Author Topic: Inconsistent reviewing (Read 34663 times)

fritz · « **Reply #175 on:** January 07, 2014, 08:23 »

Ok, can someone explain this!
Rejection Reason:
"Trademark--Image potentially infringes on intellectual property rights."

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #176 on:** January 07, 2014, 12:36 »

Quote from: JPSDK on January 07, 2014, 08:08

Beppe.
They are middlemen.
Imagine them driving around (in an old vauxhall) and visit customers, they bring a portfolio with them to show.
Of course they want to spook the costumers with state of the art ( and all that BS) imagery so the costumer is impressed.

Beppe... they are just middlemen with a concept, let them live their life.

lol

Probably you are right…

Shelma1 · « **Reply #177 on:** January 20, 2014, 09:52 »

Got this rejection today for jpg versions of my vectors:

"Title--Titles must be in English, may not contain unnecessary information and must relate to the image."

The title in question: "Funny clown behind a whiteboard. Jpg"

It's a drawing of a funny clown behind a whiteboard. And it's a jpg.

Ron · « **Reply #178 on:** January 20, 2014, 09:53 »

I am sure the jpg part is unnecessary and shouldnt be in the title.

Me · « **Reply #179 on:** January 20, 2014, 10:04 »

Quote from: fritz on January 07, 2014, 08:23

Ok, can someone explain this!
Rejection Reason:
"Trademark--Image potentially infringes on intellectual property rights."

What makes up the coloured squares in the text? Other photographs?

Shelma1 · « **Reply #180 on:** January 20, 2014, 10:08 »

Quote from: Ron on January 20, 2014, 09:53

I am sure the jpg part is unnecessary and shouldnt be in the title.

Yet thousands of my images have been accepted with jpg in the title.

Goofy · « **Reply #181 on:** January 20, 2014, 10:11 »

"Yet thousands of my images have been accepted with jpg in the title."

Have you ask Shutter review team about the .jpg part?

Shelma1 · « **Reply #182 on:** January 20, 2014, 10:13 »

No, because this is the first time I've ever gotten this rejection reason. Usually it's for "noise" or "rough edges" that don't exist.

Reckless · « **Reply #183 on:** January 20, 2014, 10:25 »

Maybe include jpg in the sentence and not as .jpg (dot jpg may be the problem)

Ron · « **Reply #184 on:** January 20, 2014, 10:28 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on January 20, 2014, 10:08

Quote from: Ron on January 20, 2014, 09:53
I am sure the jpg part is unnecessary and shouldnt be in the title.

Yet thousands of my images have been accepted with jpg in the title.

Fair enough, Maybe they changed their rules again. Happens from time to time. If not, then its a weird rejection.

Anyka · « **Reply #185 on:** January 20, 2014, 16:00 »

I don't think it was the .jpg addition ... I got the same rejection today : 12 out of 20 images rejected for the same "Title should be in English ...." reason. I don't have dots in my titles or the word JPG, just English words. Example : "Young pear trees in Belgium" and "Beagle puppy". And yes, these images were of pear trees and a Beagle puppy.

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #186 on:** January 20, 2014, 16:08 »

Try

"Young Pear Trees in Belgium"

"Beagle Puppy"

And if you still have problems send and email here [email protected] with the reference number of the images

Ron · « **Reply #187 on:** January 20, 2014, 16:13 »

I had a title rejection today, just after SHelma posted her comment, and it turned out I had the wrong title. Maybe something got switched up, but I made a mistake in the IPTC

zeamonkey · « **Reply #188 on:** January 21, 2014, 12:30 »

http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/infographic-shutterstocks-global-design-trends-2014

Like any of these photos would ever get accepted.....riteeeee

Shelma1 · « **Reply #189 on:** January 21, 2014, 12:33 »

Quote from: Anyka on January 20, 2014, 16:00

I don't think it was the .jpg addition ... I got the same rejection today : 12 out of 20 images rejected for the same "Title should be in English ...." reason. I don't have dots in my titles or the word JPG, just English words. Example : "Young pear trees in Belgium" and "Beagle puppy". And yes, these images were of pear trees and a Beagle puppy.

Rogue photo inspector on the loose!

stockastic · « **Reply #190 on:** January 21, 2014, 13:05 »

Quote from: zeamonkey on January 21, 2014, 12:30

http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/infographic-shutterstocks-global-design-trends-2014

Like any of these photos would ever get accepted.....riteeeee

I just glanced at it but saw several photos that would likely be rejected for 'lighting' or 'white balance'.

Oh, and now they want photos of 'real life' situations. LOL. I think that translates as plastic-y model shots from iPhones, with Polaroid filter.

oscarcwilliams · « **Reply #191 on:** January 21, 2014, 15:07 »

Today, I just had all 20+ images rejected for poor light, composition, and focus where all these images are money makers on other sites. I guess 2014 won't be such a new beginning as I had planned. Fellow photographers what's happening here?

Goofy · « **Reply #192 on:** January 21, 2014, 15:15 »

me too! All rejected...

Firewall · « **Reply #193 on:** January 21, 2014, 16:31 »

Me three.
The reasons are getting stranger and stranger. Some of the images sold instantly at 2 other agencies.
I don't request for a 2nd review, which is such a waste of my time.

Lodimup · « **Reply #194 on:** January 22, 2014, 00:42 »

Some batch is still inconsistent as of now. Must be a rogue editor. I'm only sending smaller batches for now.

wordplanet · « **Reply #195 on:** January 22, 2014, 01:32 »

Quote from: zeamonkey on Yesterday at 12:30

<quote> http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/infographic-shutterstocks-global-design-trends-2014

" Like any of these photos would ever get accepted.....riteeeee"<quote/>

I have a fair number of manipulated mixed media retro vintage filtered images on shutterstock - natural backgrounds and some travel scenes where I've uploaded both the straight shot and the highly filtered one and both kinds seem to sell nicely - so they do take them - even some where the white balance came from my imagination.

Here are some I sold in the past two weeks - most of these have sold multiple times this month:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=151115285
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=139227917
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=142493347
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=85973638
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=143983312

All is not rosy though, I had Valentine's candies rejected for trademark, meanwhile the same pix have been selling on the other micros for two years - & even SELLING as greeting cards on FAA, so no real worries. I thought I'd neglected to upload them and was berating myself for being so late, but I guess they were probably rejected 2 years ago - meanwhile 2 photos rejected for purported trademark issues on buildings in a city skyline shot by iS and DT are happily on SS having been accepted the same day I uploaded them. The great thing about being an indie is that someplace will always take my rejects - and they usually end up selling quite well. $:-\$ Meanwhile I cloned them out for DT and hit resubmit.

Of all the sites, I actually think SS is the most consistent, they take most of my stuff and usually have a reasonable explanation when they don't. Though I do get the occasional flaky reason from time to time. DT seems to take 20 and then reject the next 18. If I'm having a good run I expect to get rejections because "it's already well covered in the catalog" - one I've gotten from them a couple times this today, so I finally switched tactics and uploaded a bunch of stuff to redbubble and FAA where they "take" everything.

Just sold one of those highly filtered photos as an iPod case on redbubble too. I love playing with images that way and am really happy that they are currently in vogue. I know the trend will fade but I'm having fun while it lasts. There's a former painter in me yearning to get out I guess.

aly · « **Reply #196 on:** January 22, 2014, 02:38 »

The last couple weeks SS has been really good accepting lots of my bird images some of which I had doubts were good enough. I am pleased by this as the rejections were almost 100% before. Hope it improves for everyone else. I must admit I have been very caerful in post processing in Raw so guess that might help.

Tone · « **Reply #197 on:** January 22, 2014, 15:52 »

Quote from: zeamonkey on January 21, 2014, 12:30

http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/infographic-shutterstocks-global-design-trends-2014

Like any of these photos would ever get accepted.....riteeeee

Ha, you were right. I just had two 'instagram-esque' (their word), rejected for white balance and focus. I don't buy the hype they send us.

Lodimup · « **Reply #198 on:** January 28, 2014, 22:31 »

How about we send all rejection threads to: http://submit.shutterstock.com/contact/

I just sent one.

max headroom · « **Reply #199 on:** January 31, 2014, 03:15 »

I wonder if it is more profitable to employ such insufficient inspectors than loosing money maker images that will sell for years. I wonder what the shareholders think about this insufficient management policy.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Inconsistent reviewing (Read 34663 times)

fritz

Beppe Grillo

Shelma1

Ron

Me

Shelma1

Goofy

Shelma1

Reckless

Ron

Anyka

Beppe Grillo

Ron

zeamonkey

Shelma1

stockastic

oscarcwilliams

Goofy

Firewall

Lodimup

wordplanet

aly

Tone

Lodimup

max headroom

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors