MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Editorial vs. commercial  (Read 2509 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 11, 2016, 02:39 »
+1
I recently submitted two illustrations, one of Virginia Woolf, the other Frida Kahlo. Virginia was accepted, Frida not, I was told to put her into the editorial section. But there are illustrations of Frida Kahlo on Shutterstock in the commercial section, and Virgina Wolf was accepted in the commercial section too. I don't understand the rules, do you know if are there any guidelines with regards to famous persons that are no longer alive?! why are others allowed to sell drawings of Frida Kahlo commercially, and not me? confused...


Shelma1

« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2016, 04:39 »
+5
Because reviewers don't know what they're doing. I submitted a caricature of Trump under editorial (where it belongs), and it was rejected, so I resubmitted it as commercial and it was rejected as well, the first time for being incorrectly labeled as editorial and the second for being incorrectly labeled as commercial.  ::)

lemonyellow

« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2016, 05:04 »
+2
Because reviewers don't know what they're doing. I submitted a caricature of Trump under editorial (where it belongs), and it was rejected, so I resubmitted it as commercial and it was rejected as well, the first time for being incorrectly labeled as editorial and the second for being incorrectly labeled as commercial.  ::)

This happens all the time with cars and buildings as well.
Or with illustration vs not illustration.
Or with illustrative editorial (Shuttestock's invention!) vs regular editorial.

Reviewers don't know the rules.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 05:07 by lemonyellow »

« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2016, 05:09 »
+5
hahaha, thank you for your replies. so I'll just keep submitting the illustration until someone accepts it  ;D

« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2016, 14:07 »
+2
hahaha, thank you for your replies. so I'll just keep submitting the illustration until someone accepts it  ;D

I had a series of images that were rejected when marked illustrations; resubmitted but  then rejected as 'need to submit as illustration'

so I resubmitted in one batch, labeling 1/2 as illustrations and others not -- and all were accepted
 

« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2016, 14:20 »
+1
Or with illustration vs not illustration.
Or with illustrative editorial (Shuttestock's invention!) vs regular editorial.

Reviewers don't know the rules.

i do not do illustrations, but i did get several times,
rejected... this must be submitted as illustrative editorial
so i resubmitted, and as instructed, but got it rejected as "not illustrative editorial".

i wrote them several times about this, and i got,
this is not editorial, and not illustrative editorial .

so i resubmitted hoping it would be commercial then,...
which also got rejected.

giving it up, as sometimes, i find ss is much more bad for the health than drinking too much whisky :)

lastly, as for reviewers do not know the rules,
i don't think there is any review being done by humans any more in ss

« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2016, 15:25 »
0
lastly, as for reviewers do not know the rules,
i don't think there is any review being done by humans any more in ss

You think it's machines? that would explain a lot... e.g. recently some of my images were rejected saying that they're not compatible with Illustrator 8 OR 10 - total nonsense, they were ALL saved as EPS 8.
Ironically I get most of my images approved when I submit them very early in the morning (European time). In the afternoon they get rejected. It's really weird, but whatever gets rejected in the afternoon or evening, will usually get approved early in the morning. Sometimes I set my alarm clock just to submit to shutterstock...

btw Frida got finally approved - as editorial.

« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2016, 04:08 »
0
I recently got one image rejected for "dust spots", and indeed there was one or two spots there. Now, how would machine know that?

« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2016, 05:33 »
0
I recently got one image rejected for "dust spots", and indeed there was one or two spots there. Now, how would machine know that?

That's the easiest task for a machine.

« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2016, 05:38 »
0
I don't think its a totally a machine it takes humans to mess it up so badly and inconsistently...though I'm sure they are screening in some way.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
2364 Views
Last post November 26, 2013, 20:45
by riffmax
2 Replies
2220 Views
Last post September 10, 2014, 11:10
by Uncle Pete
8 Replies
2303 Views
Last post October 27, 2015, 22:10
by imagesbykenny
9 Replies
2595 Views
Last post March 29, 2017, 20:52
by dragonblade
7 Replies
2624 Views
Last post July 16, 2017, 22:12
by txking

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results