Author Topic: SS no longer accepts non-newsworthy editorial? (Read 7352 times)

cascoly · « **on:** March 15, 2012, 16:30 »

for a long time, SS had been rejecting just about all editorials if they were not 'news worthy', even though they specifically said that editorial includes more than that

now it seems, rather than train their reviewers, they're just bulk rejecting as 'limited commercial value' since that can't be re-submitted

anyone else experiencing similar problems? as usual, these same images have been accepted & sold elsewhere as editorial

in a way i prefer it this way, since my earlier editorial images at SS continue to sell fine, and now there wont be any competition!

luissantos84 · « **Reply #1 on:** March 15, 2012, 16:38 »

make pretty descriptions, it works for me

velocicarpo · « **Reply #2 on:** March 15, 2012, 16:59 »

Shutterstocks concept of editorial is a total mess. Sometimes I am under the impression that the reviewers simply do not understand what it is and means. I fail to see any pattern or logic behind their methods. Another "gambling" factor in the stock industry. I will too try Luissantos hint...

Paulo M. F. Pires · « **Reply #3 on:** March 15, 2012, 17:06 »

Only had rejections because "caption issue"... after change it, they all got accepted.

Carl · « **Reply #4 on:** March 15, 2012, 22:50 »

I had this very thing happen to me yesterday, which I found rather odd, given the fact that I have other editorial photos in my SS portfolio that aren't newsworthy, such as shots of a tourist attraction in south Florida. DT gave me the same response. Is there another site that accepts general editorial that's not late-breaking news?

mantonino · « **Reply #5 on:** March 16, 2012, 00:02 »

Linking it to news isn't very difficult for really any topic. My friend does photos at MLB parks. He writes "such & such is the home of MLB's ...whoever" and it always gets accepted at SS.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #6 on:** March 16, 2012, 04:05 »

Quote from: csproductions on March 15, 2012, 22:50

Is there another site that accepts general editorial that's not late-breaking news?

Alamy - very few sales but at decent prices. For editorial I reckon that's better than SS (who don't have a clue of what editorial means) or other micros, where you are also likely to get few sales but at low prices.

heywoody · « **Reply #7 on:** March 16, 2012, 04:25 »

I don't do editorial but DT seems to view it as RF but with trademarks allowed...

Paulo M. F. Pires · « **Reply #8 on:** March 16, 2012, 04:31 »

Quote from: csproductions on March 15, 2012, 22:50

Is there another site that accepts general editorial that's not late-breaking news?

BS ( not it depends how much You sell other types there ), Depositphotos ( good ), 123RF... and few some low earners.

In my case is irrelevant by now ), because only SS make regular sales over my editorial port ( some times "daily" and 4~5 images each time ). DT could be a good seller if they forget about "series" things.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #9 on:** March 16, 2012, 04:37 »

Quote from: heywoody on March 16, 2012, 04:25

I don't do editorial but DT seems to view it as RF but with trademarks allowed...

RF is a license type, editorial is a usage type. All the micros that offer editorial are selling it as RF with trademarks allowed.

ShadySue · « **Reply #10 on:** March 16, 2012, 06:16 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 16, 2012, 04:05

Quote from: csproductions on March 15, 2012, 22:50
Is there another site that accepts general editorial that's not late-breaking news?
Alamy - very few sales but at decent prices.

And sometimes surprisingly low prices - I had one this week for $7.25 gross: but the good news is:
1. Still more to me than I'd have got from iS for a Sm, and a LOT more than someone would have got at SS.
2. They've used it on two different web pages, and as it's RM, they have to pay twice.

But yes, generally around or above iS's EL for uses that would seldom require an EL on a micro.

heywoody · « **Reply #11 on:** March 16, 2012, 07:53 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 16, 2012, 04:37

Quote from: heywoody on March 16, 2012, 04:25
I don't do editorial but DT seems to view it as RF but with trademarks allowed...

RF is a license type, editorial is a usage type. All the micros that offer editorial are selling it as RF with trademarks allowed.

True - just referring to apparent acceptance policy, i.e. seems no requirement to be newsworthy.

BikeTourist · « **Reply #12 on:** March 16, 2012, 08:20 »

Yes, editorial has always been a moving target with SS as with all the others. In fairness, they are dealing with laws wordwide that differ markedly. I have often said that the past greats of photojournalism would be turned down flat if they had submitted to the microstocks in this age. Much of their content was human interest — definitely not newsworthy. Not to mention the obvious film grain, the dramatic backlighting and so forth.

But, I like it and will continue to sumit editorial. It's a crapshoot.

cascoly · « **Reply #13 on:** March 16, 2012, 11:38 »

Quote from: csproductions on March 15, 2012, 22:50

I had this very thing happen to me yesterday, which I found rather odd, given the fact that I have other editorial photos in my SS portfolio that aren't newsworthy, such as shots of a tourist attraction in south Florida. DT gave me the same response. Is there another site that accepts general editorial that's not late-breaking news?

DT accepts most of the editorials that SS rejects

123, Yay, Most, & BS also accept most editorials as do superhug and isign

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #14 on:** March 16, 2012, 12:40 »

Quote from: heywoody on March 16, 2012, 07:53

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 16, 2012, 04:37
Quote from: heywoody on March 16, 2012, 04:25
I don't do editorial but DT seems to view it as RF but with trademarks allowed...

RF is a license type, editorial is a usage type. All the micros that offer editorial are selling it as RF with trademarks allowed.
True - just referring to apparent acceptance policy, i.e. seems no requirement to be newsworthy.

Which means they got it right. Microstock editorial is never going to be about news, it's all about feature articles which need photos that show reality. In any case I still favour Alamy for that. It's a total waste putting real news photos that will be out of date tomorrow on a microstock site.

Perry · « **Reply #15 on:** March 16, 2012, 15:18 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 16, 2012, 12:40

Microstock editorial is never going to be about news, it's all about feature articles which need photos that show reality.

Why does the microstock sites have such a hard time understanding this...

heywoody · « **Reply #16 on:** March 16, 2012, 16:08 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 16, 2012, 12:40

Quote from: heywoody on March 16, 2012, 07:53
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 16, 2012, 04:37
Quote from: heywoody on March 16, 2012, 04:25
I don't do editorial but DT seems to view it as RF but with trademarks allowed...

RF is a license type, editorial is a usage type. All the micros that offer editorial are selling it as RF with trademarks allowed.
True - just referring to apparent acceptance policy, i.e. seems no requirement to be newsworthy.

Again agreed - the only point I was makng was that it seems like a good home for non-newsworthy editorial shots that don't get past reviewers elsewhere

Which means they got it right. Microstock editorial is never going to be about news, it's all about feature articles which need photos that show reality. In any case I still favour Alamy for that. It's a total waste putting real news photos that will be out of date tomorrow on a microstock site.

mantonino · « **Reply #17 on:** March 17, 2012, 17:34 »

What sites accept editorial:

http://microstockinsider.com/agencies_that_accept_editorial_images

Also, Demotix, Alamy ... maybe more?

RacePhoto · « **Reply #18 on:** March 17, 2012, 20:14 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 15, 2012, 16:38

make pretty descriptions, it works for me

Always present tense. Never Past Tense.

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #19 on:** March 17, 2012, 23:12 »

I have never had a "not newsworthy" rejection on SS so far, but have had some rejected for captions (revised and resubmitted). However, yesterday I had a batch of ten all rejected on BigStock for "not newsworthy". Not sure if that is a new policy for them or just a rogue reviewer. The same batch was reviewed the same day on SS and had no problem except for a couple with caption issues. So it sounds like the issue is reviewer inconsistency rather than a new policy on SS (and hopefully BS as well).

cascoly · « **Reply #20 on:** March 18, 2012, 13:47 »

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on March 17, 2012, 23:12

I have never had a "not newsworthy" rejection on SS so far, but have had some rejected for captions (revised and resubmitted). However, yesterday I had a batch of ten all rejected on BigStock for "not newsworthy". Not sure if that is a new policy for them or just a rogue reviewer. The same batch was reviewed the same day on SS and had no problem except for a couple with caption issues. So it sounds like the issue is reviewer inconsistency rather than a new policy on SS (and hopefully BS as well).

on Big it is inconsisentcy, but on SS it's more than just rogue reviewers - my captions conform to SS nitpicking caption riles

it just defies coincidence to think that entire batches can be rejected for "not newsworthy" or LCV when other sites disagree

what subject matter are you submitting to SS? my images are street scenes & other daily life, active non-models, often with trademasrks such as automobiles, street advertising, etc

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #21 on:** March 19, 2012, 23:13 »

Quote from: cascoly on March 18, 2012, 13:47

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on March 17, 2012, 23:12
I have never had a "not newsworthy" rejection on SS so far, but have had some rejected for captions (revised and resubmitted). However, yesterday I had a batch of ten all rejected on BigStock for "not newsworthy". Not sure if that is a new policy for them or just a rogue reviewer. The same batch was reviewed the same day on SS and had no problem except for a couple with caption issues. So it sounds like the issue is reviewer inconsistency rather than a new policy on SS (and hopefully BS as well).

on Big it is inconsisentcy, but on SS it's more than just rogue reviewers - my captions conform to SS nitpicking caption riles

it just defies coincidence to think that entire batches can be rejected for "not newsworthy" or LCV when other sites disagree

what subject matter are you submitting to SS? my images are street scenes & other daily life, active non-models, often with trademasrks such as automobiles, street advertising, etc

Mine are similar. Just had three with the "not newsworthy" rejection. Maybe with the others that were accepted I did a better job of tying the caption into a news event. In the future I might just save the trouble and send them all to Alamy instead...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: SS no longer accepts non-newsworthy editorial? (Read 7352 times)

cascoly

luissantos84

velocicarpo

Paulo M. F. Pires

Carl

mantonino

BaldricksTrousers

heywoody

Paulo M. F. Pires

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

heywoody

BikeTourist

cascoly

BaldricksTrousers

Perry

heywoody

mantonino

RacePhoto

sgoodwin4813

cascoly

sgoodwin4813

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors