Author Topic: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots (Read 28313 times)

marthamarks · « **Reply #100 on:** November 11, 2019, 16:54 »

Quote from: cascoly on November 11, 2019, 16:50

Quote from: marthamarks on November 11, 2019, 15:32

...
The part about my patience and cooperation being highly appreciated sounded promising, but I'm still waiting for an answer as to why of 2 of 11 videos submitted of the same state park were accepted while 9 were not, when none of them had a property release.
...

I've noticed similar silliness with images rejected fo ''press credentials', 'non-lic', etc while others from same shoot are accepted - my theory is that reviewers don't get the entire batch, so a submission can actually have several reviewers

That makes sense. Maybe one reviewer got the first 2 in my series and a different reviewer got the other 9.

I'm curious as to what might be going on behind the scenes right now. Will they back Reviewer #1 or Reviewer #2?

William Perry · « **Reply #101 on:** November 11, 2019, 17:24 »

I uploaded several times and because of the title issue rejected several times.

Then appealed and got the answer “Juanita” in Juanita Bay Park in Kirkland Washington was the reason.

So will try again and see what happens.

georgep7 · « **Reply #102 on:** November 12, 2019, 02:45 »

Quote

The part about my patience and cooperation being highly appreciated sounded promising

...like you can do anything else than waiting...

...highly appreciated.... duh!....

Best wishes that the issue will be resolved soon in your profit

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #103 on:** November 12, 2019, 09:30 »

Quote from: cascoly on November 11, 2019, 16:50

I've noticed similar silliness with images rejected fo ''press credentials', 'non-lic', etc while others from same shoot are accepted - my theory is that reviewers don't get the entire batch, so a submission can actually have several reviewers

Sounds logical, we do know that Editorial is reviewed by a different track than Commercial. FIFO by license type and content type, like video, illustration or photo.

Quote from: marthamarks on November 11, 2019, 16:54

I'm curious as to what might be going on behind the scenes right now. Will they back Reviewer #1 or Reviewer #2?

More likely that they will do nothing, they don't back reviewers and you'll probably get an answer like, we have looked into this, please re-submit. AKA lip service.

Quote from: cascoly on November 11, 2019, 15:01

I had images rejected for the title error - re-submitted, unchanged & all accepted, so it's the reviewers, not the rules (or, some/most reviewers are ignoring the rules)

Same for me, close. I had a rejection for title error (actually Description, but I'm ready to stop beating that point, until it comes around again?)

And I corrected it, uploaded, image accepted. Then when I was looking closer, I found the error, which I had not corrected. The word Background twice in the description.

I think without a doubt we've all confirmed that it's all about the reviewer and their understand of the rules, not the actual rules. Also in can be their understanding of words or English and how carefully they review.

I'd still contend that sometimes, when one of us gets a mixed review, for very similar wording or identical, one reviewer may have erred in accepting, while the other noticed the improper content or words and correctly rejected the upload. No one complains when we get something that's improper accepted?

The rules and the changes are such a mess, I think some reviewers just don't know all the nuances. We can expect that with humans, some are better and smarter and some are having a more difficult time remembering everything. And some are "mailing it in" for the money.

I wouldn't want their job.

marthamarks · « **Reply #104 on:** November 12, 2019, 10:19 »

My request for clarification from Shutterstock yesterday morning still has produced nothing but the following (probably worthless) back and forth with the "Contributor Care Team."

Here's the latest:

******* FROM ME:
Thank you for your reply yesterday morning. I was hoping to hear back from you by this morning. Maybe later today?

Last evening, I did a bit of research into my Shutterstock portfolio.

Over the last 3 years alone, Shutterstock has accepted my landscape stills and/or videos of the following (clearly identified) public lands, **all of them without property releases.**

FEDERAL
Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuge (NV) NOTE: In the last few days, 3 stills were accepted (1555068938, 1555068932, 1555068929). 1 4K video was rejected solely for lack of a property release (1040658215) before it was accepted (as 1040693750).

Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area (NV)
Lake Mead National Recreation Area (NV)
Gold Butte National Monument (NV)
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park (CO)
Rocky Mountain National Park (CO)
Browns Canyon National Wildlife Refuge (CO)
Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge (CO)
Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge (CO)
Colorado National Monument (CO)
Wichita Mountains National Wildlife Refuge (OK)
Vernal National Wildlife Refuge (UT)
Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge (UT)
Organ Mountains Desert Peaks National Monument (NM)
Carson National Forest (NM)
Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge (NM)
Pecos National Historical Park (NM)
Rio Grande del Norte National Monument (NM)
Painted Desert National Monument (AZ)
Saguaro National Park (AZ)
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (AZ)
Wupati National Monument (AZ)
Sunset Crater National Monument (AZ)
Sabino Canyon Recreation Area, Coronado National Forest (AZ)
Chiricahua Mts. / Coronado National Forest (AZ)
Haleakala National Park (HI)
Necedah National Wildlife Refuge (WI)
Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge (IN)

STATE
Beaver Dam State Park (NV) NOTE: In the last few days, Shutterstock accepted 10 stills & 2 4K videos and rejected 9 4K videos solely for lack of property releases.

Echo Canyon State Park (NV)
Valley of Fire State Park (NV)
Spring Mountain Ranch State Park (NV)
Cathedral Gorge State Park (NV)
Kershaw-Ryan State Park (NV)
Antelope Island State Park (UT)
Moraine Hills State Park (IL)
Chain O’ Lakes State Park (IL)
Dead Horse Ranch State Park (AZ)
Homolovi State Park (AZ)
Kerrville-Schreiner State Park (TX)
Guadalupe River State Park (TX)
Los Maples State Natural Area (TX)
Enchanted Rock State Natural Area (TX)
City of Rocks State Park (NM)
Oliver Lee Memorial State Park (NM)
Coller State Wildlife Area (CO)
Great Plains State Park (OK)

COUNTY OR TRIBAL
Tucson Mountain Park (AZ)
Goose Island County Park (WI)
Several Lake County Forest Preserves (IL)
Monument Valley Tribal Park (Navajo Reservation, AZ)
Little Painted Desert (Hopi Reservation, AZ)

I can’t understand how all these thousands of images and videos were acceptable before but would not be acceptable now. Still hoping for clarity on this matter.

My process of uploading and submitting recent images and videos from a recent trip is on hold until I understand if it’s worth the bother.

Thank you.

Martha Marks
Contributor since 2009

******* FROM A DIFFERENT "TEAM MEMBER":

Thank you for your response. The issue related to the rejection of your images has already been forwarded to our dedicated team by our previous agent. Once there is an update, we will inform you with the resolution.

******* FROM ME AGAIN:

Perhaps you can share my reply this morning with your dedicated team since that long list of previously accepted stills and videos from public lands does seem highly relevant to the question at hand.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #105 on:** November 12, 2019, 14:58 »

I'm not sure I would be drawing attention to those images as you might find them deleted. In the UK the National Trust for example became much most active in enforcing their "rights" and as a result many of us have had related images removed. The rules on what is admissable seem to get stricter all the time.

marthamarks · « **Reply #106 on:** November 12, 2019, 15:20 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on November 12, 2019, 14:58

I'm not sure I would be drawing attention to those images as you might find them deleted. In the UK the National Trust for example became much most active in enforcing their "rights" and as a result many of us have had related images removed. The rules on what is admissable seem to get stricter all the time.

Yeah, I did think of that. However, I don't believe most public lands in the US are off limits to the kind of photography I do. For a major film shoot with trucks filled with crew, actors, and equipment, of course, they would require permits. But for an old lady stealthily shooting birds, critters, and landscapes near her car on the main road, it seems draconian.

If this backfires, however, I'll just happily "retire" from active duty at SS, which is far from my main source of income.

Funny thing… if I didn't identify the locations by name, nobody at SS would ever know. Maybe from now on I'll write descriptions like: "Beautiful red rocks at unknown location in the American Southwest" or "Herd of Bighorn Sheep alongside a large petroglyph rock in No Man's Land, USA."

Wonder what the reaction to that would be? LOL

Pauws99 · « **Reply #107 on:** November 12, 2019, 15:47 »

In the UK theres a surprising number of restrictions - National Trust as I said, Royal Parks and much of London is privately owned such as Canary Wharf. I was very dissapointed when they started rejecting National Trust properties. I believe some people have had ones taken on National Parks removed which are not actually private property but areas with strict planning controls!

marthamarks · « **Reply #108 on:** November 12, 2019, 17:38 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on November 12, 2019, 15:47

In the UK theres a surprising number of restrictions - National Trust as I said, Royal Parks and much of London is privately owned such as Canary Wharf. I was very dissapointed when they started rejecting National Trust properties. I believe some people have had ones taken on National Parks removed which are not actually private property but areas with strict planning controls!

We have so much public land, and so many different legal entities in control of them, that I suspect it's different here from the UK.

FWIW… today AS accepted all 9 of the Beaver Dam State Park videos that SS rejected. I'm happy about that, and even tho SS has yet to provide a final decision, I have a feeling they will ultimately accept them too. They're nice 4k clips the likes of which I didn't find in the SS collection before submitting mine.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #109 on:** November 13, 2019, 09:07 »

Quote from: marthamarks on November 12, 2019, 17:38

Quote from: Pauws99 on November 12, 2019, 15:47
In the UK theres a surprising number of restrictions - National Trust as I said, Royal Parks and much of London is privately owned such as Canary Wharf. I was very dissapointed when they started rejecting National Trust properties. I believe some people have had ones taken on National Parks removed which are not actually private property but areas with strict planning controls!

We have so much public land, and so many different legal entities in control of them, that I suspect it's different here from the UK.

FWIW… today AS accepted all 9 of the Beaver Dam State Park videos that SS rejected. I'm happy about that, and even tho SS has yet to provide a final decision, I have a feeling they will ultimately accept them too. They're nice 4k clips the likes of which I didn't find in the SS collection before submitting mine.

NT and Heritage and the rest are grabbing for money, and that's why they are claiming rights. That started with no video allowed and moved to no photos for commercial purposes. You can take them, you can't market them. Oh unless you are standing off the property. The way I understand it, many of the sites and agencies that preserve in the UK are NOT government funded.

Martha is correct. US public lands are public, owned my the taxpayers (and everyone else I suppose). The restrictions are for commercial productions, film, marketing, advertising. Mostly the permission has to do with paying for a permit. That also includes, no interfering with other visitors.

If you want to shoot your wedding, reunion, whatever, you need a permit. If you want to use lights, multiple tripods, crew, dollies, tracks... you get the idea, you need a permit.

Taking photos in the National Parks and Historic Sites that are Government owned, unless the individual site has specific regulations, are perfectly legal.

This is a really good review:

https://www.backpacker.com/skills/9-things-you-need-to-know-about-national-park-photography-rules

The problem is individual interpretation, but the bottom line is, personal use is fine, commercial needs a permit. But at the end it also says this, and I'll add the emphasis, from an attorney:

Maybe you get lucky and end up getting a photo printed in BACKPACKER. Do you need a permit then? Dickinson says no. “Generally, a photo that runs in Backpacker would not have required a permit to shoot unless it involved a model, set, or prop,” she says. The same applies to someone who makes their own greeting cards with photos from public lands or other similar hobbies. “The permit requirement for still photography is based on the activity that is taking place on federal lands, as opposed to what is going to be done with the photo once it is complete.”

Last of all, any photo agency can make their own rules, ShutterStock has done that and changed them over time. If SS decides they used to accept National Park photos, and in 2019 decided, they don't, that's the way the rules roll. Fortunately, except for cases where the site or subject claims copyright or some other infringement, Disney for example, SS will not remove older accepted photos and video. They will only reject new submissions.

I hope that adds something, and the source is an attorney not someone on a forum who thinks they have the answer. The real answer is "it depends", but the final answer is, we are legally allowed to use our photos for stock subjects.

marthamarks · « **Reply #110 on:** November 13, 2019, 12:04 »

Thank you, Uncle Pete. You've reaffirmed my understanding of US public-land policies.

BTW, this morning Adobe Stock accepted a couple dozen more new 4Ks of Nevada's state and federal lands that I haven't yet submitted to Shutterstock, because I'm still waiting, two days later, for SS's reply to my previous complaint.

Meanwhile, AS will get to review lots more nice 4Ks from Nevada and Arizona.

jonbull · « **Reply #111 on:** November 13, 2019, 13:08 »

i uploaded a series about sex an sexualize society, with still life of sex toys also, and they rejectd for Objectionable Content ....while the database has more than 15000 images with sex toys, why they rejected it? are they near trumpism catholic bigotism? feel more and more ashamed to work in such environment and companies,......realy i hope soon they all failed so some new subject will arise to clean the stock industry.

jonbull · « **Reply #112 on:** November 13, 2019, 13:09 »

Quote from: jonbull on November 13, 2019, 13:08

i uploaded a series about sex an sexualize society, with still life of sex toys also, and they rejectd for Objectionable Content ....while the database has more than 15000 images with sex toys, why they rejected it? are they near trumpism catholic bigotism? feel more and more ashamed to work in such environment and companies,......realy i hope soon they all failed so some new subject will arise to clean the stock industry.
[/quote

correction...they blocked anal plug but let in other anal toys...i thought it was the anal part the problem but actually not.

trabuco · « **Reply #113 on:** November 13, 2019, 14:22 »

It's a nightmare SS now.

Whiskybottle · « **Reply #114 on:** November 13, 2019, 16:52 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on November 12, 2019, 14:58

I'm not sure I would be drawing attention to those images as you might find them deleted. In the UK the National Trust for example became much most active in enforcing their "rights" and as a result many of us have had related images removed. The rules on what is admissable seem to get stricter all the time.

Well National Trust shot them selves in the foot with me a long time ago. I still take photos on 'their natural properties' (coastline for example) but I don't pay their membership or use their car parks which I would otherwise have done. Even had their reps try to tell me they're not anti-photographers any more... too late, your loss.

Back to SS. Resubmitted a batch of rejections, got about 60-70% through. They were being accepted/rejected real time as I submitted, no way did they get into someones work queue. Automated process like spell checker of description (latin plant names, Scottish hill names etc), similar content on one image, similar to what? too quick to check back content, keyword or colour matching?

Note English spelling of Colour

trabuco · « **Reply #115 on:** November 13, 2019, 17:18 »

It's a program. The same one on SS and BS.

Can't find how to skip it, but I'm still learning.

Computers are stupid.

cascoly · « **Reply #116 on:** November 13, 2019, 18:15 »

Quote from: trabuco on November 13, 2019, 17:18

It's a program. The same one on SS and BS.

Can't find how to skip it, but I'm still learning.

Computers are stupid.

if it were a computer results wouldn't vary - we've shown that's not the case

pancaketom · « **Reply #117 on:** November 13, 2019, 18:43 »

Quote from: cascoly on November 13, 2019, 18:15

Quote from: trabuco on November 13, 2019, 17:18
It's a program. The same one on SS and BS.

Can't find how to skip it, but I'm still learning.

Computers are stupid.

if it were a computer results wouldn't vary - we've shown that's not the case

unless it is doing some sort of machine learning - where it does change over time.

marthamarks · « **Reply #118 on:** November 13, 2019, 18:58 »

Quote from: cascoly on November 13, 2019, 18:15

if it were a computer results wouldn't vary - we've shown that's not the case

I have to believe reviewers are real people, at least those working on videos.

Otherwise, why would they accept a whole batch of stills and 1 video of a specific named place without property releases and reject the rest of the videos of the identical named place for that precise reason?

Only humans are consistently inconsistent. Computers generally are not.

trabuco · « **Reply #119 on:** November 14, 2019, 02:05 »

I talk about pictures.

I have no doubt for the last rejection. The program said "non licensable content" on both sites for a batch of 25. It was a just problematic word, because I have pictures from the same place uploaded and sold a month ago.

So, I removed the word and tried just one picture again on both sites.

The picture is rejected now for out of focus on both sites, nothing about "non licensable content".

It's very easy to realize that It's a program.

trabuco · « **Reply #120 on:** November 14, 2019, 02:08 »

I'm sure that SS, BS and AS are using programs to review the pictures. Maybe humans too, maybe a mixed system.

No doubt about it.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #121 on:** November 14, 2019, 02:56 »

Quote from: trabuco on November 14, 2019, 02:05

I talk about pictures.

I have no doubt for the last rejection. The program said "non licensable content" on both sites for a batch of 25. It was a just problematic word, because I have pictures from the same place uploaded and sold a month ago.

So, I removed the word and tried just one picture again on both sites.

The picture is rejected now for out of focus on both sites, nothing about "non licensable content".

It's very easy to realize that It's a program.

I don't see any evidence one way or the other. Shutterstock have always rejected only on the first reason they spot since I can remember. Similarly on every site there have been complaints about inconsistent reviews since the start.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #122 on:** November 14, 2019, 02:58 »

Quote from: Whiskybottle on November 13, 2019, 16:52

Quote from: Pauws99 on November 12, 2019, 14:58
I'm not sure I would be drawing attention to those images as you might find them deleted. In the UK the National Trust for example became much most active in enforcing their "rights" and as a result many of us have had related images removed. The rules on what is admissable seem to get stricter all the time.

Well National Trust shot them selves in the foot with me a long time ago. I still take photos on 'their natural properties' (coastline for example) but I don't pay their membership or use their car parks which I would otherwise have done. Even had their reps try to tell me they're not anti-photographers any more... too late, your loss.

Back to SS. Resubmitted a batch of rejections, got about 60-70% through. They were being accepted/rejected real time as I submitted, no way did they get into someones work queue. Automated process like spell checker of description (latin plant names, Scottish hill names etc), similar content on one image, similar to what? too quick to check back content, keyword or colour matching?

Note English spelling of Colour

Even pictures of sites such as "Old Harry" rocks get rejected sometimes....when taken from a boat!

Visualab · « **Reply #123 on:** November 14, 2019, 04:18 »

Quote from: marthamarks on November 11, 2019, 15:32

Quote from: Uncle Pete on November 11, 2019, 08:33
Martha's kinder version of idiots or stupid, GRP = "Goofy Reviewer Problem.

I'm happy to add a new acronym, GRP, to the MSG vocabulary!

This morning, I got the following response back from the Shutterstock Contributor Care Team:

Hi Martha,

We will reach out to the review manager regarding the content in question and get back to you as soon as possible. Should you need any further information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Your patience and cooperation would be highly appreciated.

The part about my patience and cooperation being highly appreciated sounded promising, but I'm still waiting for an answer as to why of 2 of 11 videos submitted of the same state park were accepted while 9 were not, when none of them had a property release.

I'll post an update when I have one.

Good luck...
I"ve been waiting months...still not response...

marthamarks · « **Reply #124 on:** November 14, 2019, 05:17 »

Quote from: Visualab on November 14, 2019, 04:18

Quote from: marthamarks on November 11, 2019, 15:32
Quote from: Uncle Pete on November 11, 2019, 08:33
Martha's kinder version of idiots or stupid, GRP = "Goofy Reviewer Problem.

I'm happy to add a new acronym, GRP, to the MSG vocabulary!

This morning, I got the following response back from the Shutterstock Contributor Care Team:

Hi Martha,

We will reach out to the review manager regarding the content in question and get back to you as soon as possible. Should you need any further information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Your patience and cooperation would be highly appreciated.

The part about my patience and cooperation being highly appreciated sounded promising, but I'm still waiting for an answer as to why of 2 of 11 videos submitted of the same state park were accepted while 9 were not, when none of them had a property release.

I'll post an update when I have one.

Good luck...
I"ve been waiting months...still not response...

FUNNY!!! What perfect timing that you wrote that just now because…

I just now got the following email from SS:

************
We'd love to hear your opinion!

Hello,

We'd love to hear about your recent Contributor Care experience with us. Take this quick survey and tell us your thoughts. Your feedback will help us provide the best possible service to all our customers.

How knowledgeable did you find the representative that you worked with?
Extremely Knowledgeable
Very Knowledgeable
Somewhat Knowledgeable
Not Very Knowledgeable
Not At All Knowledgeable

Thank you,
Shutterstock
************

Of course, I have not yet had any resolution to my issue. It must be one heckuva tough problem for them to address.

I just forwarded the questionnaire on to the 2 "contributor care" representatives who have responded to me this week, with this note:

************
Hello, Abhay and Divya,

After four days of waiting, I have had no response from the “dedicated team” at Shutterstock.

But still, I just received the following email questionnaire from Shutterstock.

How do you suggest I reply to it??

Martha

************

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots (Read 28313 times)

marthamarks

William Perry

georgep7

Uncle Pete

marthamarks

Pauws99

marthamarks

Pauws99

marthamarks

Uncle Pete

marthamarks

jonbull

jonbull

trabuco

Whiskybottle

trabuco

cascoly

pancaketom

marthamarks

trabuco

trabuco

Pauws99

Pauws99

Visualab

marthamarks

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors