Author Topic: New reviewer/standards at iStock? (Read 15699 times)

sharply_done · « **on:** April 17, 2007, 09:53 »

I was very surprised to have 3 images refused at IS today - one for using brand names in my keywords (the brand names were part of the CV), one for being oversharpened, and one for having too much noise reduction. The keywords were a direct copy of those used on one of my approved images, and all three images were composites made using components used numerous times at IS without a hitch. I don't normally appeal the reviewer's decision, but will for these three.

Putting the three together, I suspect that IS has either a new reviewer, or new standards. Anyone else experiencing strange rejections at IS?

GWB · « **Reply #1 on:** April 17, 2007, 10:26 »

Just the usual for me at IS. Recently I submitted two photos that were vertical and horizontal shots at the same subject. The vertical went through but the horizontal was rejected. Both were shot in the exact same lighting conditions, both used the same exact post processing in Photoshop. Never the less, the reviewer decided the rejected photo had too much artifacting. No way. But, so it goes...it's happened many times before.

I might add that both were accepted at four other microstocks with no problems.

Peiling · « **Reply #2 on:** April 17, 2007, 10:45 »

nope....istock has always been very consistent in rejections......

admart01 · « **Reply #3 on:** April 17, 2007, 12:43 »

the same % and reasons as always for me -- could be that I'm rejected more than accepted so I don't notice any new strictness.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #4 on:** April 17, 2007, 13:04 »

I have a problem with their imaginary artifacting. I am not complaining to them because at this point I want to be more focused on shooting than complaining about rejections, but thats my beef with them.

As for new standards, I don't really know but they seem to be incredibly strict, probably because they are trying to establish a certain level of quality so they can raise their prices even more. Hopefully contributors receive benefit from this.

hatman12 · « **Reply #5 on:** April 17, 2007, 13:33 »

Yes Sharply, I have noticed an increased level of strictness at IS over the past two or three weeks.

They appear to be increasing the priorities and flexibility for exclusives and becoming more strict for non exclusives. I am not surprised at this.

BTW there is an interesting thread there which tables the differences in upload limits between exclusives and non; exclusives get 60 per week compared to 20 at bronze level. A new exclusive comments on how his images are now accepted very quickly and how his downloads have increased massively since getting the exclusive tag.

Once again these things are not a surprise.

Over the next year or two I expect to see much more competition for exclusives at all agencies; after all, it isn't the number of images that will make them a success, it's having highest quality UNIQUE images that will be the key as competition hots up.

Prices and commissions should increase at a faster rate for exclusives. It makes sense.

kosmikkreeper · « **Reply #6 on:** April 17, 2007, 13:43 »

They just declined one of my images say that the person's nose was over processed. Ha! I didn't even touch the nose! Wait till I tell my model.

Kngkyle · « **Reply #7 on:** April 17, 2007, 14:23 »

They reject everything I send in for being not being stockworthy. So whatever. For not being stockworthy, over 350 downloads so far this month must be quite the achievement.

yingyang0 · « **Reply #8 on:** April 17, 2007, 17:48 »

Quote from: sharply_done on April 17, 2007, 09:53

I was very surprised to have 3 images refused at IS today - one for using brand names in my keywords (the brand names were part of the CV)...

The CV was taken from Getty, which sells editorial. You can have brand names for editorial shots, but not for commercial stock. They were suppose to be rejecting all band names since they introduced the CV. I don't think you'll win that scout one.

GeoPappas · « **Reply #9 on:** April 17, 2007, 17:51 »

Quote from: yingyang0 on April 17, 2007, 17:48

Quote from: sharply_done on April 17, 2007, 09:53
I was very surprised to have 3 images refused at IS today - one for using brand names in my keywords (the brand names were part of the CV)...
The CV was taken from Getty, which sells editorial. You can have brand names for editorial shots, but not for commercial stock. They were suppose to be rejecting all band names since they introduced the CV. I don't think you'll win that scout one.

There is a very simple solution that IS could implement so that everyone would be happy:

Remove these terms from the CV. It would take at most a day to do it and it would avoid confusion and frustration on both sides.

sharply_done · « **Reply #10 on:** April 17, 2007, 19:21 »

Quote from: yingyang0 on April 17, 2007, 17:48

They were suppose to be rejecting all band names since they introduced the CV. I don't think you'll win that scout one.

Well here's the thing - I've used those exact same brand names for about 100 of my images. It's never been a problem (on any of my sites) before.

That's what irks me about the other two rejections, too - I used the exact same components to make up other composite shots that have been accepted on IS without a hitch.

Maybe I'll just wait a few days and resubmit...

sharply_done · « **Reply #11 on:** April 17, 2007, 19:31 »

Quote from: yingyang0 on April 17, 2007, 17:48

You can have brand names for editorial shots, but not for commercial stock.

Are you sure? Where did you get this information?

I understand why images cannot have visible brand names/logos/etc., but I don't understand why keywords cannot include brand names. The IS training manual makes no mention that brand names cannot be used as keywords, nor does their wiki.

yingyang0 · « **Reply #12 on:** April 17, 2007, 19:52 »

Quote from: sharply_done on April 17, 2007, 19:31

I understand why images cannot have visible brand names/logos/etc., but I don't understand why keywords cannot include brand names. The IS training manual makes no mention that brand names cannot be used as keywords, nor does their wiki.

It's considered selling a product, in this case a photo, under the the brand name of another. The brand name is trademarked, and here in the US it could be considered trademark infringment.

I agree with Geopappa, the words should have just been removed.

madelaide · « **Reply #13 on:** April 17, 2007, 21:38 »

I don't know if they're more strict, but I've been having many rejections for "artifacting" or "too much noise reduction" (sometimes I haven't even applied noise reduction at all). Anyway, the other day I got a "sensor spots or hot pixels". I checked the image thoroughly and couldn't see any sign of it. There were a couple of speckles from reflection on the textile surface, but it was obvious to me that it was not a hot pixel. So I sent a msg to Scout, but it always take ages to reply... I think I still have one I objected the "too much noise reduction" that was not replied, maybe two months ago already.

Also StockXpert, IS and CanStockPhoto rejected one image in which there is a notebook and very faintly you can see the Windows key, and they said I should remove it. I think the notebook itself, although I removed all brand names and stickers, is so noticeable a Sony Vaio that this should have been the major copyright concern.

This is the image, already edited:
http://www.stockxpert.com/browse.phtml?f=view&id=794877

Regards,
Adelaide

yingyang0 · « **Reply #14 on:** April 17, 2007, 22:02 »

Quote from: madelaide on April 17, 2007, 21:38

I think the notebook itself, although I removed all brand names and stickers, is so noticeable a Sony Vaio that this should have been the major copyright concern.

This is the image, already edited:
http://www.stockxpert.com/browse.phtml?f=view&id=794877

Wouldn't be copyright. Maybe trade dress, possibly design patent, but not copyright.

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #15 on:** April 18, 2007, 00:00 »

Maybe I am getting a little bit offtopic, but I allways wondered, are mobilephone designs not copyrighted? I am considering to upload two images to IS. On there I see a lot of Mobile Phones and you can even search for them by brand names, e.g. nokia.

KiwiRob · « **Reply #16 on:** April 18, 2007, 04:28 »

Or you add the brandnames into the keywords after the image has been accepted.

stokfoto · « **Reply #17 on:** April 18, 2007, 08:32 »

Quote from: sharply_done on April 17, 2007, 09:53

I was very surprised to have 3 images refused at IS today - one for using brand names in my keywords rejections at IS?

a while ago that happened to me too.but the word that was considered as brand name by IS approvers was 'coke' I was clearly reffering to the soft drink not the brand. so may be we should not use the key word 'apple' as it also reffers to a brand too

vicu · « **Reply #18 on:** April 18, 2007, 08:53 »

Quote from: stokfoto on April 18, 2007, 08:32

Quote from: sharply_done on April 17, 2007, 09:53
I was very surprised to have 3 images refused at IS today - one for using brand names in my keywords rejections at IS?

a while ago that happened to me too.but the word that was considered as brand name by IS approvers was 'coke' I was clearly reffering to the soft drink not the brand. so may be we should not use the key word 'apple' as it also reffers to a brand too

"Coke" is the brand, a registered trademark of The CocaCola Company. "Cola" would be the generic term. It should be no surprise that brand name keywords are rejected since it has been announced several times, discussed ad nauseum in the forums, and (I believe) is part of the photographer training manual, or at least in the Keywording guide article. It has also been clearly stated that if someone is caught repeatedly adding in keywords that are not allowed, their uploading privileges could be temporarily or permanently suspended, and they will have their abilility to edit their keywords removed.

There are probably hundreds of proper nouns (names, brands, etc) that currently exist in the CV. These were brought in with the copy from Getty (where they are appropriately used for their editorial collection). However, they are not allowed in royalty free collections and even though they have not yet all been completely removed, we are not supposed to be using them.

sharply_done · « **Reply #19 on:** April 18, 2007, 12:15 »

Quote from: vicu on April 18, 2007, 08:53

... and (I believe) is part of the photographer training manual, or at least in the Keywording guide article. ...

Nope, it isn't part of the training manual. The only mention of brand name keywords I found was in the wiki, and it was in specific reference to Harley Davidson.

Lesson learnt: I'm now avoiding brand name keywords at submission time on IS.

yingyang0 · « **Reply #20 on:** April 18, 2007, 15:19 »

Quote from: Freezingpictures on April 18, 2007, 00:00

Maybe I am getting a little bit offtopic, but I allways wondered, are mobilephone designs not copyrighted? I am considering to upload two images to IS. On there I see a lot of Mobile Phones and you can even search for them by brand names, e.g. nokia.

No the designs aren't copyrighted, only designed patented (which doesn't really apply to you the photographer, but may effect the end user).

Yes, iStock hasn't cleared out the brand name keywords. I suspect that doing so might have a detrimental effect on overall sales because some brand names have become the term in common usage. For example: Kleenex, or (in the south) coke.

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #21 on:** April 18, 2007, 16:13 »

I'm very new to IS so I don't know what the standard was "before", but I am very pleased with very low rejects. I've only 2 pix that were totally rejected as "not stockworthy". Funny, one is my 2nd highest grossing photo everywhere else, but, it's their site, their choice, I'm not complaining about it.
I did have several rejected and was asked to correct and resubmitted for acceptance. 3 were rejected for 'trademark infringement". I was amazed!! On 2 of them it was for an Adidas logo on the model's sock. You had to blow it up 300% to see it. Now that's quality control. Of course, 50 seconds in photoshop and they were gone... none the less... I was impressed with the extent to which they went... no other site picked up on that.
I'm sure my rejection rate is low because I will only upload what SS and StockXpert have accepted. These pix have been thru their grindhouse already. I also do not find the new upload process that much more tedious than a couple other sites. And I think I'm liking that keyword program. .....whats more, I still have no idea what disambiguation is... LOL

-tom

digiology · « **Reply #22 on:** April 19, 2007, 01:39 »

For me IS will take what SS rejects and vice versa. I have given up trying to figure out what the reviewers will take. I have the hardest time choosing which shot to submit so I just go for it and wait and see what happens.

Just had a whole batch rejected at BigStock and most accepted at SS and IS! (Go figure)

sharply_done · « **Reply #23 on:** April 19, 2007, 07:58 »

I'm chuckling from the latest development in my IS keywording problem: I removed the keywords "Boeing" and "Airbus" from my refused submission. After it was approved I returned to the image to re-edit the keywords. Not only does the CV still contain these brand names, but the new keyword dropdown-list-thingy now has every model these manufacturers make!

stokfoto · « **Reply #24 on:** April 19, 2007, 08:23 »

@vicu
I don't mean to argue IS policies but in this case this rules should apply to all members equally.
just a quick search on random brand names:
levis(not levi's) came with 15143 matches and so on...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: New reviewer/standards at iStock? (Read 15699 times)

sharply_done

GWB

Peiling

admart01

ichiro17

hatman12

kosmikkreeper

Kngkyle

yingyang0

GeoPappas

sharply_done

sharply_done

yingyang0

madelaide

yingyang0

Freezingpictures

KiwiRob

stokfoto

vicu

sharply_done

yingyang0

a.k.a.-tom

digiology

sharply_done

stokfoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors