Unreleased collection - such content will be rejected. Please edit your caption to simply describe literally what is seen in the image without reference to current events. Thank you.

++Uploads to the Creative or Creative Unreleased collection will be rejected if they are News, Sport, Entertainment or Event Coverage. If you wish to upload such images, you will first need to apply to Getty Images to become an Editorial contributor for that site. Please note that Editorial Photo contracts are generally only offered to working photo-journalists. More info here: https://contributors.gettyimages.com/workwithus/ArticleView.aspx?article_id=1105

It's been going on for a while. One could see it as protectionism for Getty's 'own' togs.

scribble · « **Reply #2 on:** March 19, 2020, 15:28 »

istock is also rejecting editorial photos related to coronavirus.

I had submitted several photos of people wearing face masks. In my caption, I said they were attempting to prevent the spread of coronavirus, flu, virus, disease, etc. Istock told me to remove all references to coronavirus in my captions, as we cannot assume the motivation for wearing the masks.

That is understandable, as, legally, the subjects could sue, stating the photograph suggests they are at risk, or even contracted the virus, without evidence to the point.

However, I also posted a photo of a closed playground, stating it was closed due to COVID 19. Despite the fact that, in the photograph, I included a sign stating the playground was closed due to COVID 19, I was told to remove all references to COVID 19 and coronavirus.

ShadySue · « **Reply #3 on:** March 19, 2020, 16:39 »

Quote from: scribble on March 19, 2020, 15:28

However, I also posted a photo of a closed playground, stating it was closed due to COVID 19. Despite the fact that, in the photograph, I included a sign stating the playground was closed due to COVID 19, I was told to remove all references to COVID 19 and coronavirus.

It's because iStock doesn't take 'hot news', to protect the Getty togs.
This has been the case for at least a couple of years.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #4 on:** March 20, 2020, 12:01 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 19, 2020, 16:39

Quote from: scribble on March 19, 2020, 15:28
However, I also posted a photo of a closed playground, stating it was closed due to COVID 19. Despite the fact that, in the photograph, I included a sign stating the playground was closed due to COVID 19, I was told to remove all references to COVID 19 and coronavirus.
It's because iStock doesn't take 'hot news', to protect the Getty togs.
This has been the case for at least a couple of years.

Verified 100% fact.

2016 I lost 3,657 Editorial images to deactivation during the "exciting new consolidation, ESP and Getty transition"

Last accepted Editorial Sports photo for me was July 2016. I couldn't track down the notification for removals. Unification was August 2016.

October 2016 -

We’ve got some important and positive news to share with you about changes to your royalties including:

Redeemed Credits – retirement of the current system at the end of 2016.

Exclusive royalty rates – new tiered system based on downloads (including subscription downloads and downloads on GI.com), effective January 1, 2017.

Non-exclusive royalty rates – retirement of tiering in favor of flat rates per file type, scheduled to be effective November 25, 2016.

Flat subscription download rates – replacement with a percentage royalty based on the price per file, scheduled to be effective November 25, 2016.

All of the changes are designed to produce a simpler, more transparent system that accounts for the growth of subscription and sales across Getty Images and rewards Exclusivity.

Positive? Only for Exclusives, but before that's read the wrong way, I think they should reward Exclusives. None of the rest of us contributors should have found anything positive about that announcement IMHO.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Coronavirus editorial rejections (Read 742 times)

rene

ShadySue

scribble

ShadySue

Uncle Pete

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors