Author Topic: SS keep rejectiong for editorial caption (Read 2986 times)

TonyD · « **on:** June 27, 2023, 14:34 »

I've no idea why but I GIVE UP. SS is up to its old tricks again. I've always written this ' editorial caption' correctly & have no idea how to do it differently yet they are rejecting it straight away. They rejected 3 others the same way for the 2nd time. Maybe they are getting fussy about editorial now.

kuriouskat · « **Reply #1 on:** June 27, 2023, 15:01 »

You need to add the day. They changed the rules recently, I believe.

TonyD · « **Reply #2 on:** June 27, 2023, 16:09 »

Quote from: KuriousKat on June 27, 2023, 15:01

You need to add the day. They changed the rules recently, I believe.

Oh great, I used to put the actual date but at least I still have those.

KimC · « **Reply #3 on:** June 28, 2023, 01:11 »

Quote from: TonyD on June 27, 2023, 16:09

Quote from: KuriousKat on June 27, 2023, 15:01
You need to add the day. They changed the rules recently, I believe.
Oh great, I used to put the actual date but at least I still have those.

The editorial caption is like the Unix command prompt in old days. The syntax must be 100%

gnirtS · « **Reply #4 on:** June 28, 2023, 02:03 »

At least with command prompts, if you get them correct they work every time.

Shutterstock, not so much.

Her Ugliness · « **Reply #5 on:** June 28, 2023, 04:48 »

Did they also change something about requirements for model releases? I just got an image rejected for missing model release - All that was visible of a human on the photo was a piece of a (my) forearm.

Never had a problem getting images approved without a model relase before that just had random body parts like hands or arms in them before, and, quite honestly - I don't feel like Shutterstock is worth the effort to create a model release just for an arm.

kuriouskat · « **Reply #6 on:** June 28, 2023, 05:07 »

Quote from: Her Ugliness on June 28, 2023, 04:48

Did they also change something about requirements for model releases? I just got an image rejected for missing model release - All that was visible of a human on the photo was a piece of a (my) forearm.

Never had a problem getting images approved without a model relase before that just had random body parts like hands or arms in them before, and, quite honestly - I don't feel like Shutterstock is worth the effort to create a model release just for an arm.

Current FAQs say this:

When is a Model Release Required?

Generally speaking, a model release is required when commercial content depicts:

A recognizable person
A body part of an unrecognizable model with a visible tattoo
Nude models or models who are part of a sexually suggestive concept, including unrecognizable models
Illustrations, vectors, or animations created in the likeness of actual people

Was there a tattoo?

If not, it's probably a mistake.

TonyD · « **Reply #7 on:** June 28, 2023, 07:20 »

Quote from: KuriousKat on June 27, 2023, 15:01

You need to add the day. They changed the rules recently, I believe.

yes, I added the day & they've now all been accepted straight away so it's automated. Some other photos have even been accepted for 'data license'

KimC · « **Reply #8 on:** June 28, 2023, 10:44 »

Quote from: gnirtS on June 28, 2023, 02:03

At least with command prompts, if you get them correct they work every time.

Shutterstock, not so much.

It could easily be that the editorial caption is machine-checked before the image is passed on to a reviewer.

The caption seen in this actual case does not meet these standards. And got rejected.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: SS keep rejectiong for editorial caption (Read 2986 times)

TonyD

kuriouskat

TonyD

KimC

gnirtS

Her Ugliness

kuriouskat

TonyD

KimC

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors