Scout rejected this with following reason:

++nasa image not sufficiently modified



It�s made from a flat "nasa map" like this:


What do u think?  I think I�ve done "something" to it... 

Already done and scout agreed with reviewer.   I�m not sure they know how this is done? (It�s not possible to add original on scout ticket)  But I told scout I put a flat map on a sphere and added
stratosphere, light, stars etc..  but still.    
There�s 1200 pages of earth images.  half of em unedited nasa maps on a sphere ?

Already done and scout agreed with reviewer.   I�m not sure they know how this is done? (It�s not possible to add original on scout ticket)  But I told scout I put a flat map on a sphere and added
stratosphere, light, stars etc..  but still.    
There�s 1200 pages of earth images.  half of em unedited nasa maps on a sphere ?

Yeah, you're too late to the game.  You need to do more to it than a simple wrap.

You only posted the thumb, but yes, it looks like a shaded wrap with a glow around it and a black background.

Add a meteor hitting the earth or something else to give some punch....
why try to compete with 1200 pages of images?

 

I�ve got one with a plane driving away that�s accepted. 

I thought stockimages was all about leaving it clean for the designers.   Or atleast having variations.  (like all millions other stockimage copies)

The suggestions are interesting, but the question was originally about IS not considering the edition a modified work of NASA's image.  Personally I consider this rejection wrong, as the image is totally different, even if the edition was very simple.  Put the two images together and ask people if they think they are the same image.

It's not that anyone thinks they are the same image.  It's that it wasn't "sufficiently modified", other than a basic wrap and a couple of effects.

But what is the problem with that?  Isn't it a whole different image?

You're still missing the point.  It isn't that pixel for pixel it's not the same image.  It's that enough effort wasn't put into it aside from the wrap and effects that make it a image that IS wants to represent.

You're still missing the point.  It isn't that pixel for pixel it's not the same image.  It's that enough effort wasn't put into it aside from the wrap and effects that make it a image that IS wants to represent.

It's more work than shooting any simple photo. Many photos are just done by one "click" and submitted after simple crop, and smaller adjustments, or even without it. It's not about work applied to the image.
Sean, I really appreciate you as a photographer, but I think you should try to encourage someone sometimes instead of pointing how that person didn't implement enough of work, money or creativity. Your comment about this image was almost analog to: "Of course your portrait was rejected because it's simple 2D image of a 3D person".
This image is simple, and of course it looks like a child's game to you, but it's not that bad to be rejected for this reason. You are forgetting how high you are on the list of stock photographers. There are very few like you, and many more who are below. They should live too.
No offense.

If you type "earth" in IS search engine and choose just photos you will see many images made by simple wrapping. Some of them are simpler than this one, and some of them have blue flame. I think the problem here was made because there are so many images done the same way in IS database, so reviewer thought this image is just one more the same image.

If you type "earth" in IS search engine and choose just photos you will see many images made by simple wrapping. Some of them are simpler than this one, and some of them have blue flame. I think the problem here was made because there are so many images done the same way in IS database, so reviewer thought this image is just one more the same image.

Yes, as I said, he's too late to the game with this one.

Here's a video thread that says what I'm trying to convey (the same thing has been said about rasters as well):
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=198101&page=1

+1 ^^