In fact, if you uploaded images, then your ID WAS verified.  You were not able to upload until the ID was verified. 

I am pretty sure you have simply not had the tax info verified. As I said above, that won't happen until you earn enough to receive a payout, as stated pretty clearly on the home page.

They were gathering images prior to actually opening.  If I remember right, they said they expected to go live in June.

I'd wait until July before wondering much about them. 

I did go ahead and upload some images to give it a try, and those have not yet been reviewed.  Again, if I haven't heard from them by end of July, I'll contact them. Otherwise, stock is a long haul proposition. I don't worry about a week or two here and there...

Read reply #2. Says exactly what you quoted, in a lot fewer words.    Nowhere in my reply is there a �thx.�

It also reads as "just another opinion." No better or worse than all the rest. No reference to a source document to back up the assertion.

That is all I am trying to provide. An end to the bickering, by referencing the source. The company that the OP was asking about using.  I don't see how it can get any more objective and clear than that.  Not just me saying "No."  But ShutterStock directly and explicitly saying "no, not in any way shape or form" (OK, I paraphrased, but the actual quote is above... )

there is no such protection for being able to self identify yourself in a video or photo

I think you miss the point entirely.  It doesn't matter one whit what the law says, or what could be defended successfully in court if such a suit were drawn.  Each agency has the right to decide what will, and will not, be accepted.  iStock, in the specific case I described, chose not to accept it.  Basically they were (probably "are") very risk averse.

When they stand to make a small number of dollars from each image, why would they want to invite trouble by putting up an image that might result in a lawsuit costing 10's of thousands of $?  Remember, at the time of this story, the "editorial" setting did not exist.

Some agencies might be more lax, while others may be even more concerned.  I know that SS has frequently bounced images because they claim a property release is required. I resubmit as editorial, and they accept them.  That was not an option in 2007, when that Cabo balloon salesman image was submitted.

My review of LRTimelapse, not only for day to night transitions, but also for all sort of timelapses
https://youtu.be/U5qlzvO04Mk

LOVE IT!  Thx!  Just getting seriously into time-lapse videos, and your short videos helped me get a quick start on them.

... problem is that they take withholding sum for ALL files sold on their system, not just for sales made in USA like others... in my case, -30% on anything sold there...

Then complain to the US Federal Government, or IRS, whichever way you prefer to waste your time.  The companies have no option but to follow the tax laws of the country in which they do business.  Bitching here won't change that for that agency, or any other...

I agree with Pauws99, but will add some personal experience.

Years ago, when I was first starting with iStock, I had a shot of a balloon salesman on the beach in Cabo.  You could see nothing of him but the lower part of his legs, as he was totally covered in balloons.  iStock rejected it for trademark.  Well, sure enough, several of the balloons had trademarks on them.  I was just learning Photoshop in those days, so asked our group's artist for some help in removing them (since my first attempt was a total mess).  He did so, and I learned some PS in the process.  But... iStock still rejected the image.

They wrote me a real, honest, personalized email (I was impressed!), apologizing, but hoped I would understand.  Given the surroundings (beach, with recognizable hotel), and the nature of the sales, they said it would be possible for that salesman to look at that image and identify himself in it. As such, they still had to decline the image.  I was bummed out, but avoided pretty much all people for years after that.

Fast forward to this past year. I learned about Editorial, and started to submit a lot of images (some rather old) in that category.  All have been accepted (except for those with focus or noise issues). These included several images of closeups of hands doing various things (cooking, sewing, weaving, etc -- things I came across in my travels).

Multiple agencies (not ShutterStock, but I can't really remember which), actually bumped them over to Commercial, saying they thought they would sell better there. Even though I know these are images of the type that iStock would have rejected a decade ago. (I no longer submit to iStock because of their insanely low royalties, so don't know their reaction today to those images).

So...  it is a moving target.  Both regards the agencies and regards time. What is accepted or rejected today may be the flip next year.  Just because one agency rejects it as commercial, doesn't mean another won't accept it.

My advice... submit as commercial to each of your agencies.  If any particular agency rejects for editorial reasons, just resubmit as editorial.

Looks like you have some nice timelapses! What did you do to add 'motion' to them?

It was pretty obviously a rail being used. Very standard technique, and the first step from static tripod-mounted clips.

April was my largest sales for SS to date, though largely because of a couple $20+ sales.  Overall the number of downloads from SS seems stable but slightly increasing (as is my portfolio size).

The site doesn't "clearly" state it on their homepage or about page.
In fact, on their home page, above the fold, there is a big heading saying, "License from top photographers" which implies that should be doable now.

Gotta admit, it is not all that obvious. I did find it last night while checking them out, but had a hard time finding it again today.

I did find it though. The site officially starts May 7, as seen in this screenshot (from https://tge.wemark.com ) --

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc43thmqs7c23cw/WeMark%20Starts%20May%207.png?dl=0

Sounds a lot 100%, too good to be true?  Yes, the normal rate is 85% so you get given 15% on your first 500.  If you upload 5,000 photos that's a whole 15% of 10% and given that half your images wont sell, if any do, the enticement is 7.5%of 10% in this situation, much of which will be canabalised from other sources you sell from.  I think they need to increase that to at least 5,000 if they want to get anywhere near the inventory they need to compete.

I don't think your math or logic holds up.

First, you are not canabalising your other agencies.  Do you really think that someone will go to xxx agency, not see your specific photo, and then come to wherever you are so that they can buy your photo? No. They will buy whatever is the best fit at the agency they are currently in.  If your photo is not at that agency, you lose the sale. Period.  Thus, you either get the sale if you are in their game, or you don't when you are not in the game.

Second, you only get the 100% royalty on 500 images.  Presumably, you will know that, and thus upload your best sellers now for that first 500.  WeMark knows that, and wants exactly that, so that the best sellers are quickly added to their library. You (presumably) know that, and will put in the images now that will bring the most revenue.

Anything past that 500 is not relevant. You will get 85% of the buyer payment.  Do you know any other agency that pays that high a rate??  If not, then don't gripe that someone doing the marketing and infrastructure is taking 15%...  (Amazon takes 55% of the video sales I make there)

You might complain that WeMark has no customers yet.  Sure enough. Amazon didn't have any customers when they started approaching vendors to set up accounts to sell through them either. (I am not saying WeMark is a potential Amazon, but noting that EVERY company starts with zero, and then the successful ones build from there)

I know. As I've said, submitting now is too early. The question is why they need the content now? Why they reward with 100% the content submitted until the May 1st? Why not until (much) latter?

I'm not sure why anyone considers that a mystery.  This is a new agency that wants to compete in the market.  To do that, they need a large image base to sell from.  Offering 100% on the first 500 photos uploaded before May 1 is a way to encourage people to submit those 500 images, giving them a head start into their target market.

They say they have 40,000 photos now.  Most established agencies have multiple millions (SS was at 180 Million last time I looked).  How else is WeMark going to get enough images to be viable?