MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: 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
-
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.
-
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%
-
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
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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:
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).
-
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.
-
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... 8)-tom
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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."
-
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
-
Had to laugh at that JC.
-
perkmeup, I can see that IStock accepted that image on 6-28-07. What did you do to make it work?
-
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
-
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...? 8)-tom
-
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
-
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.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=54580&page=1[/url]
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
They probably think they're some sort of logo.
I got a reject once for a bare-chested shot of a person. Looked for the copyrighted thingie all over, but couldn't find it. But then, of course!!! Stupid me! It was the belly button that looks like the Dreamstime logo :-p
-
it is only this reviewer who will reject an airplane image if a little bit of the swirl is showing.
Somebody should educate this reviewer that the swirl is not a trade logo but a safety mark. All turbine engines I saw have it at the exposed side. When the plane is on the ground, it will allow ground personnel to see whether the turbine is actually still turning. You couldn't see that by just vertical marks that get motion-blurred. You can see it well by the moving swirl, even at high RPM's.
-
They probably think they're some sort of logo.
I got a reject once for a bare-chested shot of a person. Looked for the copyrighted thingie all over, but couldn't find it. But then, of course!!! Stupid me! It was the belly button that looks like the Dreamstime logo :-p
You kill me!!! :D
-
Somebody should educate this reviewer that the swirl is not a trade logo but a safety mark. All turbine engines I saw have it ...
It's trademarked by General Electric. Given the necessity of such safety markings, I think it's a silly thing to have trademarked. Have you ever seen this video of a crew member who got sucked into an engine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_gpPbpONK4)? (not at all gory, and he fared better than you might expect)
-
...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
Congrats on the success, perkmeup - if things keep going this way, you'll not be an engineer much longer!
-
Sharply_done.... you mean that guy SURVIVED being sucked into that jet fighter engine? *... that's incredible! and cruel all at the same time.
-
Sharply_done.... you mean that guy SURVIVED being sucked into that jet fighter engine?
Yep. He has lots of bandages and his arm looks to be in a cast, but he's sitting comfortably in a chair at the end of the video. The way that he gets sucked in looks almost like a bad CGI job - it happens that fast.
-
I got a new one at iStock recently where I was told that one of images, when zoomed to 100%, produces "pixel discoloration" and hence, would not be suitable for printing. ??? Since the image would end up being a halftone, how would that ever matter, even if that were true? And the only way to look at individual pixels is to zoom the image up to 3200%. Of course this picture was in a batch of 4, the other three all being accepted. Same camera settings, photoshop workflow, and lighting used on all.
Although I mostly wait and resubit, I think it's good every so often to send a reject to Scout, if nothing else, to let them know what their file inspectors are doing out there. I've read about some getting fired.
-
quote]Congrats on the success, perkmeup - if things keep going this way, you'll not be an engineer much longer![/quote]
:) That might be a while....
-
my problem isn't rejection, that happens so often I am use to it. Instead I'm getting sales on new uploads, the older stuff sells ok (from my point of view).
-
Rejections for me at iStock are reasonably rare thank goodness (83% acceptance rate) and those that ARE rejected usually raise my eyebrows. I send them all to scout. Scout has subsequently accepted all of them except one file.
I have had a couple that have made me wonder whether the inspector is either a super human being or is just being bloody minded; the only way of drawing this to iStock's attention is to make scout aware of a rejection 'that seems to be excessive'.
To be fair to iStock, there is usually a good reason for rejection (I had two recently for a background not quite white, and when I went to investigate I had to blow the things up to 200% to find the odd pixel or two that were not quite RGB 255), but I do get the impression that one or two of their inspectors demand a level of perfection that is beyond anyone.
-
I have had a couple that have made me wonder whether the inspector is either a super human being or is just being bloody minded
I would agree with this statement, I have had several rejected recently for artifacts that no one else can reasonably see.
-
Yes I agree with that - there is at least one inspector there who rejects for artifacts that do not exist.. Very frustrating. I never have artifacts or noise in my images - EVER - and to receive a rejection notice saying 'artifacts at 100%' is enough to make me want to commit murder.
The file goes straight to scout, which is useful if somewhat lengthy, but frankly those files should never be rejected in the first place.
This is relatively new (last couple of months) so presumably the inspector is new and cutting his/her teeth.
-
... This is relatively new (last couple of months) so presumably the inspector is new and cutting his/her teeth.
I think that often there's no rhyme or reason to rejections.
I typically make a series of images using a common background together with proven and clean components - most are accepted, but a few usually get rejected for noise/artifacts/banding/trademark/whatever. On the flip side of the coin, I've made and submitted stuff I know to be below IS quality levels, and have had them accepted. It's gotten to the point that I don't pay much attention to IS rejections anymore, and accept quirkiness as a necessary consequence of doing business with them.
-
<oops, why can't we delete posts?>
-
My conspiracy theory:
They want us to size down (to reduce artifacts) so the next time they re-structure their sizing/pricing the large will be bumped down to med-large (or something like that) and will sell for less $$$ ;D
-
Since they make their money on commissions, why would they want our stuff sell for less? I am yet to see a car salesman convincing you to pay less than he is asking ;D
-
I agree wholeheartedly, Sometimes it's to laugh. I just had this one rejected due to blown highlights, and a comment that I shouldn't use flash. I guess they don't read the exif info on the file. The engine is chrome! any use of flash and I'd blind anyone within a 15 ft radious. But I did find a "blown highlight" att crop at 100?, mind you this is a 10.4Mp file.
(http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t262/ianhlnd/Powerful-442-engine100crop.jpg)