Author Topic: Strange rules/rejection at SS (Read 17076 times)

drugal · « **Reply #50 on:** June 06, 2012, 13:15 »

You gonna have to create original content of your own, instead of scanning stuff. How terrible.

cthoman · « **Reply #51 on:** June 06, 2012, 13:53 »

Not too surprising. I always assumed this would happen.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #52 on:** June 06, 2012, 13:58 »

It's a new conspiracy. They're selling my images just to suck me in.

nicku · « **Reply #53 on:** June 07, 2012, 00:48 »

Quote from: drugal on June 06, 2012, 13:15

You gonna have to create original content of your own, instead of scanning stuff. How terrible.

Selling PD photos not mean stealing someone photos and selling them. You provide the buyer a high resolution ( non copyrighted) PD photo that is not accessible elsewhere (not even on the internet). Many people are willing to pay for that copy.... Now it's over. SS was the biggest PD seller. Other agencies accept PD illustrations ( RF or editorial) but sales are at a fraction compared with SS).

So... like i said It's all over now folks.

pancaketom · « **Reply #54 on:** June 07, 2012, 22:22 »

It could be only a matter of time before every non-natural item will require a property release...

(and even some natural items, for example a certain >million year old rock in Australia).

RacePhoto · « **Reply #55 on:** June 13, 2012, 15:58 »

Quote from: pancaketom on June 07, 2012, 22:22

It could be only a matter of time before every non-natural item will require a property release...

(and even some natural items, for example a certain >million year old rock in Australia).

It's not a rock it's a friggin MOUNTAIN!

I'm thinking of claiming the oceans and people can pay me for rights to shoot photos of water? I mean good thing that the world powers agreed that space was unprotected, or we might have the Russians owning all rights to the dark side of the Moon. USA Sea of Tranquility and who knows who gets which valleys on Mars.

And always remember that some idiot in France placed a copyright on the smiley face and even worse, some bigger idiots granted him that right in French courts! Give Me a Break!

I'll just be a bad boy again and post this infringing image...

cascoly · « **Reply #56 on:** June 16, 2012, 13:57 »

actually the smiley face was invented by harvey Bell in 1962

refreshing my memory from wikipedia
"In 1967, Ball's design was used in an advertising campaign for Seattle-based University Federal Savings & Loan. This was later used when the man behind this campaign, David Stern, ran for Seattle Mayor in 1993"

steheap · « **Reply #57 on:** June 16, 2012, 15:05 »

How about this for a rejection reason at Shutterstock:

Maybe not the greatest picture in the world, maybe the lighting isn't that good and the background is a mix of different shades of grey. The concept - pressing the screen of an imaginary smartphone - might not be the best - perhaps not a lot of commercial value? All good reasons for rejection.

But - the one that the reviewer chose was: Long nails

Steve

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #58 on:** June 17, 2012, 02:16 »

The irony is that hcv must surely be the new lcv. Check out the collection of "women headphone" shots. Do SS really need 24,284 of them (and I'm sure there are lots more on the way)? How many of those won't sell within five years? Half of them? Three quarters of them?

I've just noticed that one supplier owns 10% of all those images. I guess that trying to flood the market with similars is a good strategy for the HCV categories. With two or three thousand similars in a search you must have a fair chance of some of them being high enough up to get noticed.

The sales per image of an LCV shot where only half-a-dozen like it have got accepted will probably be higher than the sales per image of the most popular, highly copied, concept.

heywoody · « **Reply #59 on:** June 17, 2012, 05:45 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 17, 2012, 02:16

.... The sales per image of an LCV shot where only half-a-dozen like it have got accepted will probably be higher than the sales per image of the most popular, highly copied, concept.

It's a lot easier to get a "half-a-dozen like it" image accepted at SS than the "1000's like it already" because they lose nothing rejecting something where the buyer is spoiled for choice, the popular ones tend to keep selling (no competition) and some can have a first sale after being on line forever.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #60 on:** June 17, 2012, 09:59 »

Quote from: cascoly on June 16, 2012, 13:57

actually the smiley face was invented by harvey Bell in 1962

refreshing my memory from wikipedia
"In 1967, Ball's design was used in an advertising campaign for Seattle-based University Federal Savings & Loan. This was later used when the man behind this campaign, David Stern, ran for Seattle Mayor in 1993"

Yes, but follow this link. I didn't have time to find the outcome. Just that there's some cretin in France with Smiley World who claims the rights to the smiley face in the yellow ball.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/business/worldbusiness/05smiley.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #61 on:** June 17, 2012, 10:31 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on June 17, 2012, 09:59

Quote from: cascoly on June 16, 2012, 13:57
actually the smiley face was invented by harvey Bell in 1962

refreshing my memory from wikipedia
"In 1967, Ball's design was used in an advertising campaign for Seattle-based University Federal Savings & Loan. This was later used when the man behind this campaign, David Stern, ran for Seattle Mayor in 1993"

Yes, but follow this link. I didn't have time to find the outcome. Just that there's some cretin in France with Smiley World who claims the rights to the smiley face in the yellow ball.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/business/worldbusiness/05smiley.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

And here is more info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smiley