Author Topic: Now accepting: "illustrative" editorial images (Read 19007 times)

nicku · « **Reply #25 on:** January 06, 2014, 07:31 »

Quote from: Ron on January 06, 2014, 06:39

Quote from: nicku on January 06, 2014, 06:36
Quote from: Ron on January 06, 2014, 03:44
SS does not accept PD images.

I really want to hear an official answer... No, or Yes under certain conditions.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml#Does%20Shutterstock%20accept%20Public%20Domain%20content?

No.

you are right in case of RF public domain images.... but editorial? under SS new editorial rule?

Ron · « **Reply #26 on:** January 06, 2014, 08:19 »

Editorial is RF too. Did you read the explanation as to why they dont accept PD? Its about copyright, editorial status doesnt wave copyright.

zeamonkey · « **Reply #27 on:** January 07, 2014, 22:36 »

I just got my first rejection for not following editorial guidelines.

Can someone please tell me what is wrong with this caption:

BANGKOK, THAILAND – DECEMBER 19, 2013: Asian man walking up the stairs to Siam Square BTS station talking in mobile phone.

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #28 on:** January 07, 2014, 23:53 »

I'm not sure if they want the comma after the date, although I haven't submitted any editorial under the new policies. It doesn't sound very newsworthy either but there probably is a separate rejection for that.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #29 on:** January 08, 2014, 01:26 »

Maybe they won't accept editorial of single people walking up steps because they think you could easily have got a model released version.

zeamonkey · « **Reply #30 on:** January 08, 2014, 01:37 »

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on January 07, 2014, 23:53

I'm not sure if they want the comma after the date, although I haven't submitted any editorial under the new policies. It doesn't sound very newsworthy either but there probably is a separate rejection for that.

Illustrative editorial is not supposed to be newsworty...

I have loads of similar editorials on different topics with single people on SS where this was no issue.

Besides, the rejection was for not following the guidelines.....

JPSDK · « **Reply #31 on:** January 08, 2014, 01:47 »

BANGKOK, THAILAND – December 19, 2013: Asian man walking up the stairs to Siam Square BTS station talking in mobile phone.
in stead of

BANGKOK, THAILAND – DECEMBER 19, 2013: Asian man walking up the stairs to Siam Square BTS station talking in mobile phone.

zeamonkey · « **Reply #32 on:** January 08, 2014, 02:00 »

Quote from: JPSDK on January 08, 2014, 01:47

BANGKOK, THAILAND – December 19, 2013: Asian man walking up the stairs to Siam Square BTS station talking in mobile phone.
in stead of

BANGKOK, THAILAND – DECEMBER 19, 2013: Asian man walking up the stairs to Siam Square BTS station talking in mobile phone.

So what you are saying is that the example from SS website is wrong?

"KIEV, UKRAINE – OCTOBER 06, 2011: Photo of a Apple iPad device, showing the apple.com homepage featuring the image of Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple Computer, who died at age 56. Processed in B&W."

JPSDK · « **Reply #33 on:** January 08, 2014, 02:23 »

I dont know, Im just trying to help, and I got mine in with that sort of caption.

Ron · « **Reply #34 on:** January 08, 2014, 03:51 »

Maybe its the grammar, are you talking in mobile phone or are you using a mobile phone

JPSDK · « **Reply #35 on:** January 08, 2014, 05:15 »

then it would be:
Asian man walking up the stairs to Siam Square BTS station, while he is talking on his mobile phone.

zeamonkey · « **Reply #36 on:** January 08, 2014, 05:29 »

Wish they would be a bit more specific in their rejections, especially with new guidelines. Its all guesswork now. I have lots of editorials on SS and never had any rejected for any reason before.

Red Dove · « **Reply #37 on:** January 08, 2014, 07:28 »

Can you show a thumbnail? Could be they need more detail. What does BTS stand for? Is the man actually talking on the mobile phone? With editorial you have to be specific and not speculate so "using" or "holding" a mobile phone might be better.

Also, I'm not sure if this is "illustrative editorial" since I read that as being for products and objects in isolation or as the main subject of an image. Anyway, to be on the safe side I would make it newsworthy eg. how many mobiles are in use in Thailand, or how many people use the Siam Square transport system

Ron · « **Reply #38 on:** January 08, 2014, 08:37 »

If you submit as illustrative editorial, you cant have a newsworthy caption, it needs to describe the contents of the image. If its regular editorial, it can only be a newsworthy caption.

txking · « **Reply #39 on:** January 08, 2014, 20:30 »

Quote from: Ron on January 06, 2014, 06:39

Quote from: nicku on January 06, 2014, 06:36
Quote from: Ron on January 06, 2014, 03:44
SS does not accept PD images.

I really want to hear an official answer... No, or Yes under certain conditions.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml#Does%20Shutterstock%20accept%20Public%20Domain%20content?

No.

But at the same time NASA public domain pictures are ok
http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/legal/stock-photo-restrictions

"NASA (including Visible Earth)
•An online catalog of NASA images and animations.
•Submitted content that incorporates NASA elements/imagery must contain the following text in the title: “Elements of this image furnished by NASA”"

Yet in the same posting they put
"Public Domain Content
•We do not accept public domain content, including but not limited to scans of or head-on photographs of public domain artwork. We also do not accept public domain footage."

What makes NASA stuff ok but the rest of the PD content not? don't get me wrong I would like them to keep the ability to use NASA images just seems weird to me.

zeamonkey · « **Reply #40 on:** January 08, 2014, 23:06 »

Quote from: Ron on January 08, 2014, 08:37

If you submit as illustrative editorial, you cant have a newsworthy caption, it needs to describe the contents of the image. If its regular editorial, it can only be a newsworthy caption.

Guess ill have to look at whats accepted to get a clue...

SS support was very helpful:

Thank you for contacting us.

Shutterstock has a new editorial guidelines. You may find this link helpful.
http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/announcing-shutterstocks-new-editorial-guidelines

If you have any further questions please don't hesitate to contact us.

Ron · « **Reply #41 on:** January 09, 2014, 03:20 »

Quote from: txking on January 08, 2014, 20:30

Quote from: Ron on January 06, 2014, 06:39
Quote from: nicku on January 06, 2014, 06:36
Quote from: Ron on January 06, 2014, 03:44
SS does not accept PD images.

I really want to hear an official answer... No, or Yes under certain conditions.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml#Does%20Shutterstock%20accept%20Public%20Domain%20content?

No.

But at the same time NASA public domain pictures are ok
http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/legal/stock-photo-restrictions

"NASA (including Visible Earth)
•An online catalog of NASA images and animations.
•Submitted content that incorporates NASA elements/imagery must contain the following text in the title: “Elements of this image furnished by NASA”"

Yet in the same posting they put
"Public Domain Content
•We do not accept public domain content, including but not limited to scans of or head-on photographs of public domain artwork. We also do not accept public domain footage."

What makes NASA stuff ok but the rest of the PD content not? don't get me wrong I would like them to keep the ability to use NASA images just seems weird to me.

As far as I know, they dont accept NASA images in full, it need to be incorporated in the image. Like so

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Now accepting: "illustrative" editorial images (Read 19007 times)

nicku

Ron

zeamonkey

sgoodwin4813

BaldricksTrousers

zeamonkey

JPSDK

zeamonkey

JPSDK

Ron

JPSDK

zeamonkey

Red Dove

Ron

txking

zeamonkey

Ron

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors