Author Topic: must this really be editorial? (Read 3808 times)

mtilghma · « **on:** March 08, 2012, 12:51 »

full disclosure, i just posted this exact message on the SS forum, but then realized there's some ppl here whose opinion i'd want. so this is directly copy-pasted:

Hey all... I had been on a roll lately with tons of approvals, but just got this one (and a similar) rejected for: "please add proper editorial caption"

well...hrm... I wasn't trying to submit as editorial! The boat says "US Coast Guard" on it, and the coast guard color scheme (red stripe, etc) is easily recognizable. But its not a private company... as far as I know, there is no harm in selling images of coast guard boats as stock. Look it up in any stock library and theres tons of of them. I've had them up on IS for years and they do sell, that's the only reason I'm pursuing this.

Anyone know if they really have to be editorial? If not, should I resubmit with a note?

gemmy12 · « **Reply #1 on:** March 08, 2012, 12:58 »

same case here. I had few photographs of cargo trains running on bridge with no trademark anywhere in the photos,but SS rejected for "Potential copyright trademark." whereas IS,Dt accepted that..(Trains are government property in my country) i was also curious if SS not accepting any shot of mass transport now ?

RacePhoto · « **Reply #2 on:** March 08, 2012, 14:57 »

I had a blank steering wheel refused for possible copyright infringement.

Yes the Coast Guard cutter stood out, but that's civil (taxpayers own it) so maybe a note to the reviewer that it's public domain? Or maybe it refused for being that model of ship? I don't have a clue. Some rejections are a mystery.

Sorry to be no help, but if it makes you feel better, I've had things rejected for Must Be Editorial and weeks later had a similar shot refused for "does not need to be editorial".

This may help?

Do NOT submit public domain images as editorial. When submitting public domain images, submit them for commercial use and provide us with the source name, country, year, and creator and a property release.

cascoly · « **Reply #3 on:** March 08, 2012, 16:21 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on March 08, 2012, 14:57

I had a blank steering wheel refused for possible copyright infringement.

Yes the Coast Guard cutter stood out, but that's civil (taxpayers own it) so maybe a note to the reviewer that it's public domain? Or maybe it refused for being that model of ship? I don't have a clue. Some rejections are a mystery.

Sorry to be no help, but if it makes you feel better, I've had things rejected for Must Be Editorial and weeks later had a similar shot refused for "does not need to be editorial".

This may help?

Do NOT submit public domain images as editorial. When submitting public domain images, submit them for commercial use and provide us with the source name, country, year, and creator and a property release.

?? how do you get a property release for a public domain image?

digitalexpressionimages · « **Reply #4 on:** March 08, 2012, 18:10 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on March 08, 2012, 14:57

I had a blank steering wheel refused for possible copyright infringement.

Yes the Coast Guard cutter stood out, but that's civil (taxpayers own it) so maybe a note to the reviewer that it's public domain? Or maybe it refused for being that model of ship? I don't have a clue. Some rejections are a mystery.

Sorry to be no help, but if it makes you feel better, I've had things rejected for Must Be Editorial and weeks later had a similar shot refused for "does not need to be editorial".

This may help?

Do NOT submit public domain images as editorial. When submitting public domain images, submit them for commercial use and provide us with the source name, country, year, and creator and a property release.

Rejections aren't really that much of a mystery. Reviewers are young dumb and full of ... doubts. They get 2 hours of training and the instruction "if in doubt: reject". I had an image that included a vector illustration of the earth composited in and it was rejected with the comment that the description needs to have "image elements provided by NASA". What??!!?! NASA owns the Earth? You have to credit NASA for including the shapes of continents? Why bother. If they reject, F&$% em.

Ed · « **Reply #5 on:** March 08, 2012, 20:05 »

I would say yes, editorial. It's recognizable as a U.S. Coast Guard Boat. No different than the U.S. Air Force Logo, Marines Logo, Army Logo, etc. Unfortunately, I would say that this needs to be an editorial image unless you can clone out the red stripe.

gostwyck · « **Reply #6 on:** March 08, 2012, 20:18 »

Their agency, their rules, their commercial risk and therefore their decision. If you don't like 'their rules' then start your own agency.

mtilghma · « **Reply #7 on:** March 08, 2012, 20:29 »

By all means, I agree. But to think that reviewer discretion does not enter into the decision is naive, and if a simple note and resubmit would elucidate them enough to change their decision, there's no reason I shouldn't investigate that. If indeed it was a rule though, like "no recognizable civil service vessels", of course I'm fine with that.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #8 on:** March 09, 2012, 10:21 »

Ok i have been through this before and here is something of interest.

Unlike works of the U.S. Government, works produced by contractors under government contracts (or submitted in anticipation of such contracts) are protected and restricted under U.S. copyright law.

Now here is a thread i started about it with some more info for those who care to read it.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=110200&highlight=army+vehicles

mtilghma · « **Reply #9 on:** March 09, 2012, 12:22 »

Hi Barry,

Yea you replied that to my same thread on SS, and I do think that was the correct/most helpful reply. After a short bit of research, I found exactly which vessel this was, and where it was built and by whom. It was built by derecktor shipyards, which after viewing their website, looks like a commercial company so I think that's my answer.

borg · « **Reply #10 on:** March 10, 2012, 16:57 »

They demanded this picture as an editorial!

But after I submitted it as editorial, it was rejected due to some technical reasons...

wut · « **Reply #11 on:** March 10, 2012, 17:45 »

Quote from: borg on March 10, 2012, 16:57

They demanded this picture as an editorial!

But after I submitted it as editorial, it was rejected due to some technical reasons...

Where was this taken, was it in Geneva?

borg · « **Reply #12 on:** March 11, 2012, 05:24 »

No! Liittle town Bakar, near Rijeka, North of Adriatic sea, Croatia, Europe...
This ice is frozen sea water during strong wind... It just begin of new ICE AGE!

wut · « **Reply #13 on:** March 11, 2012, 07:18 »

Quote from: borg on March 11, 2012, 05:24

No! Liittle town Bakar, near Rijeka, North of Adriatic sea, Croatia, Europe...
This ice is frozen sea water during strong wind... It just begin of new ICE AGE!

Wow, that's terrible. Another in a long line of proof that global warming is such BS and just a great way to make profit out of it

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: must this really be editorial? (Read 3808 times)

mtilghma

gemmy12

RacePhoto

cascoly

digitalexpressionimages

Ed

gostwyck

mtilghma

ruxpriencdiam

mtilghma

borg

wut

borg

wut

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors