Author Topic: IStock Drives me Nuts!!! (Read 21319 times)

perkmeup · « **on:** June 26, 2007, 23:30 »

I need to vent a little..............I get so Pi##$## off at IS sometimes. They reject photos for the smallest if not non existent reasons. They always say "Can Resubmit"....well that doen't help much when I can only upload 30 a week and have a backlog of over 500 photos to put up. Here is the latest one.....

first they reject it saying that one of the model releases was wittnessed by me and that was not allowed....well the releases were just fine...it was just that one of them was the old style IS release and the wittness sig block is in a different corner of the paper...they must have just glanced at it and hit the reject botton....well this is a very popular photo on all the other sites...well over 200 DL already in 3 weeks.....so I resubmitted it....result............rejected copyright..........COME ON.... here is the 300% crop they sent me of the problem area.....Do you see any copyright issues...........I sure don't. This is so frustrating sometimes..... I guess I blur a couple things to change the file size and resubmit for the third time....auuugggggggg......

Tom

Bateleur · « **Reply #1 on:** June 27, 2007, 00:44 »

Hang in there mate.

Rejections ... even incomprehensible ones ... come with the package. And every human activity has a hair-tearing side.

As for copyright issues with the picture, I'd hazard a guess that it's the heart-shaped thingies on the girl's sandals that are upsetting IS. They probably think they're some sort of logo.

leaf · « **Reply #2 on:** June 27, 2007, 02:07 »

or the marks on the backpack???

are you sure that is a 300% crop? we should almost start to see the individual pixels at 300%

perkmeup · « **Reply #3 on:** June 27, 2007, 02:44 »

Actually I quess it is only 150%......It was several different photos that I put together and then reduced the size to something managable...

the markings on the backpack are a possibility, but the crop they sent doesn't center on the backpack...but rather the feet area. I removed all the markings off the shoes....

beats me...

The funny thing is they have accepted all the individual pictures already....!! but when I put them together, then theres a problem?

If there were any problems with the picture...it would have been much easier to spot on the full size file.....

Tom

chellyar · « **Reply #4 on:** June 27, 2007, 03:12 »

I can sympathise with this... I've had some odd rejections just lately, but I've given up understanding them, and I never bother to resubmit. Hurts my brain to try and figure out what they are on about.

Read_My_Rights · « **Reply #5 on:** June 27, 2007, 08:15 »

IS reviewers are absolute m*rons and can not appreciate a unique and powerful picture when it bites them in the a**. For instance: atmospheric inversion layers are responsible for green flashes and prevent me from having a sharp horizon/sun/island. *diots.
I have not gotten a file past them in weeks. if only the buyers knew kow many awsome pictures - not just mine - they are deprived of. I can only shake my head in disbelief.

Karimala · « **Reply #6 on:** June 27, 2007, 11:01 »

It just so happens that I reviewed this particular photo for LO, and couldn't see anything wrong with it at all. The little girl's sandals look like typical generic brands that can be found any Wal-Mart or Payless Shoes, as does the backpack.

Looks like IS is being overly cautious again with regard to fabric patterns. A look at their copyrights wiki reveals the following:

Quote

Fabric and Wallpaper Scans

Jun 27/05 - Artwork (posted by zerocattle)
Fabric or wallpaper designs are subject to copyright in favour of the original designer. Any image including these designs as the predominant aspect of the image will likely be considered an unauthorized derivative work.

If you are the owner of copyright to the original work (i.e. the fabric/wallpaper design) or have other specific verifiable information to confirm usage / ownership please include this information in the description area of your upload or accompany the upload with a property release.

Allowed: Fabric and wallpaper designs used in backgrounds or where they do not represent the predominant aspect of an image.

InCommunicado Oct 29/05, 13:09
Many fabrics will have a copyright notice on the selvage edge of the fabric. This is true of many fabrics that are printed.

With this info in hand, you could probably appeal their decision (and then wait six months...LOL).

sharply_done · « **Reply #7 on:** June 27, 2007, 12:20 »

The most absurd rejection reason I've ever had at IS was for the white swirl markings on the intake end of a jet engine. This is apparently a trademark of the engine manufacturer, and I could see it being an issue if the shot was a closeup of an aircraft engine. But it wasn't - the image was that of an entire airplane, and one that has been accepted on IS in different forms many times.

I now upload to IS in smaller batches (10 images max) to avoid my images hitting an overly-picky reviewer.

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #8 on:** June 27, 2007, 14:57 »

IS shot down a few of mine for trademark infringement... Nike logo on the side of the socks my model had on. I never saw the things... had to blow up to 200% to see them and remove them fully. I also had to pull the name Hoover Dam and the dam (no pun intended) logo off a building, it looked like a dot at fullscreen (if you're familiar with the area, the building was on the Nevada side of Lake Mead, shot from the overloook up on the canyon wall on the Arizona side, at fullscreen you couldn't even tell what it was).
However, they took all of them on the resubmit once I pulled the logos off. The only thing that upsets me is that I'm new to IS and still 'base' and the resubmits must count in my next batch of 20. Now, I'm fanatical at 200-300% looking for junk before I upload to IS.
But, yeah, they are meticulous there...

-tom

niemiga · « **Reply #9 on:** June 28, 2007, 00:34 »

Sharply done, I also was rejected at Istock for the white swirl of a jet engine. I was browsing there tonight and what did I find but a close up of a GE engine with the swirl the focus of the image. Such inconsistency! I'm tempted to report it but I'm a newbie at Istock and don't want to rock the boat. There are many posted images with the supposed trademarked swirl. I guess they're grandfathered in now and there are different rules for new postings.

Istock is quite hard to comprehend. The first 3 submissions I gave were good enough to get me into Istock but all three were rejected later for other reasons when I reposted them. It will be worth the hassle because I'm getting many more views there than the other sites I've posted to. Long term I think it will pay off for me

hatman12 · « **Reply #10 on:** June 28, 2007, 00:52 »

Thankfully I don't get many rejections. Probably because I'm fanatical. However I do get the odd one here and there and I agree with everyone that it is frustrating.

I had two rejected a month or so ago and I was so speechless I decided to send them to scout. I'd never used scout before. Anyway, I have just heard that he has reversed the rejection on one but maintained the rejection on the other.

Apparently one is allowed to send up to three pictures a month to scout. Worth giving him a try.

sharply_done · « **Reply #11 on:** June 28, 2007, 11:27 »

Quote from: hatman12 on June 28, 2007, 00:52

Thankfully I don't get many rejections.
...
Apparently one is allowed to send up to three pictures a month to scout. Worth giving him a try.

Good on ya, hatman. IS has (by far) my lowest acceptance rate - I'm at 68% there and 90%+/- everywhere else.
I've found that it takes quite a while to get a dispute resolved via scout - it's much quicker to resubmit the image(s) in question.

Quote from: niemiga on June 28, 2007, 00:34

Sharply done, I also was rejected at Istock for the white swirl of a jet engine.
...
There are many posted images with the supposed trademarked swirl. I guess they're grandfathered in now and there are different rules for new postings.

Yes, I saw your post. Given that you also asked about the viability of aircraft shots, I thought it best not to comment.

The problem, I think, is with one reviewer in particular who is inordinately picky - it is only this reviewer who will reject an airplane image if a little bit of the swirl is showing. It also appears that they have a tiered review system - sometimes one of my submissions remains in the queue a few days longer than its siblings, which makes me think that it's been forwarded to a senior reviewer.

michaeldb · « **Reply #12 on:** July 01, 2007, 15:13 »

Quote from: chellyar on June 27, 2007, 03:12

I can sympathise with this... I've had some odd rejections just lately, but I've given up understanding them, and I never bother to resubmit. Hurts my brain to try and figure out what they are on about.

Yes. "We're sorry, but we did not find this file suitable as stock. With
the rapid growth of the iStock collection, we give valuable consideration
to each file but unfortunately cannot accept all submissions."

When I read that now, I am able to laugh. I translate it as, "We're not really sorry, but cheer up because this image is almost certain to sell well on the the other sites you submit it to, because we actually rejected it for some strange reason we don't feel like revealing. With the rapid growth of the iStock collection, we have gone insane."

JC-SL · « **Reply #13 on:** July 02, 2007, 17:17 »

Hello all...

Yesterday was my turn to have fun with ISP.. I submitted 3 images of the same subjects... an early morning shot of my golf partner. Unfortunately (?) he's left handed... I thought they'd be slightly different images and submitted them as "left handed" golfer. 1 of the 3 was accepted but the other 2 images came back with:

" Please rotate your file to display correct orientation." eeerrrr?

How do you argue with this logic?... now do I change the orientation of the golfer... or the images.. which neither is wrong and clearly marked as such!

oh well... I'll wait for the scout and hopefully this robot will know the difference between left and right... but I'm not holding my breath.

cheers, JC

hatman12 · « **Reply #14 on:** July 02, 2007, 17:43 »

Had to laugh at that JC.

slobo · « **Reply #15 on:** July 02, 2007, 20:15 »

perkmeup, I can see that IStock accepted that image on 6-28-07. What did you do to make it work?

perkmeup · « **Reply #16 on:** July 02, 2007, 23:48 »

Not alot...I couldn't find anything in particular that was copyrighted, so I blurred a button on the pants...even though I couldn't see the label at all and I blurred the material on the backpack alittle...but overall it is almost the same photo....there just wasn't anything there to get rid of....maybe the review was just having a bad day.

Tom

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #17 on:** July 03, 2007, 22:18 »

Quote from: perkmeup on July 02, 2007, 23:48

Not alot...I couldn't find anything in particular that was copyrighted, so I blurred a button on the pants...even though I couldn't see the label at all and I blurred the material on the backpack alittle...but overall it is almost the same photo....there just wasn't anything there to get rid of....maybe the review was just having a bad day.

Tom

humm... when it is a single item such as a trademark.... or a bad 'brushstroke' in photoshop, they usually attach a clip of the area in dispute. makes it easy to do corrections.... and quickly resubmit. or.... maybe as you said, bad day for the reviewer...?

-tom

vicu · « **Reply #18 on:** July 16, 2007, 18:45 »

Just so you know, photographers are not the only ones getting rejected on the basis of whether their submission tickles the inspector's fancy. Not surprised to see this stuff going on. It's about time really. Probably won't be visible too long since there are some non-koolaid-drinking participants.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=54580&page=1

epixx · « **Reply #19 on:** July 16, 2007, 22:06 »

Quote from: vicu on July 16, 2007, 18:45

Just so you know, photographers are not the only ones getting rejected on the basis of whether their submission tickles the inspector's fancy. Not surprised to see this stuff going on. It's about time really. Probably won't be visible too long since there are some non-koolaid-drinking participants.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=54580&page=1

If there's one thing worse than the rejections at IS, it must be their forums. If you don't know how to spell "Hallelujah", you're simply not welcome.

thesentinel · « **Reply #20 on:** July 17, 2007, 02:38 »

This is visibly untrue. Whilst there are some 'hooray henrys' there are also a great deal of active members that do not fit your characterisation, who are not banned or ignored and do a great deal to get things improved after each bodged iteration of some new feature.

Quote from: epixx on July 16, 2007, 22:06

If there's one thing worse than the rejections at IS, it must be their forums. If you don't know how to spell "Hallelujah", you're simply not welcome.

epixx · « **Reply #21 on:** July 17, 2007, 06:33 »

Quote from: thesentinel on July 17, 2007, 02:38

This is visibly untrue. Whilst there are some 'hooray henrys' there are also a great deal of active members that do not fit your characterisation, who are not banned or ignored and do a great deal to get things improved after each bodged iteration of some new feature.

Quote from: epixx on July 16, 2007, 22:06
If there's one thing worse than the rejections at IS, it must be their forums. If you don't know how to spell "Hallelujah", you're simply not welcome.

Yes and no. While some criticism is accepted, the moderators are very quick to close down threads that are not to their liking. But even worse is the tendency by some members to explain to IS-newcomers what the world really looks like. Unfortunately, their view on the world has been limited somewhat by their exclusive status at IS.

msv · « **Reply #22 on:** August 22, 2007, 05:45 »

I'm also going mad with IS, they are rejecting more than 50% of my images because they contain "artifacting".
May be I just haven't understood what artifacting is, but my workflow is such that I shouldn't have much noise/compression issues/jaggies etc, in fact my pictures are accepted on the other sites and especially on SS, where these aspects can be an issue.
I don't know what to do, is there anybody else dealing with this problem?

perkmeup · « **Reply #23 on:** August 22, 2007, 06:17 »

You know what's funny....the photo that was rejected that I originally complained about when I stated this thread................ ......is 3 downloads away from going flame on IS.................so...go figure!!!....it also made the top 50 on SS for about a week.

Most of the photos I get rejected now are also for articacting....usually people on white backgrounds...I have no clue how to fix it. They look good to me....and to all the other micro sites....but IS sees something...

Tom

msv · « **Reply #24 on:** August 22, 2007, 06:38 »

As usual I forgot to check the dates when posting

Congrats for that picture, Tom, anyway I'm more and more puzzled about IS reviews.
As for artifacting I can just try to downsample the images, but it's soooo time consuming (and boring) to resubmit.
It's their right to push exclusivity, but it's getting annoying now.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: IStock Drives me Nuts!!! (Read 21319 times)

perkmeup

Bateleur

leaf

perkmeup

chellyar

Read_My_Rights

Karimala

sharply_done

a.k.a.-tom

niemiga

hatman12

sharply_done

michaeldb

JC-SL

hatman12

slobo

perkmeup

a.k.a.-tom

vicu

epixx

thesentinel

epixx

msv

perkmeup

msv

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors