Author Topic: Incredible rejection reason (Read 8733 times)

viledevil · « **on:** October 29, 2013, 20:20 »

Hi all

Today I have received this rejection reason : "We cannot accept unaltered NASA images."

Of a image like this one , also mine: http://www.flickr.com/photos/viledevil/7355938740/#in/set-72157624666583309

Take it With my Canon EOS 7D, And Canon 800mm FD F:5,6 and a 2X Jessop

Can anyone help me to understand this rejection reason..

Thank you

Greetings

David

ShadySue · « **Reply #1 on:** October 29, 2013, 20:33 »

They seem not to believe that you took the image yourself.
You will have to contact them directly to sort it out.

tickstock · « **Reply #2 on:** October 29, 2013, 20:35 »

Just resubmit and note that you took the image.

stockastic · « **Reply #3 on:** October 29, 2013, 20:39 »

Either that, or NASA has copyrighted the moon.

qwerty · « **Reply #4 on:** October 30, 2013, 03:25 »

there's a bit of history behind the rejection. At one time agencies were accepting images people downloaded off the NASA website and submitted them unchanged or slightly edited for sale as RF images. After a bit of an uproar some of the agencies stopped accepting NASA images. Some will still allow you to use a part of a NASA image for a background or component of an image. eg a shot of earth from outaspace in the background.

leaf · « **Reply #5 on:** October 30, 2013, 03:32 »

great shot. Like the other say, just resubmit with a note

Ron · « **Reply #6 on:** October 30, 2013, 03:57 »

Seems the reviewers are not checking Meta data.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #7 on:** October 30, 2013, 05:40 »

It's quite a compliment, really

ShadySue · « **Reply #8 on:** October 30, 2013, 05:44 »

Quote from: Ron on October 30, 2013, 03:57

Seems the reviewers are not checking Meta data.

For which reason, I'd suggest contacting SS rather than just resubmitting, so that reviewers get a reminder.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #9 on:** October 30, 2013, 05:49 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 30, 2013, 05:44

Quote from: Ron on October 30, 2013, 03:57
Seems the reviewers are not checking Meta data.
For which reason, I'd suggest contacting SS rather than just resubmitting, so that reviewers get a reminder.

If you check, you'll see that he's writing his own metadata. It would either have come up with the field for the lens and aperture blank, or else he actually has changed the metadata which makes a certain amount of suspicion understandable.

ShadySue · « **Reply #10 on:** October 30, 2013, 05:56 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 30, 2013, 05:49

Quote from: ShadySue on October 30, 2013, 05:44
Quote from: Ron on October 30, 2013, 03:57
Seems the reviewers are not checking Meta data.
For which reason, I'd suggest contacting SS rather than just resubmitting, so that reviewers get a reminder.

If you check, you'll see that he's writing his own metadata. It would either have come up with the field for the lens and aperture blank, or else he actually has changed the metadata which makes a certain amount of suspicion understandable.

Ooops

leaf · « **Reply #11 on:** October 30, 2013, 06:35 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 30, 2013, 05:44

Quote from: Ron on October 30, 2013, 03:57
Seems the reviewers are not checking Meta data.
For which reason, I'd suggest contacting SS rather than just resubmitting, so that reviewers get a reminder.

If you resubmit it, they will quickly see that it has already been submitted before.. then see the note.. then say.. doh!

Mantis · « **Reply #12 on:** October 30, 2013, 06:45 »

Quote from: leaf on October 30, 2013, 06:35

Quote from: ShadySue on October 30, 2013, 05:44
Quote from: Ron on October 30, 2013, 03:57
Seems the reviewers are not checking Meta data.
For which reason, I'd suggest contacting SS rather than just resubmitting, so that reviewers get a reminder.

If you resubmit it, they will quickly see that it has already been submitted before.. then see the note.. then say.. doh!

Exactly. For whatever it's worth, I've been putting in notes on images that "could" trigger a wrong rejection when first submitting. Can't say that my notes have or haven't worked, though.

viledevil · « **Reply #13 on:** October 30, 2013, 07:51 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 30, 2013, 05:49

Quote from: ShadySue on October 30, 2013, 05:44
Quote from: Ron on October 30, 2013, 03:57
Seems the reviewers are not checking Meta data.
For which reason, I'd suggest contacting SS rather than just resubmitting, so that reviewers get a reminder.

If you check, you'll see that he's writing his own metadata. It would either have come up with the field for the lens and aperture blank, or else he actually has changed the metadata which makes a certain amount of suspicion understandable.

The lens is a CANON FD Lens, no EF.. Uses with an adapter. This is the reason that the aperture maybe not correct

viledevil · « **Reply #14 on:** October 30, 2013, 07:54 »

Thank all for your answer.

First of all , The metadata of the camera are correct but the lens is a FD lens. Manual focus.

I write to shutterstock an receive this answer:

"I understand your concerns. I have looked over the referenced image. The rejection reason was correct. We can not accept unaltered NASA images. If you alter the image we can accept it with a clear note that says," This image was furnished by NASA." This note gives credits to NASA."

But I don't understand the rejection reason yet.

Greetings

David

leaf · « **Reply #15 on:** October 30, 2013, 08:02 »

I think there is a language barrier here. You are not understanding what they are saying and they are not understanding what you are saying.

To try and make it clear.. I think they are assuming that you downloaded this image (or similar images) from nasa and are trying to upload it to your portfolio. You need to very clear that you took the image with your own camera.

viledevil · « **Reply #16 on:** October 30, 2013, 08:09 »

Quote from: leaf on October 30, 2013, 08:02

I think there is a language barrier here. You are not understanding what they are saying and they are not understanding what you are saying.

To try and make it clear.. I think they are assuming that you downloaded this image (or similar images) from nasa and are trying to upload it to your portfolio. You need to very clear that you took the image with your own camera.

Ok , I undestand that. But for all the ways I try to explain that the image was taken by me. Or they don't understand me or they want not to understand me.

I'll waiting for an answer from shutterstock .

And thank you for the comment

Greetings

David

Me · « **Reply #17 on:** October 30, 2013, 08:26 »

Is it worth the effort and time commenting, resubmitting, etc when people can download very similar from NASA?

60D · « **Reply #18 on:** October 30, 2013, 09:45 »

Quote from: viledevil on October 29, 2013, 20:20

Hi all

Today I have received this rejection reason : "We cannot accept unaltered NASA images."

Of a image like this one , also mine: http://www.flickr.com/photos/viledevil/7355938740/#in/set-72157624666583309

Take it With my Canon EOS 7D, And Canon 800mm FD F:5,6 and a 2X Jessop

Can anyone help me to understand this rejection reason..

Thank you

Greetings

David

I find the same image in your profile: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-129100271/stock-photo-moon-closeup-showing-the-details-of-the-lunar-surface.html?src=RCNbY20PRvuvASDoMh2zcA-1-0

At the moment, it's the most popular image in your profile, and it's not a new image too.

viledevil · « **Reply #19 on:** October 30, 2013, 09:57 »

Quote from: 60D on October 30, 2013, 09:45

Quote from: viledevil on October 29, 2013, 20:20
Hi all

Today I have received this rejection reason : "We cannot accept unaltered NASA images."

Of a image like this one , also mine: http://www.flickr.com/photos/viledevil/7355938740/#in/set-72157624666583309

Take it With my Canon EOS 7D, And Canon 800mm FD F:5,6 and a 2X Jessop

Can anyone help me to understand this rejection reason..

Thank you

Greetings

David

I find the same image in your profile: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-129100271/stock-photo-moon-closeup-showing-the-details-of-the-lunar-surface.html?src=RCNbY20PRvuvASDoMh2zcA-1-0

At the moment, it's the most popular image in your profile, and it's not a new image too.

the photo that has been rejected is similar to this one http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-125747798/stock-photo-moon-closeup-showing-the-details-of-the-lunar-surface.html?src=jtZsVCa9WL5ulzM-NLL9GQ-1-23

And have 4 o 5 more moon image accepted.

Greetings

David

Ron · « **Reply #20 on:** October 30, 2013, 10:06 »

Sometime CS agents are just stuck in their flow charts and template responses and dont understand what you are saying until you post the message on a sledgehammer and hit them in the face with it. I speak from experience.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #21 on:** October 30, 2013, 12:18 »

When you write say this: "I took this photo myself, it is not a NASA image."

Reply directly to the person that wrote saying: "I understand your concerns. I have looked over the referenced image..." So they understand the thread and what they wrote.

Yes, there's some kind of communication problem if they still think it's a NASA image.

Nice photo. And for others reading this, the OP says for an image LIKE this one. So we aren't looking at the actual image or metadata.

Quote from: viledevil on October 30, 2013, 07:54

Thank all for your answer.

First of all , The metadata of the camera are correct but the lens is a FD lens. Manual focus.

I write to shutterstock an receive this answer:

"I understand your concerns. I have looked over the referenced image. The rejection reason was correct. We can not accept unaltered NASA images. If you alter the image we can accept it with a clear note that says," This image was furnished by NASA." This note gives credits to NASA."

But I don't understand the rejection reason yet.

Greetings

David

disorderly · « **Reply #22 on:** October 30, 2013, 12:36 »

Reviewers make mistakes. They happen, and they're generally easy to get fixed.

Early on, I had an image rejected for trademark violation. It was a picture of some crayons, and the reviewer saw Crayola's trade dress. Which was a good trick since they were some off-brand that had no trademarked content at all. The reviewer apologized for seeing what wasn't there, and the resubmitted picture went on to sell a few dozen times.

Just be clear in your explanation, and consider having a native English speaker review it for clarity. Having done customer support, I have experience with customer-described problems that may be clear to them but made no sense to me without a lot of back and forth conversation.

viledevil · « **Reply #24 on:** October 30, 2013, 14:10 »

Quote from: anthonycorreia on October 30, 2013, 13:53

Quote from: viledevil on October 29, 2013, 20:20
Hi all

Today I have received this rejection reason : "We cannot accept unaltered NASA images."

Of a image like this one , also mine: http://www.flickr.com/photos/viledevil/7355938740/#in/set-72157624666583309

Take it With my Canon EOS 7D, And Canon 800mm FD F:5,6 and a 2X Jessop

Can anyone help me to understand this rejection reason..

Thank you

Greetings

David

Dear David,

I have emailed you specific instructions in order to correct this recent issue you experienced. Should you have any questions, please do write back.

All: When submitting images that (you suspect) may cause review issues for you or have already been rejected, please feel free to add a custom note to the review team to let the team know some background (i.e.: this is a resubmission due to XYZ issue with image#1234567. Issue has been resolved.) (Of course, make sure the issue has been resolved -- do not resubmit without explaining or correcting the main issue first. Also, excessive re-submissions will not be tolerated by the review team.)

Custom Note (a note that you create)
Using this specific scenario, the note should simply reference that the image is your creation, not from any third party (i.e.: NASA); That it is your own creation.

Alternate Idea (custom note that we issue to you)
You may also write in to us via [email protected] to request a custom note for the review team at any time for any image you feel may not be reviewed correctly or, as in this instance, was not reviewed correctly (already rejected so, need to explain for a 2nd review consideration). You may consider this a pre-screening of your content to ensure a seamless review process. (Note: Some images may not be acceptable at all so, we may actually write back saying no custom note will be issued because the image is not acceptable due to XYZ reason. This will save time for everyone involved which is great.)

Finally, should anyone ever have any difficulties, please reach out to us via [email protected]. We are here to help everyone be successful.

Sincerely,
Anthony Correia
Director, Contributor Success
Shutterstock|Bigstock

Thank you again Anthony.

This is the second time that you help me.

Greetings

David

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Incredible rejection reason (Read 8733 times)

viledevil

ShadySue

tickstock

stockastic

qwerty

leaf

Ron

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

leaf

Mantis

viledevil

viledevil

leaf

viledevil

Me

60D

viledevil

Ron

Uncle Pete

disorderly

anthonycorreia

viledevil

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors