Author Topic: Strange rules/rejection at SS (Read 17392 times)

Wim · « **Reply #25 on:** June 04, 2012, 12:14 »

Quote from: Tabimura on June 04, 2012, 11:08

Yes, let's have 10 million more amateur shapshots, please.
I think that at least 90% of these LCV rejections are entirely justified.

Are you blind? it's the amateur shots that do get accepted and the quality that gets rejected. Do you ever check the latest imagery?
My god, some people amaze me.
You probably confuse us with newcomers that don't know a thing about a good stock image.
It's no use Danny, to some isolations are probably also snapshots that don't sell anymore, while they can't even create a single proper isolation

I'm going for another try to let this one go, it always turns out this way, if contributors are not on the same page then agencies/reviewers can do whatever they please.

Good luck Tabimura...

Wim · « **Reply #26 on:** June 04, 2012, 12:19 »

http://blog.elenaphoto.com/?p=100

Read it Tabimura and then go tell Elena she don't know wth she's talking about

I'm outta here, good luck to all.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #27 on:** June 04, 2012, 12:32 »

The LCV rejection could just mean that your image isn't very good, it's nicer than saying that. Without seeing examples it's almost always pointless to discuss rejections, especially for LCV.

nicku · « **Reply #28 on:** June 04, 2012, 13:04 »

Hi Scott,

Any news from the review team regarding my photos?

Regards,

Nick

rimglow · « **Reply #29 on:** June 04, 2012, 13:07 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on June 04, 2012, 12:32

The LCV rejection could just mean that your image isn't very good, it's nicer than saying that. Without seeing examples it's almost always pointless to discuss rejections, especially for LCV.

Okay, here was my latest rejection from Shutterstock for LCV. There are many variations from others at shutterstock that were accepted and are selling.

So, it wasn't rejected for quality. It wasn't rejected because they have too many. The ones that they have accepted are selling, so it can't be the subject matter. Maybe the reviewer hates pictures of remote controls? I could point out other examples but the point is that the reason (LCV) is absurd. Of course it has commercial value, or there wouldn't be any photos of remote controls on the site.

Pick it apart for other reasons but not LCV.

rimglow · « **Reply #30 on:** June 04, 2012, 13:27 »

Quote from: nicku on June 04, 2012, 13:04

Hi Scott,

Any news from the review team regarding my photos?

Regards,

Nick

Sorry Nick. Looks like I'm highjacking your thread. I'll get off my soapbox now. I got excited when I saw someone from Shutterstock respond. Good luck!

Tabimura · « **Reply #31 on:** June 04, 2012, 16:30 »

@Wim - cheers mate, good luck to you too. I just saw the article on Elena's blog is from Feb 2011, didn't bother reading it. I might be lucky to be blind and produce snapshots, 'cuz I can't remember getting a LCV rejection

not in the last 2 years at least.

@rimglow - make a search after "remote control isolated" on SS, you'll get nearly 5000 images. HOW MANY of these do you think they want? You need to expand a bit.

scottbraut · « **Reply #32 on:** June 04, 2012, 16:33 »

Hi All,

I've been discussing this with the team and should be able to follow up by end-of-day tomorrow.

Thanks for your patience!

Best,

Scott

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #33 on:** June 04, 2012, 17:01 »

Quote from: scottbraut on June 04, 2012, 16:33

Hi All,

I've been discussing this with the team and should be able to follow up by end-of-day tomorrow.

Thanks for your patience!

Best,

Scott

Excellent thanks for the update.

cascoly · « **Reply #34 on:** June 04, 2012, 17:43 »

Quote from: scottbraut on June 04, 2012, 16:33

Hi All,

I've been discussing this with the team and should be able to follow up by end-of-day tomorrow.

Thanks for your patience!

Best,

Scott

great, i've got hundreds of editorial images that were rejected as 'not newsworthy' but sell just fine when accepted elsewhere as editorial

nicku · « **Reply #35 on:** June 05, 2012, 01:50 »

Quote from: scottbraut on June 04, 2012, 16:33

Hi All,

I've been discussing this with the team and should be able to follow up by end-of-day tomorrow.

Thanks for your patience!

Best,

Scott

Thanks Scott... I hope the review process regarding this types of files will be clarified. Is not logical to accept only over 150 years old PD files because 90% of the most representative designs and illustrations were made between 140 and 100 years ago.

Tabimura · « **Reply #36 on:** June 05, 2012, 02:01 »

Scott, while you're at it, I think you might have one inspector who use to sleep over stacks of pending images and keeps them in that state for too many days. Give him / her a nudge, will you?

hofhoek · « **Reply #37 on:** June 05, 2012, 03:16 »

Hi Scott, If you can take this with you. Lately I got rejections on vintage postcards with this reason : 'At this time, we are not accepting this type of content in our collection'. As I sell these well (still) I love to know the reason. Thanks

heywoody · « **Reply #38 on:** June 05, 2012, 03:31 »

Quote from: Tabimura on June 04, 2012, 16:30

@rimglow - make a search after "remote control isolated" on SS, you'll get nearly 5000 images. HOW MANY of these do you think they want? You need to expand a bit.

I think there are 2 kinds of LCV:

1. This is crap and will never sell
2. Could sell loads but we have plenty already (HCV for contributor but LCV for site).

Perry · « **Reply #39 on:** June 05, 2012, 04:13 »

It would be very nice to have an exact year how old images should be to be considered as public domain. At least at some point the limit at IS was 1884, which sounds quite reasonable. 150 years (=1862) is a long shot.

Tabimura · « **Reply #40 on:** June 05, 2012, 04:18 »

Quote from: heywoody on June 05, 2012, 03:31

Quote from: Tabimura on June 04, 2012, 16:30
@rimglow - make a search after "remote control isolated" on SS, you'll get nearly 5000 images. HOW MANY of these do you think they want? You need to expand a bit.

I think there are 2 kinds of LCV:

1. This is crap and will never sell
2. Could sell loads but we have plenty already (HCV for contributor but LCV for site).

Yup.

nicku · « **Reply #41 on:** June 05, 2012, 04:23 »

Quote from: Perry on June 05, 2012, 04:13

It would be very nice to have an exact year how old images should be to be considered as public domain. At least at some point the limit at IS was 1884, which sounds quite reasonable. 150 years (=1862) is a long shot.

Is not accurate to have a year as the PD limit. there are many publications in PD from 1910 or 1920. is a little bit complicated with the publications beyond 1900. It's depend of the country , depends if the publications had buy the rights from the original artist or only had some sort of RF license.... and many many more.

Some sort of IS strategy ( upload the first page of the book in the model release section, or provide proof that the publication is in PD) is more reasonable for SS.

rimglow · « **Reply #42 on:** June 05, 2012, 05:54 »

Quote from: heywoody on June 05, 2012, 03:31

Quote from: Tabimura on June 04, 2012, 16:30
@rimglow - make a search after "remote control isolated" on SS, you'll get nearly 5000 images. HOW MANY of these do you think they want? You need to expand a bit.

I think there are 2 kinds of LCV:

1. This is crap and will never sell
2. Could sell loads but we have plenty already (HCV for contributor but LCV for site).

So....Shutterstock's new ad campaign should be "Limited Content for Limited Brains"?

There is only one kind of LCV. Images that haven't sold in 5 years. If you want to weed out content, then it would be hard to argue against removing those, to make way for fresh material. Just don't have a reviewer try to be a marketing genius.

Perry · « **Reply #43 on:** June 05, 2012, 06:13 »

Quote from: rimglow on June 05, 2012, 05:54

There is only one kind of LCV. Images that haven't sold in 5 years. If you want to weed out content, then it would be hard to argue against removing those, to make way for fresh material.

+1

Wim · « **Reply #44 on:** June 05, 2012, 06:27 »

Quote from: rimglow on June 05, 2012, 05:54

Quote from: heywoody on June 05, 2012, 03:31
Quote from: Tabimura on June 04, 2012, 16:30
@rimglow - make a search after "remote control isolated" on SS, you'll get nearly 5000 images. HOW MANY of these do you think they want? You need to expand a bit.

I think there are 2 kinds of LCV:

1. This is crap and will never sell
2. Could sell loads but we have plenty already (HCV for contributor but LCV for site).

So....Shutterstock's new ad campaign should be "Limited Content for Limited Brains"?

There is only one kind of LCV. Images that haven't sold in 5 years. If you want to weed out content, then it would be hard to argue against removing those, to make way for fresh material. Just don't have a reviewer try to be a marketing genius.

And a BIG +1

Currently reviewing is a bingo game. We can analyze it as much as we want but we will never know what's really going on behind the scenes, same goes for the agencies btw, they don't seem to have a clue what their reviewers are up to.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #45 on:** June 05, 2012, 09:40 »

I have a little bit of inside first hand knowledge that you will not like what you are going to hear about rejections and the reviewers and the process.

So we are in for a long ride people so buckle up.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #46 on:** June 05, 2012, 22:46 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on June 05, 2012, 09:40

I have a little bit of inside first hand knowledge that you will not like what you are going to hear about rejections and the reviewers and the process.

So we are in for a long ride people so buckle up.

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on June 05, 2012, 16:05

Well it looks like a few of the Snobs with your greater then God attitude finally got what you wanted.

is this what you talking about?

nicku · « **Reply #47 on:** June 06, 2012, 09:05 »

Hi Scott,

Any news?

BR,

Nick.

nicku · « **Reply #49 on:** June 06, 2012, 12:15 »

Yap...

It's All Over Folks .

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Strange rules/rejection at SS (Read 17392 times)

Wim

Wim

traveler1116

nicku

rimglow

rimglow

Tabimura

scottbraut

ruxpriencdiam

cascoly

nicku

Tabimura

hofhoek

heywoody

Perry

Tabimura

nicku

rimglow

Perry

Wim

ruxpriencdiam

luissantos84

nicku

scottbraut

nicku

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors