MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: TortoiseProductions on November 27, 2024, 11:57
-
Wow. I've been uploading wolves at deer carcasses to SS since 2017 and this is the first time they've been rejected with the note "Need to be marked as mature content".
I guess I finally hit a squeamish reviewer at SS. I had a few of the wolf on carcass images rejected a while back on DT but I it was hit and miss (1 or 2 images out of a group of 10)
*shrug*
-
How do you get these shots and not get eaten yourself!
-
How do you get these shots and not get eaten yourself!
When I see a cow in a field while I'm eating a steak, I'm not going to chase the cow.
-
That must be a real long Telephoto lens!
-
TortoiseProductions, You shouldn't take pictures, but shoot at jackals, wolves and dogs!
-
How do you get these shots and not get eaten yourself!
Captive wolves. 70-200 mm lens - this one was taken at 125mm
My husband and I know these wolves pretty well. I could tell you about the time one of the pack offered him a leg off the deer. :)
-
TortoiseProductions, You shouldn't take pictures, but shoot at jackals, wolves and dogs!
Booo..... 👎
-
TortoiseProductions, You shouldn't take pictures, but shoot at jackals, wolves and dogs!
Booo..... 👎
Tortoise:
Don't even bother responding to stupid posts like that one. People that make them just want to draw attention and stir controversy; it's their mental food. Just ignore them
On partially related note; some years back while hiking in remote area of Columbia icefields of Banff National Park in Canada I ran into this scene:
(https://autumnsky.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p1914108127-4.jpg)
What happened? I've shown image to Park Ranger later & they believe it was grizzly bear that killed and ate black bear. Never uploaded to stock, but first time I saw something like this
-
Tell me about it....
(https://i.ibb.co/xzDJhth/001.jpg)
-
I think with animals feeding on a kill, it depends on how gory the scene is and how much blood? I've had some safari images rejected with a requirement for mature designation, and it's always the ones where a lot of blood is visible.
I know it's nature, and doesn't really make sense to censor this, but many people are easily offended these days, so I guess Shutterstock are being cautious. Even on Instagram, images and clips get blurred out with an advisory warning before you click on them.
@Firn, I'm not sure what you, (or your dogs), did wrong, and I'm hoping we never reach a stage where we have to put trousers on our pets for modesty reasons.
That said, this is what Shutterstock say on the subject:
Content that requires the Mature Content tag:
'Mating animals or explicit depictions of animal genitalia or anus'
'Graphic subject matter that may be disturbing or inappropriate for a general audience (e.g., graphic medical scenes/surgeries, traumatic injuries, etc.)'
It seems to me that the reviewer in both cases was being overly zealous, as the OP's image is not particularly graphic, and the dog image isn't an explicit depictions of animal genitalia.
-
These overprotective sh*t is what is ruining the western civilization youth by making them useless snowflakes unaware of the realities of life. The world is presented to them as a Jehovah Witness brochure with lions side by side with gazelles and smiling. Or like a Disney animation.
Meanwhile other cultures that remain grounded are raising down-to-earth kids and surpassing the western kids in school and jobs, because they know that life is earned by working hard and not by being a happy rainbow tik-toker clowns that give up on things at first hardship and still live in parents house at 35 or more, leaching them.
-
i had a rear view of a hippo last week - resubmitted & accepted. rejected as "needs mature warning"
previously medieval battle scenes or pictures of sword fights or knights in armor (no blood in either) as "mature content"