MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: luissantos84 on May 28, 2011, 19:18
-
have nothing against IS (just the cut) I am having pretty good approvals there and I actually appreciate them and find them quite fair, and I do resubmit pictures every time and they are approved but this one is incredible, first time I disagree gotta say, the issue is "text on rivet"
I pay a 6 pack of beer to the person who can tell me the brand of this trousers! :P
p.s: got no Yuri monopod sorry
preview at 200%
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mcbaI8CAzXU/TeGZU4pYcUI/AAAAAAAAAnI/PU3Fg9kIwwc/s1600/%252Btext%2Bon%2Brivet.png)
-
link?
-
link?
thatīs a brand? (I do see the picture here if you are talking about the "link")
-
The position of the words is probably part of the brand. Kinda like you don't need to see "Nike" to know the swoosh is Nike.
-
That happened to me too. When some inspector saw a shadow, it doesn't matter if it could be recognized, the image got a rejection for trademark or copyright.
-
The position of the words is probably part of the brand. Kinda like you don't need to see "Nike" to know the swoosh is Nike.
are you joking no?? how can they know the brand?? it is not visible at 200%, not 100%, not 400%.. :P
if so tell me this one :)
-
yeah it sucks , some of the rejections for copywrite are on the conservative side even to the point of stupidity.
If in doubt Clone it out,
if your convienced it not a problem clone it out too.
The ones I hate the most are when you fix the photo then it gets rejected for another reason.
Atleast Istocks rejection reasons you can make some sense of them compared to others such as Fotolia
-
exactly, I have no problem on rejections, IS does a pretty good job on describing the reason but this one is funny, of course I will send it as soon as my slots open again :)
-
Best guess would be Calvin Klein Jeans. They use 3 word markings like that.
-
There is nothing strange or new about this rejection. The inspector was right.
Even little details are important to prevent problems.
-
There is nothing strange or new about this rejection. The inspector was right.
Even little details are important to prevent problems.
Really? What basis do you have for thinking this would cause problems? Do you really think a company could sue and win over invisible text on a rivet that might or might not be theirs?
The funny thing is that months ago I sent IS a note about a photo they're selling of a place I know with a distant crowd of people in it, including several waiters and shopkeepers that I happen to know and whose faces I can easily recognise in the zoom and they aren't interested, it's still on sale.
-
Nothing visible in my opinion. Very doubtful reason of rejection!
-
He was correct to reject !
I once got a reject for blurry writings on a SCREW (which was about 0.0000001% of the picture) !
A 3 minute work with PS will solve your problem.
-
(http://www.clearviewimages.com/IMGP1052.jpg)
brand of this part of a steam train made in late 1800's at 200%
-
Way back when I started iStock I read a thread with someone saying s/he had had a rejection because if you zoomed in about x400, you could possibly make out by shape/implication that a zip on a clothing item was YKK.
Mind you, as posted here before, I had a rejection because a mark the inspector kindly pointed out to me was a possible issue. It was no bother to clone out, so I did, but when next I passed the place, I noted that the mark was just that - only a mark. So again, a needless rejection in my stats.
But it's all arbitrary. After my astonishing rejections for editorial asking me to put them into the main collection,
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/am-i-going-nuts-editorial-rejections (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/am-i-going-nuts-editorial-rejections),
I had a rejection this week on a photo of a public building despite me putting all the relevant details, i.e. that the architect and sculptor have been dead over 75 years. Dates of both included in description together.
Conspiracy theory again: there is some plot to decrease acceptance rate going on.
More likely theory: it all depends which inspector you get. Thinking of early copyright rejections I got, I'm astonished at some of the things accepted now for the main collection.
BTW, when asked about the yacht image in the linked post above, admin told me it was OK because it was less than 25% of the image. Isn't that a flawed general principle, as the buyer could easily crop any image so that a feature was 100% of the image, which is allowed by the terms of use?
-
Not 100% positive about this, but I remember hearing something about the rivets on jeans being protected by some companies. The rivet design may be part of their trademark.
-
He was correct to reject !
I once got a reject for blurry writings on a SCREW (which was about 0.0000001% of the picture) !
A 3 minute work with PS will solve your problem.
the problem ainīt PS for sure.. the deal is that this is not visible and I need to send it again :)
I donīt need to tell that all other stock agencies approved right? :)
-
I think they go overboard too sometimes. My guess is the inspector saw the text that you cant read on the button and rejected it for that reason.
Nice Levi jeans though :-p
-
I think they go overboard too sometimes. My guess is the inspector saw the text that you cant read on the button and rejected it for that reason.
Nice Levi jeans though :-p
no levis :P
-
Was I correct ^