pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Latest review - you have GOT to be kidding!  (Read 7343 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 06, 2010, 23:53 »
0
I've had some stupid reviews from iStock before, including several that told me off for using an on-camera flash, when the shots were actually taken with studio lights.  But this one's extra special.  I will quote it in full:
Quote
We regret to inform you that we cannot accept your submission, entitled Brunette ( http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/11540140/2/istockphoto_11540140-brunette.jpg) for addition to the iStockphoto library for the following reasons:

++Letter on finger++
This file contains legible information such as names, signatures, license plates, phone numbers, identification numbers, etc. Due to concerns relating to privacy and related property rights, we cannot accept this file unless this information is removed, or a property release is obtained.


A property release.  For a tattoo on the model's finger.  What in the world am I to make of that?

I've sent a query to Scout, which will take a month or two and probably leave me just as confused.  It's times like this that I'm glad of my independence.


« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2010, 00:22 »
0
Yep, Tattoos are artwork, in general you need a property release unless its a fake tattoo you made yourself.  There is a lot of back and forth on the whole subject as far as I've seen.  Does the model own the work because it is commissioned?  Or is it the tattoo artist?  But most tattoos are done based on predrawn art called flash.  Is the artist who created the flash the owner, and everything else is a derivative work that has been licensed out? Its all up in the air, so I think for the RF stock thing, IS plays cautious.

« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2010, 01:42 »
0
As noted above, artwork and identifying numbers/letters have to go. Don't get a property release,just clone it out and resubmit (if you want it accepted without the tattoo).

The property release, if you want to go that route, will have to come from the coyrightholder of the artwork, not the person on whose finger it is tattooed.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #3 on: January 07, 2010, 02:39 »
0
@OP:
If you think that's daft, I got a categorical assurance from an admin/inspector that if vandals grafittied my house, they wouldn't accept a photo of it if they decided it looked too 'arty' (subjective call) because of the artist's rights. Bring 'em on, I say!
I guess if they did, they and I could be 'profiting from crime'.

« Reply #4 on: January 07, 2010, 12:32 »
0
well, for this time, i am totally with IS on this call.
i shoot glamour and model ports as a regular sideline, and whenever i find a good model to use for my stock photography, i always turn away those with piercings and tattoos. not because i am against defacing your own body. but as the others already pointed out, you need an IP release.
sounds absurd? well, if you need to erase off a car brand or logo of a building , whether it be uncle chow chow or bank of america, or anything identifiable,
why not tattoo? even if it's on a little pinkie?

you don't think it's significant. but if i am the creator of this tattoo, it would be as large as the whole building to me, to bring IS or any site that accepts my work.

would you not sue someone if they even put a thumbnail of your photograph without your permission and put their name as photographer?
size is irrelevant, it's still a property.


« Reply #5 on: January 07, 2010, 13:18 »
0
I know it's a PITA, but if you really want to get that image up there get into photoshop and erase the tattoo and resubmit... forget about scout, it takes waaaaaay too long...

« Reply #6 on: January 07, 2010, 13:21 »
0
As the tattoo is secondary and not the primary subject I would say that no property release is required, if the image was of the tattoo then the artist would have a case and a property release would be required.

The artist may be able to identify the work because of the model, but is there enough of the tattoo in shot and is it that unique that the artist would be know by the style of work.

David

« Reply #7 on: January 07, 2010, 14:02 »
0
I know it's a PITA, but if you really want to get that image up there get into photoshop and erase the tattoo and resubmit... forget about scout, it takes waaaaaay too long...

good point zorki. 2 mins at the most to clone off the tattoo  versus how long it takes with scout???... 2 months?

« Reply #8 on: January 07, 2010, 14:12 »
0
Except... with the huge image backlog I have at iStock, it's not worth trying to resubmit.  By the way, the tattoo in this case is tiny, taking up the ring position on the model's ring finger.  Here's the 100% view of the offending area.

« Reply #9 on: January 07, 2010, 14:23 »
0
Except... with the huge image backlog I have at iStock, it's not worth trying to resubmit.  By the way, the tattoo in this case is tiny, taking up the ring position on the model's ring finger.  Here's the 100% view of the offending area.

i am not a regular with IS, but if i recall, if they say MAY RESUBMIT it takes approval much faster when you CORRECT THE REJECTION REASON. at least it happened to me a couple of times.
Scout on the other hand is I am told much longer, and most times, may still agree with the reviewers. so you may still end up losing more time, to hear Scout' s sorry bud, and to resubmit after that.

furthermore, even if you won the argument with Scout, the buyers may still refrain given their own caution re the tattoo.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2010, 14:28 by PERSEUS »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #10 on: January 07, 2010, 15:29 »
0
Except... with the huge image backlog I have at iStock, it's not worth trying to resubmit.  By the way, the tattoo in this case is tiny, taking up the ring position on the model's ring finger.  Here's the 100% view of the offending area.
i am not a regular with IS, but if i recall, if they say MAY RESUBMIT it takes approval much faster when you CORRECT THE REJECTION REASON. at least it happened to me a couple of times.

I had a resubmit for possible trademark reasons (it wasn't but it was easily removed) accepted today, jumping some of my other in-queue pics by a few days.

« Reply #11 on: January 07, 2010, 15:44 »
0
Except... with the huge image backlog I have at iStock, it's not worth trying to resubmit.  By the way, the tattoo in this case is tiny, taking up the ring position on the model's ring finger.  Here's the 100% view of the offending area.
i am not a regular with IS, but if i recall, if they say MAY RESUBMIT it takes approval much faster when you CORRECT THE REJECTION REASON. at least it happened to me a couple of times.

I had a resubmit for possible trademark reasons (it wasn't but it was easily removed) accepted today, jumping some of my other in-queue pics by a few days.

Does no one read?  My reason for not resubmitting is to not waste a second upload slot on the same image when I have so many others waiting to upload.  With only twenty upload slots a week, I'd rather move on to another image from another shoot.  It's not about where it would end up in the queue, but about how many I can have there.  And resubmits do take up those precious slots.

helix7

« Reply #12 on: January 07, 2010, 17:31 »
0
Does no one read?  My reason for not resubmitting is to not waste a second upload slot on the same image when I have so many others waiting to upload.  With only twenty upload slots a week, I'd rather move on to another image from another shoot.  It's not about where it would end up in the queue, but about how many I can have there.  And resubmits do take up those precious slots.

People do read. They're probably just as confused as I am about why you'd use one upload slot to begin with, but not a second one to make a quick fix to an already completed image and get it online in less time than a new submission by using the "resubmit" function. Or why you wouldn't resubmit an image that you obviously felt strongly enough about to start a forum thread discussing the rejection.   

« Reply #13 on: January 07, 2010, 18:38 »
0
I found the rejection noteworthy, but not necessarily the image.  I've found submitting studio shots to iStock to be something of a crapshoot; my acceptances seem fairly random, and my sales of those images even more so.  So I'll submit the image to Scout, on the off chance of a reversal.  Doesn't cost me an upload slot, which I can use for another image from another shoot.

« Reply #14 on: January 08, 2010, 04:58 »
0
Maybe you should re-read the rejection: It was NOT about a tattoo in general, it was about identifiable letters and numbers. As far as I know, tattoos in general are acceptable as long as they are not trademarked items.

My opinion is based on a statement made by one of the admins in this thread: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=82978

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #15 on: January 09, 2010, 18:54 »
0
Does no one read?  My reason for not resubmitting is to not waste a second upload slot on the same image when I have so many others waiting to upload.  With only twenty upload slots a week, I'd rather move on to another image from another shoot.  It's not about where it would end up in the queue, but about how many I can have there.  And resubmits do take up those precious slots.

People do read. They're probably just as confused as I am about why you'd use one upload slot to begin with, but not a second one to make a quick fix to an already completed image and get it online in less time than a new submission by using the "resubmit" function. Or why you wouldn't resubmit an image that you obviously felt strongly enough about to start a forum thread discussing the rejection.   
If "Jimmy cracked corn and I don't care", why did they bother to write a song about it?

KB

« Reply #16 on: January 09, 2010, 18:55 »
0
You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you, don't you, don't you?

 ;D

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #17 on: January 09, 2010, 19:24 »
0
Sorry but I ROFL :D

Only goes to show you how these stock sites are getting picker and picker.

Next they'll be saying the Fonts on our computors are copyrighted and we  ;Dcan't include keywords and descriptions!!!

« Reply #18 on: January 09, 2010, 22:41 »
0
I have been doing some weird stock with weird models and it was fun. But by now I learned my lesson. No tattoos, no nailbiters, no digital dental work required. A "businessman" with even a small tattoo or a hole for an earring won't sell.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #19 on: January 10, 2010, 06:16 »
0
I have been doing some weird stock with weird models and it was fun. But by now I learned my lesson. No tattoos, no nailbiters, no digital dental work required. A "businessman" with even a small tattoo or a hole for an earring won't sell.
How strangely conservative microstock buyers must be. Maybe these sort of images would do better on the macros?

« Reply #20 on: January 10, 2010, 08:00 »
0
Quote
How strangely conservative microstock buyers must be.

It's not that they are strangely conservative. Advertising has to be geared to every single person your product might possibly reach. A company can't afford to alienate what is likely the largest group of buyers (mainstream society). I think a better word would be safe or generic.

« Reply #21 on: January 10, 2010, 08:08 »
0
There are thousands of images of tattoed people at istock, incluidng recent and a lot of Vetta ones. Problem must be the letter.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #22 on: January 10, 2010, 11:49 »
0
Quote
How strangely conservative microstock buyers must be.

It's not that they are strangely conservative. Advertising has to be geared to every single person your product might possibly reach. A company can't afford to alienate what is likely the largest group of buyers (mainstream society). I think a better word would be safe or generic.
I agree...the older generation would be pushed away from a tattoo whereas the younger generation would be drawn to it and if the product is suppose to be geared at all generations they need to be some what generic.

« Reply #23 on: January 21, 2010, 13:45 »
0
I don't know if anyone's interested, but here's the end of the story.  I submitted the rejection to Scout for review, and he (or she) agreed that it was in error; the tattoo in question did not require a property release.  However, and there's always a however, he decided that there were some hot pixels in the image and re-rejected it for that reason.  So I was right about the original issue, at least according to Scout, but the victory doesn't get me anywhere.

« Reply #24 on: January 21, 2010, 13:51 »
0
I don't know if anyone's interested, but here's the end of the story.  I submitted the rejection to Scout for review, and he (or she) agreed that it was in error; the tattoo in question did not require a property release.  However, and there's always a however, he decided that there were some hot pixels in the image and re-rejected it for that reason.  So I was right about the original issue, at least according to Scout, but the victory doesn't get me anywhere.

look on the bright side,

 you can still reshoot, this time avoiding the tattoo, and making sure you get your exposure spot on so you don't need to post process much, this will give you a cleaner image and one without the about  hot pixels that got you the 2nd rejection.

as always, faster to reshoot then try to rescue an image.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Who are they kidding?

Started by Greg Boiarsky iStockPhoto.com

17 Replies
6637 Views
Last post May 16, 2006, 17:37
by madelaide
4 Replies
3721 Views
Last post April 07, 2008, 09:16
by Alatriste
64 Replies
18230 Views
Last post March 10, 2011, 08:56
by traveler1116
11 Replies
6453 Views
Last post July 12, 2014, 11:57
by noodle
18 Replies
4173 Views
Last post April 13, 2017, 15:52
by dpimborough

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle