I still have my account active at Fotolia, but I just never go there anymore.  I don't even remember the last time I uploaded an image there - why bother?  They just reject everything.

I made a bit of money when I started, but never reached a payout.  It used to be a really nice, consistent site, but now it's just a joke.

It wouldn't surprise me to log on some day in the near future and see that it closed up shop.  Wouldn't sadden me either.

mine = 102

=========

Total = 40,850

Thanks so much for the positive responses.  You all nailed the agency, of course.

I guess I just don't see the problem with having the release.  I'm over it and have resubmitted the way they want it . . . but on a common sense level it is just silly.  Cover yourself with the release and be protected.  Simple as that. 

The search engine issue is a strange one.  I'm not quite sure how that connects to the model release problem, but oh well.

I do enjoy the agency - it's a vibrant community and I like the website logistics.  This is just one of those bizarre twists that are around every corner in the Microstock world, I'm discovering.

This is a new one for me - I just got an image rejected at a site I won't name and the reason was "Please remove Model Release."  The shot is a simple close up of my sons legs and feet in the green grass.  Fun image that is similar to thousands of others out there, right?

Okay, but why reject it and tell me to remove the model release?  I have the option of resubmitting it, but for cryin' out loud - isn't that a tad harsh.  I am busting my butt to get these images up and you tell me that you want me to take that hard earned Model Release OFF? 

I'm not a hardcore professional, but I have been doing this awhile - and this just seems nitpicky to me.

Wouldn't it simply be safer (and easier for us all) to just keep the image covered by including the release, and if it never comes up . . . it never comes up?

Anyone else experience this rejection reason lately?

I don't submit to StockExchange, but I know the feeling.

I have simply stopped sending large groups.  I am totally convinced that reviewers will simply stamp the lot, reject them and move on. 

What about those of us who shoot their own kids and post some of those shots as stock?  From what I read, that's a fair number of us . . .

Say we're out on a walk and I happen to snap a nice shot that I think has stock potential.  Then we go home for lunch and so on and the next morning we take another walk near the same place and viola lightning strikes again and the camera creates some more spontaneous stock magic. 

Is that 2 seperate model releases that I have to draw up, sign and scan?  What constitues a "shoot" when dealing with your kiddos?  Should I plan ahead and make my son wear the same outfit just in case?

I'm not ranting or anything, just a bit confused.

Ben O.

Borg, I second your acknowledgment that Fotolia is starting to stink up the place.  It has gone from really nice for me to just a hassle and totally not worth the effort.  They reject EVERYTHING and sales have plummeted.

And just when my images were starting to really take off.

Yep, you are very right and I readily agree that setting the bar high is a good thing.  I want to be selling my images on sites that are hard to get into.

On the other hand, it starts to seem strange when the EXACT same images are accepted and even selling on all of the other sites.

Stories like that of the OP - with admittedly bad images being accepted while others are wondering why their good images are being rejected simply makes you wonder . . .

This is funny and we are all laughing at how bad that image is, but I am losing faith in Fotolia with every stupid move they make.

I never get any images past Q/C, so before long it won't even matter as a stock site to me anymore. 

The depressing part is that it was one of my favorites just a few months ago. 

Does anyone else have these same sad feelings like Fotolia is simply shooting themselves in the foot with those of us who provide their content?

I agree that reviewing can sometimes be a bit random.

I used to get more upset, but now I just try and use rejections as motivaton to shoot better images.

I still have a long way to go, but I notice improvement all the time.

It's the game we all play and as with any game, sometimes it feels unfair.

I think you can look at your details page and sort by download date. 

The most recent will be the one that sold.

Am I missing something here?

Uh, the way I understand it  - it goes a bit deeper than a mere moral dilemna.

I'm pretty sure it's illegal.

Komar,

I recently upgraded from a P&S to a Nikon D90.  I just got the kit lens (which I rather like) . . . no bells and whistles yet.

I love it.  I also moved to shooting RAW (NEF) and it has saved pictures that I wouldn't have been able to keep with the smaller camera I had before.

The old saying is very true, that the camera takes the pictures, but the photographer makes the art.  Well, at least for me, in the microstock world, you ain't gonna have any "art" to sell if you can't get your images accepted.  And that simply isn't going to happen with a small, old camera.

I was plagued with the artifact rejections on otherwise good, sellable images.

The D90 has cut down on that tremendously.  Now, for the most part, I can just focus on creating better images and not worry about being held back by inferior machinery.

It's just a really nice camera for a pretty affordable price (relatively speaking).