Just submitted a batch of videos of a crop duster over a cotton field. Nothing special. No logos on the plane. Pretty straight forward. Got the videos back for revision with a request for a property release. Now... Can't really understand if these clowns want a property release for the crop duster or the cotton field. Dear lord... Is there no limit to the incompetence of iStock reviewers???

Quote from: StockStudio on October 08, 2018, 14:50

Just submitted a batch of videos of a crop duster over a cotton field. Nothing special. No logos on the plane. Pretty straight forward. Got the videos back for revision with a request for a property release. Now... Can't really understand if these clowns want a property release for the crop duster or the cotton field. Dear lord... Is there no limit to the incompetence of iStock reviewers???

Should I bother to answer? You've already decided they are incompetent clowns and you are right.

Are there registration numbers on the plane? Is it pained any special color scheme? Anything else besides the plane and a crop, like a building or a tractor that could be recognized? Show a frame so anyone here can take a stab at the why, otherwise everything is just a guess. What keywords did you use, any that might be trademarks or protected?

The footage was shot on purpose against the sun, so the plane shows no colors or markings whatsoever...
Here is a link to the same shot on SS:
https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-1017459790-crop-duster-spraying-chemicals-over-cotton-field

Is a plane design treated any differently to a car? Even if you take the logo off a car image it will still be rejected, will the same not apply to a plane, boat, motorbike?

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 10, 2018, 11:38

Quote from: StockStudio on October 08, 2018, 14:50

Just submitted a batch of videos of a crop duster over a cotton field. Nothing special. No logos on the plane. Pretty straight forward. Got the videos back for revision with a request for a property release. Now... Can't really understand if these clowns want a property release for the crop duster or the cotton field. Dear lord... Is there no limit to the incompetence of iStock reviewers???

Should I bother to answer? You've already decided they are incompetent clowns and you are right.

Are there registration numbers on the plane? Is it pained any special color scheme? Anything else besides the plane and a crop, like a building or a tractor that could be recognized? Show a frame so anyone here can take a stab at the why, otherwise everything is just a guess. What keywords did you use, any that might be trademarks or protected?

The footage was shot on purpose against the sun, so the plane shows no colors or markings whatsoever...
Here is a link to the same shot on SS:
https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-1017459790-crop-duster-spraying-chemicals-over-cotton-field

I think you neglected to tell the whole story. "No logos on the plane." ?

Were you on private property? You need a property release.

wouldn't say the problem is the plane design: a property release would not solve it!

So you're saying property release isn't needed for Boeing planes? Adidas shoes? Ford cars? I would think you need a property release for branded products. A plane is a branded product unless the manufacturer cannot be identified.

If you were standing in the field on private property, you need a property release. I don�t think it�s the plane that is the problem.

I'd need a release for the air above or for indefinable corn? Are you serious?

Just submitted a batch of videos of a crop duster over a cotton field. Nothing special. No logos on the plane. Pretty straight forward. Got the videos back for revision with a request for a property release. Now... Can't really understand if these clowns want a property release for the crop duster or the cotton field. Dear lord... Is there no limit to the incompetence of iStock reviewers???

Went through your clip frame by frame and I could see no markings or other logos or what have you.

Conclusion ~ resubmit if you can

And yes iSuck are incompetent clowns

HOWEVER!

You said you submitted a batch and other clips showing this crop duster you can clearly see the aircraft registration number  4X-AFC which will get the clip rejected.

https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-1017459817-crop-duster-spraying-chemicals-over-cotton-field

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on October 13, 2018, 15:58

Quote from: StockStudio on October 08, 2018, 14:50

Just submitted a batch of videos of a crop duster over a cotton field. Nothing special. No logos on the plane. Pretty straight forward. Got the videos back for revision with a request for a property release. Now... Can't really understand if these clowns want a property release for the crop duster or the cotton field. Dear lord... Is there no limit to the incompetence of iStock reviewers???

Went through your clip frame by frame and I could see no markings or other logos or what have you.

Conclusion ~ resubmit if you can

And yes iSuck are incompetent clowns

HOWEVER!

You said you submitted a batch and other clips showing this crop duster you can clearly see the aircraft registration number  4X-AFC which will get the clip rejected.

https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-1017459817-crop-duster-spraying-chemicals-over-cotton-field

Unlike Uncle Pete, my observation (from the outside) is that SS tends to be more lax about IP than iS, sometimes seriously lax.

I don't think there's an absolute which one is lax or more strict, that's an opinion, the issue is more about WHAT. I can upload some subjects to iStock that pass and have no problems, the same will get rejected, never a chance by SS, for the last seven years. From the inside, uploading to both, you are still right, but it's a matter of agency lawyers and agency policy. Not as simple as lax or strict.

Now back to the case at hand.

Sammy might have the answer. Batch rejection because some have the planes ID showing. One was suitable, many others had the markings, now I have to say, the reviewer wasn't going to dig through a stack of infringing images to find one that would pass. We've been misled.

Quote from: RCerruti on October 12, 2018, 14:18

wouldn't say the problem is the plane design: a property release would not solve it!

So you're saying property release isn't needed for Boeing planes? Adidas shoes? Ford cars? I would think you need a property release for branded products. A plane is a branded product unless the manufacturer cannot be identified.

What I mean is that, should the problem be the aircraft, they would reject the photo for copyright/trademark. They would not ask for a property release (from the owner of the aircraft?)

If I may enter the discussion,
I had this frustration on an intellectual property violation
rejection on a close shot of a cherry blossomed branch.
 
The question is:
as long as clips are accepted in other agencies,
is it really worth spending time on rejections?
I have this newbie idea and no worries attitude
"ok, rejected there, let's move on to the next clip"
assuming that at least one out of three agencies
that submit the same work will accept the clip.

Is this wrong? Or at least at the wrong path?

Haha I can relate to this one, I go through every image and video and I never have problems with property release or model release at any other site, but iStock.. oh lord, sometimes I feel like I should have a property release for planet earth.