MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: i wish i had that model release, lol  (Read 3453 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 18, 2017, 15:52 »
+3
got so many rejections from a site called CanStock, decided to look through the reasons of rejection, maybe i would learn something out of it, and i found this !


Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #1 on: September 18, 2017, 15:56 »
+1
Quote
got so many rejections from a site called CanStock, decided to look through the reasons of rejection, maybe i would learn something out of it, and i found this !

 ;D ;D ;D

« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2017, 18:44 »
0
Dear flower can you gimme a model release so I can sell you for the big bucks??
Sure hon
Obviously the reviewer was trolling

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2017, 20:19 »
0
I know people sometimes refer to their 'lady parts' as a 'flower'... maybe the reviewer can't tell the difference!

« Reply #4 on: September 22, 2017, 02:23 »
0
Dear flower can you gimme a model release so I can sell you for the big bucks??
Sure hon
Obviously the reviewer was trolling
for a moment there i thought " how would I get her release 🤔 ?! " but then how would she sign! 🤔

Sent from my SM-G928C using Tapatalk


« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2017, 02:23 »
0
I know people sometimes refer to their 'lady parts' as a 'flower'... maybe the reviewer can't tell the difference!
😂😂

Sent from my SM-G928C using Tapatalk


« Reply #6 on: October 20, 2017, 04:31 »
+1
I've had CanStock reject a photo of a duck for the same reason.  Either their Submission analysis is automated and broken, or done by disenfranchised staff in a bad mood (or trying to be funny, not quite sure which)

« Reply #7 on: October 22, 2017, 15:38 »
0
Sometimes a keyword will trigger it.  Words like sexy, naked, bare, or underage.  What keywords did you use for the flower?

Semmick Photo

« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2017, 09:23 »
0
The second rejection reason is probably valid though. Maybe the reviewer pushed to many buttons in an eager attempt to increase his wages.

« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2017, 15:24 »
+1
There are fully exposed sex organs in that image.

« Reply #10 on: October 24, 2017, 08:08 »
0
I stopped submitting there about 1.5 years ago because all of a sudden they were rejecting almost everything for weird reasons, even though they were accepted everywhere else.  Apparently that hasn't changed.

In this case I agree with Hannafate it was probably keywords, or an overactive reviewer as suggested by Semmick.  I suppose you could do an experiment to test - submit a flower with the description, "Naked flower flaunting male and female sexual organs" - which is a perfectly accurate description for that image - and see what happens.

« Reply #11 on: October 24, 2017, 09:52 »
0
That's too bad.  That specific model is probably dead by now so you will never get that signature.

ShadySue

« Reply #12 on: October 24, 2017, 09:59 »
0
Stick to ferns.
"Unlike many other plants, ferns do not have conspicuous reproductive parts, and were therefore deemed a suitable hobby for women during the prudish Victorian era."
http://www.theenglishgarden.co.uk/expert-advice/design-solutions/garden_features_the_fernery_1_387075


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
6573 Views
Last post June 23, 2006, 04:27
by leaf
3 Replies
6607 Views
Last post October 12, 2006, 08:01
by mtbcyclist
17 Replies
8551 Views
Last post August 17, 2010, 10:48
by Anyka
12 Replies
6103 Views
Last post October 31, 2011, 07:53
by Sean Locke Photography
4 Replies
4236 Views
Last post June 28, 2016, 12:39
by PhotoLA

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results