If you are concerned about model releases it is the time to send a message to the agencies you are interested in and explain your situation.  When the first fiasco hit IS a couple competing agencies announced that they would manage the IS releases if you wanted to drop exclusivity - but I don't know if that was a one-time offer or not.  Worth some e-mails if you are seriously considering kicking the crown.

Isn't one committing some sort of fraud by Photoshopping out parts of a legal document?

I've been using the generic Getty one for more than a year now, just in case.

Quote from: nruboc on November 22, 2011, 01:33

Quote from: Mantis on November 21, 2011, 18:11

Quote from: TheBlackRhino on November 21, 2011, 14:37

I hate to rejoice in anyone's demise. But they deserve it.   On the other hand, if they fess up for being tyrannical, then they deserve a second chance.

After they disappear, let's hope their reviewers don't get jobs at SS, 123RF, etc. Maybe we can be the reviewers and reject all their work as "not suitable for stock."

Quote from: Cogent Marketing on November 16, 2011, 15:17

Site analytic's most recent update - apologies if this is shown somewhere else...

IS in trouble.

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com/

I would take Istock's inspectors any day over Shutterstock's, or at least the Istock rules for image acceptance.  If you were able to purge from Shutterstock what Istock would normally reject they could clean up their collection, have more salable product, and actually have a system where photographers are encouraged to upload.

LOL, another post from a brilliant Anonymous poster, with all signs showing ShutterStock eating IStock for lunch, Mantis steps forward and posts this masterpiece...LOL.. saleable product...LOL

Well folks, I am going to defend my position once again against the chest thumpers in here who seem to not embrace common business principles in the field of design and demand, microstock being one of those fields.  I am a MS buyer, a MS contributor and a business design executive.  I do not do MS full time, but I do design business processes full time and, as a result, understand customer needs.  Although I am anonymous on this forum Nubroc�s �BRILLIANT� comment only shows his own incompetence and breadth to hear and understand others� opinions on a topic for which he disagrees.  To be fair, he may be a good photographer, but going against the grain via other�s opinions seems hard for him to accept.  Same with Lagergreek�I think he calls himself Christian.  He�s a good photographer, too, but in my opinion failed to understand my point.
Now, back to defending my comments about SS inspection policy being sub-par to Istock�s.
I  make these comments for very good reason and based not on just my experiences.  Shutterstock turns a blind eye to experienced photographers who know what they're doing. When I shoot I conduct research then set up the shoot around that research.  I am not just snapshooting away and hoping what I shoot will sell. Then there is the work that goes into prep and submissions.  So LCV rejections begin. The photographer (including me, among other very active contributors) try to share with SS WHY these images are salable and not LCV.  Here are ways I personally have used to try to educate the ding dong inspectors at SS.

Stats of the same Images from other sites...as Joanne stated earlier. I have shared data with them from IS, Alamy and DT showing that the very images they claiming to be LCV are in fact researched and selling elsewhere.  The response is all rejected for LCV.

Sometimes I am extending a successful series, explain to them what that series is, reference image numbers to show actual salability on their own site and they get rejected for LCV.

Other times I point out how my submissions are adding to gaps within their own collection and that they are fresh, new content, not versions of a bazillion other "apple" shots.  Rejected for LCV.

Now you (Nubroc and Lagergeek) are probably in the minority of contributors who may not experience a lot of LCV but the bulk of contributors I speak with who are perhaps in the top 25 percent of all contributors in terms of quality content and volume are getting slammed with LCV rejections.

So I make my statement based on that very anorexic ear the SS peeps have in terms of listening and hearing what their  experienced contributors have to say about their revenue killing inspection standards. Yes, they ARE leaving money on the table, both for SS and the contributor.

I am personally okay with rejections but when I can quantify or strongly qualify the value of an image set and it goes in one ear and out the other, that tells me a lot about a huge gap in their system and that they could care less about what constructive feedback contributors offer.

I have a higher than 90 percent acceptance on IS so I know it's not quality or composition.  Funny that the last batch they rejected (90% rejection) had sales within days at DT, IS and Alamy.  So that in and of itself proves them wrong.

So in a nutshell, that is why I say what I say and I stand by my comments.  Don't get me wrong, though. I am speaking specifically about their inspection standards as an opportunity for serious, fair improvement.  The rest of the company seems pretty solid short of seeing their financials.

So, my original comment: This is completely accurate.  They are leaving money on the table and have inspectors that make unfounded judgement calls on saleability.  This is the one are where SS sucks. They also do not listen to contributors, rather ignoring them is something they perceive as value added.  Just because they are currently at the top, or close to it, doesn't mean they don't have significant room to become the king of micro.  Their whole inspection process is so poor that uploading there is an honest crap shoot, a gamble that is a result of their unwillingness to bring fairness and commercial realism to their inspection process.  They are by far the most shameful agency in this regard.  ACCURATE, Nubroc. Tic, tic, tic , tic, tic.  as long as they accept yours then its okay, right?

Quote from: Mantis on November 26, 2011, 17:54

Quote from: nruboc on November 22, 2011, 01:33

Quote from: Mantis on November 21, 2011, 18:11

Quote from: TheBlackRhino on November 21, 2011, 14:37

I hate to rejoice in anyone's demise. But they deserve it.   On the other hand, if they fess up for being tyrannical, then they deserve a second chance.

After they disappear, let's hope their reviewers don't get jobs at SS, 123RF, etc. Maybe we can be the reviewers and reject all their work as "not suitable for stock."

Quote from: Cogent Marketing on November 16, 2011, 15:17

Site analytic's most recent update - apologies if this is shown somewhere else...

IS in trouble.

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com/

I would take Istock's inspectors any day over Shutterstock's, or at least the Istock rules for image acceptance.  If you were able to purge from Shutterstock what Istock would normally reject they could clean up their collection, have more salable product, and actually have a system where photographers are encouraged to upload.

LOL, another post from a brilliant Anonymous poster, with all signs showing ShutterStock eating IStock for lunch, Mantis steps forward and posts this masterpiece...LOL.. saleable product...LOL

Well folks, I am going to defend my position once again against the chest thumpers in here who seem to not embrace common business principles in the field of design and demand, microstock being one of those fields.  I am a MS buyer, a MS contributor and a business design executive.  I do not do MS full time, but I do design business processes full time and, as a result, understand customer needs.  Although I am anonymous on this forum Nubroc�s �BRILLIANT� comment only shows his own incompetence and breadth to hear and understand others� opinions on a topic for which he disagrees.  To be fair, he may be a good photographer, but going against the grain via other�s opinions seems hard for him to accept.  Same with Lagergreek�I think he calls himself Christian.  He�s a good photographer, too, but in my opinion failed to understand my point.
Now, back to defending my comments about SS inspection policy being sub-par to Istock�s.
I  make these comments for very good reason and based not on just my experiences.  Shutterstock turns a blind eye to experienced photographers who know what they're doing. When I shoot I conduct research then set up the shoot around that research.  I am not just snapshooting away and hoping what I shoot will sell. Then there is the work that goes into prep and submissions.  So LCV rejections begin. The photographer (including me, among other very active contributors) try to share with SS WHY these images are salable and not LCV.  Here are ways I personally have used to try to educate the ding dong inspectors at SS.

Stats of the same Images from other sites...as Joanne stated earlier. I have shared data with them from IS, Alamy and DT showing that the very images they claiming to be LCV are in fact researched and selling elsewhere.  The response is all rejected for LCV.

Sometimes I am extending a successful series, explain to them what that series is, reference image numbers to show actual salability on their own site and they get rejected for LCV.

Other times I point out how my submissions are adding to gaps within their own collection and that they are fresh, new content, not versions of a bazillion other "apple" shots.  Rejected for LCV.

Now you (Nubroc and Lagergeek) are probably in the minority of contributors who may not experience a lot of LCV but the bulk of contributors I speak with who are perhaps in the top 25 percent of all contributors in terms of quality content and volume are getting slammed with LCV rejections.

So I make my statement based on that very anorexic ear the SS peeps have in terms of listening and hearing what their  experienced contributors have to say about their revenue killing inspection standards. Yes, they ARE leaving money on the table, both for SS and the contributor.

I am personally okay with rejections but when I can quantify or strongly qualify the value of an image set and it goes in one ear and out the other, that tells me a lot about a huge gap in their system and that they could care less about what constructive feedback contributors offer.

I have a higher than 90 percent acceptance on IS so I know it's not quality or composition.  Funny that the last batch they rejected (90% rejection) had sales within days at DT, IS and Alamy.  So that in and of itself proves them wrong.

So in a nutshell, that is why I say what I say and I stand by my comments.  Don't get me wrong, though. I am speaking specifically about their inspection standards as an opportunity for serious, fair improvement.  The rest of the company seems pretty solid short of seeing their financials.

So, my original comment: This is completely accurate.  They are leaving money on the table and have inspectors that make unfounded judgement calls on saleability.  This is the one are where SS sucks. They also do not listen to contributors, rather ignoring them is something they perceive as value added.  Just because they are currently at the top, or close to it, doesn't mean they don't have significant room to become the king of micro.  Their whole inspection process is so poor that uploading there is an honest crap shoot, a gamble that is a result of their unwillingness to bring fairness and commercial realism to their inspection process.  They are by far the most shameful agency in this regard.  ACCURATE, Nubroc. Tic, tic, tic , tic, tic.  as long as they accept yours then its okay, right?

Awaiting you and Lager to reciprocate.  You know what that means, right?

Quote from: Mantis on November 26, 2011, 19:52

Quote from: Mantis on November 26, 2011, 17:54

Quote from: nruboc on November 22, 2011, 01:33

Quote from: Mantis on November 21, 2011, 18:11

Quote from: TheBlackRhino on November 21, 2011, 14:37

I hate to rejoice in anyone's demise. But they deserve it.   On the other hand, if they fess up for being tyrannical, then they deserve a second chance.

After they disappear, let's hope their reviewers don't get jobs at SS, 123RF, etc. Maybe we can be the reviewers and reject all their work as "not suitable for stock."

Quote from: Cogent Marketing on November 16, 2011, 15:17

Site analytic's most recent update - apologies if this is shown somewhere else...

IS in trouble.

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com/

I would take Istock's inspectors any day over Shutterstock's, or at least the Istock rules for image acceptance.  If you were able to purge from Shutterstock what Istock would normally reject they could clean up their collection, have more salable product, and actually have a system where photographers are encouraged to upload.

LOL, another post from a brilliant Anonymous poster, with all signs showing ShutterStock eating IStock for lunch, Mantis steps forward and posts this masterpiece...LOL.. saleable product...LOL

Well folks, I am going to defend my position once again against the chest thumpers in here who seem to not embrace common business principles in the field of design and demand, microstock being one of those fields.  I am a MS buyer, a MS contributor and a business design executive.  I do not do MS full time, but I do design business processes full time and, as a result, understand customer needs.  Although I am anonymous on this forum Nubroc�s �BRILLIANT� comment only shows his own incompetence and breadth to hear and understand others� opinions on a topic for which he disagrees.  To be fair, he may be a good photographer, but going against the grain via other�s opinions seems hard for him to accept.  Same with Lagergreek�I think he calls himself Christian.  He�s a good photographer, too, but in my opinion failed to understand my point.
Now, back to defending my comments about SS inspection policy being sub-par to Istock�s.
I  make these comments for very good reason and based not on just my experiences.  Shutterstock turns a blind eye to experienced photographers who know what they're doing. When I shoot I conduct research then set up the shoot around that research.  I am not just snapshooting away and hoping what I shoot will sell. Then there is the work that goes into prep and submissions.  So LCV rejections begin. The photographer (including me, among other very active contributors) try to share with SS WHY these images are salable and not LCV.  Here are ways I personally have used to try to educate the ding dong inspectors at SS.

Stats of the same Images from other sites...as Joanne stated earlier. I have shared data with them from IS, Alamy and DT showing that the very images they claiming to be LCV are in fact researched and selling elsewhere.  The response is all rejected for LCV.

Sometimes I am extending a successful series, explain to them what that series is, reference image numbers to show actual salability on their own site and they get rejected for LCV.

Other times I point out how my submissions are adding to gaps within their own collection and that they are fresh, new content, not versions of a bazillion other "apple" shots.  Rejected for LCV.

Now you (Nubroc and Lagergeek) are probably in the minority of contributors who may not experience a lot of LCV but the bulk of contributors I speak with who are perhaps in the top 25 percent of all contributors in terms of quality content and volume are getting slammed with LCV rejections.

So I make my statement based on that very anorexic ear the SS peeps have in terms of listening and hearing what their  experienced contributors have to say about their revenue killing inspection standards. Yes, they ARE leaving money on the table, both for SS and the contributor.

I am personally okay with rejections but when I can quantify or strongly qualify the value of an image set and it goes in one ear and out the other, that tells me a lot about a huge gap in their system and that they could care less about what constructive feedback contributors offer.

I have a higher than 90 percent acceptance on IS so I know it's not quality or composition.  Funny that the last batch they rejected (90% rejection) had sales within days at DT, IS and Alamy.  So that in and of itself proves them wrong.

So in a nutshell, that is why I say what I say and I stand by my comments.  Don't get me wrong, though. I am speaking specifically about their inspection standards as an opportunity for serious, fair improvement.  The rest of the company seems pretty solid short of seeing their financials.

So, my original comment: This is completely accurate.  They are leaving money on the table and have inspectors that make unfounded judgement calls on saleability.  This is the one are where SS sucks. They also do not listen to contributors, rather ignoring them is something they perceive as value added.  Just because they are currently at the top, or close to it, doesn't mean they don't have significant room to become the king of micro.  Their whole inspection process is so poor that uploading there is an honest crap shoot, a gamble that is a result of their unwillingness to bring fairness and commercial realism to their inspection process.  They are by far the most shameful agency in this regard.  ACCURATE, Nubroc. Tic, tic, tic , tic, tic.  as long as they accept yours then its okay, right?

Awaiting you and Lager to reciprocate.  You know what that means, right?

A Bitter anonymous poster who's been rejected at ShutterStock no doubt....LOL

@Mantis : if your photos are so good why don't you join Getty and make some fat sales there ?

SS sucks and bla bla bla ? excuse me but what else do you expect from a company selling products for as low as 0.5$ ??
actually considering their tight costs you're even lucky they're writing you back saying your pics are of LCV.

Quote from: antistock on November 27, 2011, 02:39

@Mantis : if your photos are so good why don't you join Getty and make some fat sales there ?

SS sucks and bla bla bla ? excuse me but what else do you expect from a company selling products for as low as 0.5$ ??
actually considering their tight costs you're even lucky they're writing you back saying your pics are of LCV.

SS doesn't suck.  I never said that.  I said they are a good company with room to improve the way they review and determine salable images.   I shoot my images base on the reason I buy (or don't buy) images.  When I am creating a safety video, for example, I need choice.  Placing text in the right place is important and when I can't find the right image or composition of an image that creates more time for me to produce my videos.  I NEVER SAID MY WORK WAS SO MAGNIFICENT that it should be accepted everywhere, but I do shoot based on the frustrations I have as a buyer from not finding what I want.  So please read my posts more carefully before responding.  And I am speaking for not just me in particular but the bulk of image suppliers that were/are automatically deemed LCV buy Shutterstock's unrealistic assessment and lack of defined acceptance standards. Funny, speaking for me, whatever I shot and submitted before 4-6 months ago sold on SS and made us both money. Now they just sell every else.  By the way, PLEASE show me where I said SS sucks bla bla....please.  Just curious where you made that up.

There SHOULD NOT!  be any room for diletants in todays stock-files. This is not a charity organization where some poor young photographer should be given chances, etc, this is a cut-throat business and all of us here in this forum are in serious competition with each other, no matter how friendly we, here, in postings, etc.

Stock photography is the same as anything else. You have to EARN your place, earn your position and rights,  end of story. Thats what IS, forget all the time and right now you have rookie-files way up front in everyone of their searches.

If SS sales are soaring with "rookie files" out in front, then it suggests the market is happy with that. What you or I or anyone else think the standard should be is irrelevant if the market thinks something else.

I suspect rejection standards are driven by a desire to limit the inventory for practical reasons rather than to meet market requirements - which are probably mostly satisfied with anything that prints up OK at A4 size.