Author Topic: IS deactivating flamed images (Read 8832 times)

ShadySue · « **Reply #25 on:** August 18, 2012, 17:27 »

Quote from: qwerty on August 18, 2012, 17:19

The thing that annoys me is that I've just had some disabled for "trademark". Can't they just change them to editorial use.

No, because the inspection process is different, and because you have to write a proper caption.
Mind you, I've read more than once of files being refused for the main collection with a suggestion that it should be sent as editorial, then the editorial is rejected with the suggestion that with a few deft clonings out, it should be in the main collection (and/or vice versa) - thereafter stuck in limbo.

qwerty · « **Reply #26 on:** August 18, 2012, 17:51 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 18, 2012, 17:27

Quote from: qwerty on August 18, 2012, 17:19
The thing that annoys me is that I've just had some disabled for "trademark". Can't they just change them to editorial use.
No, because the inspection process is different, and because you have to write a proper caption.
Mind you, I've read more than once of files being refused for the main collection with a suggestion that it should be sent as editorial, then the editorial is rejected with the suggestion that with a few deft clonings out, it should be in the main collection (and/or vice versa) - thereafter stuck in limbo.

I know that they have different requirements for editorial. It was a retorical question.

I'll refrase. I wish they'd find a sensible method of migrating them to editorial without me having to re-upload the file. i.e move them to an area where I can add a caption and press a button to submit to the editorial que. I know that they are not capable of this.

Of course they'd reject it for artifacts

ShadySue · « **Reply #27 on:** August 19, 2012, 20:02 »

Well, here's a sneaky one.
I had an acceptance which was instantly deactivated (the acceptance and deactivation notice have exactly the same time in my inbox).
It's a false reason for deactivation (it was thought to be a castle, though the description and the keywords clearly explain what it is. It's castellated, which isn't uncommon with non-castles in Scotland, and there are already nine photos of it in the main collection.
I tried to Scout it, but because it was 'deactivated', not rejected, my contact mail won't 'send', giving me an error message that I must give the number of a rejected file.
Well, I can, of course, submit it as editorial: I wonder if they'll want me to send it to the main collection.

KB · « **Reply #28 on:** August 19, 2012, 21:14 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 19, 2012, 20:02

I tried to Scout it, but because it was 'deactivated', not rejected, my contact mail won't 'send', giving me an error message that I must give the number of a rejected file.
Well, I can, of course, submit it as editorial: I wonder if they'll want me to send it to the main collection.

No reason to submit as editorial if it should be accepted into the commercial collection.

Why not open a support ticket and tell them exactly what you posted here. Then you can have the added enjoyment of getting a canned response telling you to Scout it (despite you having told them that the system won't let you do so).

luissantos84 · « **Reply #29 on:** August 23, 2012, 12:46 »

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: IS deactivating flamed images (Read 8832 times)

ShadySue

qwerty

ShadySue

KB

luissantos84

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors