ps - the flicker you may actually be seeing (because I can actually get it if not careful) - is actually the propellors - so you have the camera angled too far up.
when taking video - angle the camera down a bit more and it might stop the flicker...

These places make it tougher for real writers. It gets exhausting chasing down those who infringe our work - whether it's writing or photography. The Internet is still the Wild West and those who have the most to gain - like Google - only make the problem worse rather than better. No one wants to be the sheriff, so we are left with a mess. Facebook won't even police their own site, so we'll never get Google to police the internet.

it's actually on the contrary very easy to track down plagerized content for written text. however - you do of course need to follow up/get it taken down, which I agree can be time consuming...

There's something really fishy going on with SS and Blackbox.
Almost nothing seems to go through.
If you compare the Blackboxguild portfoilo on SS and P5, you'll see that only half of the files end up on SS and the gap is growing.
SS has 750000, Pond5 has 1,4 Million files

not sure if that is related to bb - shutterstock just seems to be doing a LOT of rejections lately...

thank-you for sharing. how did you arrive at these numbers/estimates?

Here are the numbers from October 2019.

a) how did you get specific time frame #'s? (or did you just look at it then?
b) and lol - I just realized... blackboxguild has ~1.5 ****MILLION**** clips? that's like 7% of ALL footage uploaded! wow... and yeah, they actually have a less than 1% sales rate... a 15% cut for sales for them is pretty good... but for the contributors, either they are uploading a ton of crap, or...

but yes, I agree lack of control is a big thing. if you want to set & forget it and don't care - then yes, they might be pretty good to use... but if you want to take this a little more seriously, I think you should be submitting your own work yourself, and/or find a more efficient way of doing so...

Quote from Wirestock :

"We have made some changes to our curation policies and are now only accepting images that have a likelihood of getting approved by all of our partner agencies."


As different agecies require different images, this makes it unlikely that Wirestock will deem ANY images uploaded to them as acceptable !?  So I'm out of here   Not worth the time and effort any more !!  It was supposed to be the Easy route !

the probably did that because you will have some contributors that upload 'stupid' stuff, i.e., they will take 30 pictures of their big toe, 50 pictures of their nose, 25 closeup pictures of their bum while sitting down in a chair, etc, etc... it makes sense they would do that, I'm surprised they didn't from the start!

Are you sure there is a human behind the IA? In my batches, when I send them to SS and BS the same pictures are rejected with the same reason.

I'm not sure there is always one person clicking. Looks like sometimes It's automatic, sometimes not.

yes, pretty sure.
a) If it was AI - computer's dont "need" a week to review a photo/video/etc. "They" could do a batch of 10,000 videos, or 100,000 images in a fraction of the time it would take a human reviewer. (You certainly wouldn't wait a week for results, and computers wouldn't get "ill" and need to work from home and need more time to process, etc).
b) For the nature of the photos/videos, etc - it would be difficult to make it pure AI algorithm vet photos/videos. Sure - it could flag certain things for follow up (i.e., if you really did have a 'noisy' photo) - but it would still need to be manually reviewed because maybe that 'noise' is good (i.e., static on a t.v. screen, rainfall, fast moving but desirable editorial footage, etc, etc).

Not sure what "bs" is though? What agency is that?

Quote from: SuperPhoto on April 23, 2020, 06:30

is there any easy way (like uploading a .csv file) to keyword items at alamy? or does it have to be done individually for every single photo?

thanks!

I'm pretty sure you can't upload a .csv file, but Alamy does read metadata, though you still have to choose your supertags manually. You can batch-edit files, but that's an easy way to get into spam territory.
Also be aware - I and others were caught out by this - that you have to positively deselect an image/s before selecting an/other image/s to edit, or your 2nd file edits get appended to your first file/s.

In case you haven't seen them (and even if you have, someone else might find the resources useful):
https://www.alamy.com/blog/tagging-images-on-alamy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DeGewd73uw&t=346s

ah, kk, thanks!

In the past I have had video rejections, when I pushed it to the limit with tricks like speed change etc.
In the last reviews that are also taking long time for me, I got rejections for noise.
That was for home shots in low ISO (up to 400 in my case is like zero noise for Sony A cameras), using a tripod and LED lights for still studio like shots.
I had even taken care to denoise with Neat Video any hint of noise in the background, just to be sure.
I have been a Broadcast TV editor for over 25 years.
I say that because many times I had the responsibility of doing (not spot but full-time view) quality control at a finished video, prior of sending it to the master control to play on air. That is a big responsibility if you are paid for it and needs to be spot on.
I mean to explain I follow all broadcast safe levels and details as many other contributors here do and I am certain there is no problem in at least these rejected videos of mine.
The ironic approach would be to say they want to protect us from low earnings so they just do not accept them!
But as many contributors say, we get more rejections that do not seem to be just.
True, I am not using broadcast equipment for stock, just a Sony A camera, but all the work years at TV help me know, see and decide If I am wrong or not.
That is why I find it hard to accept these rejections, if someone and not AI sees our videos at a tablet or mobile phone while we spend time on a calibrated 4K monitor, checking vector scopes and all details.

Yes, I 100% agree with you. I've done broadcasting too, among other things - so am familiar with the process of quality control/review/etc - so take time to make sure I use the right equipment, right lighting, right settings, etc - and even inspect frame by frame video to ensure their are no artifacts, etc especially at 4K levels. So it is frustrating when you get a beautiful picture/video that is rejected using an obvious non reason for rejection, such as  'low light' or 'noise' or something along those lines...

No, currently on less than half what I'd normally make in a month from Shutterstock. The reason I'm questioning what you're saying is that "shutterstock has CLOSED acceptance of new videos/images..." is a big thing. Like massive... headline news. But unless you can provide some kind of evidence that they have, then it's just not true. Please tell me you're not basing such a claim just on the fact that you're having all your content rejected?! That would be like me submitting five videos, having five videos accepted and then starting a thread saying that "Shutterstock are now accepting 100% of all content submitted".

No, I'm not basing it on that. I did not consider the title could be interpreted that way - so have re-titled it. Thank-you.

Maybe you should take a look at your own videos and see why they are being rejected instead of putting the blame on the 3rd world. I have a 90 percent approval rate in the last 2 weeks and it doesn't seem to be an issue for many other contributors either. As for reviews taking time, of course they are. Don't you know what's going on in the world?

As for speaking English, some of us who live in the 3rd world can speak and write better English than some of you can. So maybe, just maybe, keep your racist diatribe to yourself?

as for 'racist', no, its not in fact you are being quite racist by labeling someone as racist simply because you disagree with them.

if you are not a native english speaker, then yes - you do speak very well & congratulations, not an easy feat!

Any evidence to support any of this... other than you having all your videos rejected?

yes.

very frustrated with some of the reviewers who appear to just do an auto "100%" rejection because they are too lazy to do their job.

seems some of the reviewers shutterstock employs have figured out how to game the system, so are doing zero work, to get paid. (to be clear, not all of them - some do their job - I like those reviewers - it's the ones that don't do their jobs that I don't like).

seems the game is for those ones is - they wait as long as possible to review the items (i.e., say a week) - so it gives the "appearance" of being reviewed to the (semi-automated) metrics shutterstock uses - so they can paid for doing nothing. I'm all for reviewing & approving 'good quality' images & videos, and rejecting poor quality. But when you happen to land one of these reviewers who just wants money for nothing, so autorejects 100%, it's very frustrating.

Would be a great time now shutterstock to either weed out these poor quality reviewers - OR - a different company to do a better job than shutterstock.