0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
tee, there's no official appeal process on shutterstock; but if you feel its really an unfair rejection you can send a mail to [email protected]; i've done it twice and once it was reversed.Resubmitting is also an option, but dont do it without a note as you can get "warned "for that.
What's weird is that a few of my vettas on iS weren't accepted because they had "limited commercial value", even though they've sold a good number of times at a high price on iS. Is there an appeal process on SS? If this is off-topic never mind.
Quote from: tee on November 18, 2011, 17:47 What's weird is that a few of my vettas on iS weren't accepted because they had "limited commercial value", even though they've sold a good number of times at a high price on iS. Is there an appeal process on SS? If this is off-topic never mind.Nothing formal, but I had a similar experience with some ex-Vettas and best sellers rejected for limited commercial value. For some I resubmitted with a note to the reviewer of how many times the files had sold on iStock and in most cases they were accepted the second time. I always note when it's a resubmission and what I've changed or why I'm trying again - in the note to reviewer, another nice feature. I would strongly discourage trying again without a note and I don't think a support ticket will get you anywhere other than referred to SS's critique forum. I don't think the latter's helpful unless you think there's something wrong with your image and you want to figure out what and how to fix.What you'll find is that there are some types of shots where SS will happily accept things iStock never would but also that some things that (a) I think are commercial (b) iStock accepted and (c) are technically sound that SS just won't take. For a variety of reasons this is also true of other sites - DT has problems with more than a handful from a series, 123rf is super-picky about property releases, even for things shot from a public place, and so no. Fight a few if you think it's worth it, but otherwise just move on. The agencies generally don't budge if you hit one of their policy walls.
This is completely accurate. They are leaving money on the table and have inspectors that make unfounded judgement calls one salability. This is the one are where SS sucks. They also do not listen to contributors, rather ignoring them is something they perceive as value added.m just because they are currently at the top, or close to it, doesn't mean they don't have significant room to become the king of micro. Their whole inspection process is so poor that uploading there is an honest crap shoot, a gamble that is a result of their unwillingness to bring fairness and commercial realism to their inspection process. They are by far the most shameful agency in this regard.
Quote from: Mantis on November 20, 2011, 09:47This is completely accurate. They are leaving money on the table and have inspectors that make unfounded judgement calls one salability. This is the one are where SS sucks. They also do not listen to contributors, rather ignoring them is something they perceive as value added.m just because they are currently at the top, or close to it, doesn't mean they don't have significant room to become the king of micro. Their whole inspection process is so poor that uploading there is an honest crap shoot, a gamble that is a result of their unwillingness to bring fairness and commercial realism to their inspection process. They are by far the most shameful agency in this regard. This could not be more opposite my own experience. In nearly 5000 submissions I don't recall ever having had a LCV rejection. Very occasionally I get a rejection because they don't like where the focus is (if it is off-centre) but then I just shrink the image down a bit and it always passes next time around. The submission process at SS is also the easiest and most reliable of any agency I submit to. I find it utterly bizarre that anyone would describe them as 'most shameful'.
gostwyk,I make these comments for very good reason and based not on just my experiences. Shutterstock turns a blind eye to experienced photographers who know what they're doing. When I shoot I conduct research then set up the shoot around that research. I am not just snapshooting away and hoping what I shoot will sell. Then there is the work that goes into prep and submissions. So LCV rejections begin. The photographer (including me, among other very active contributors) try to share with SS WHY these images are salable and not LCV. Here are ways I personally have used to try to educate the ding dong inspectors at SS.Stats of the same Images from other sites...as Joanne stated earlier. I have shared data with them from IS, Alamy and DT showing that the very images they claiming to be LCV are in fact researched and selling elsewhere. The response is all rejected for LCV. Sometimes I am extending a successful series, explain to them what that series is, reference image numbers to show actual salability on their own site and they get rejected for LCV. Other times I point out how my submissions are adding to gaps within their own collection and that they are fresh, new content, not versions of a bazillion other "apple" shots. Rejected for LCV.Now you are probably in the minority of contributors who may not experience a lot of LCV but the bulk of contributors I speak with who are perhaps in the top 25 percent of all contributors in terms of quality content and volume are getting slammed with LCV rejections.So I make my statement based on that very anorexic ear the SS peeps have in terms of listening and hearing what their experienced contributors have to say about their revenue killing inspection standards. Yes, they ARE leaving money on the table, both for SS and the contributor.I am personally okay with rejections but when I can quantify or strongly qualify the value of an image set and it goes in one ear and out the other, that tells me a lot about a huge gap in their system and that they could care less about what constructive feedback contributors offer.I have a higher than 90 percent acceptance on IS so I know it's not quality or composition. Funny that the last batch they rejected (90% rejection) had sales within days at DT, IS and Alamy. So that in and of itself proves them wrong. So in a nutshell, that is why I say what I say and I stand by my comments. Don't get me wrong, though. I am speaking specifically about their inspection standards as an opportunity for serious, fair improvement. The rest of the company seems pretty solid short of seeing their financials.
Author
Topic: I wonder who they're aiming this at (Read 7686 times)
