| Author |
Message |
themightyshrub

Joined: 21 Jan 2009
Posts: 943
Location: www.heathergreig.co.uk
|
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:46 am
| |
So, just submitted my first batch of photos for over a year, and to my surprise, the vast majority of them were accepted. A few got dinged for focus, which I'm fine with, they were a bit on the fence, but I got one with this rejection reason - Trademark--Contains potential trademark or copyright infringement. Please see <a href="http://buzz.shutterstock.com/rejection-reasons/why-was-my-image-rejected-for-trademark">Shutterbuzz</a> for more info
Now, here are some of the photos that were approved
And this is the photo that got rejected for trademark -
Am I missing something, or should I resubmit with a note? |
|
ruxpriencdiam

Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 26831
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:49 am
| |
A blank slide card???? |
|
tverkhovynets

Joined: 12 Jun 2010
Posts: 753
Location: Kiev, Ukraine
|
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:58 am
| |
Maybe the numbers on the left side. it's silly, but...
Taras |
|
themightyshrub

Joined: 21 Jan 2009
Posts: 943
Location: www.heathergreig.co.uk
|
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:59 am
| |
A blank slide card that is EXACTLY THE SAME IMAGE as several others already accepted in the same batch, but without a picture on the slide. It's obviously some kind of copyright that I'm not aware of |
|
semmickphoto

Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Posts: 6632
Location: Stuck between a shutter and a hard place
|
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:00 am
| |
They all say JUL10 on the slide card... must be a hit and miss on the accept button. Resubmit. |
|
themightyshrub

Joined: 21 Jan 2009
Posts: 943
Location: www.heathergreig.co.uk
|
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:05 am
| |
| tverkhovynets wrote: | Maybe the numbers on the left side. it's silly, but...
Taras |
The numbers on the left side are the date the slide was developed, it just says JUL10. Also, they're printed on all the slides, including in the images accepted in the same batch.
I'm pretty sure the reviewer just made a mistake, we're all human and it happens, so I'll resub with a note. I have some that need resubmitting anyway because I forgot to mention NASA in the byline, so they can all go in the same batch.
On a related note, anybody know why this got dinged for trademark -
but these images (by several different submitters) are all accepted without an editorial license?
Also worth a resub, or should I just presume that those got in before the rules got tightened? |
|
tverkhovynets

Joined: 12 Jun 2010
Posts: 753
Location: Kiev, Ukraine
|
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:35 am
| |
Yeah, just resubmit it.
Taras |
|
ruxpriencdiam

Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 26831
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:48 am
| |
Since you have been gone single Buildings and Buildings altogether have undergone a change by SS acceptance standards big time.
No single buildings and pretty much no Buildings without a property release.
Also the shots you are comparing were accepted before SS made the changes.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=80843
Either i or Dave can more then likely find or get you any info you are looking for because there have been some changes. |
|
themightyshrub

Joined: 21 Jan 2009
Posts: 943
Location: www.heathergreig.co.uk
|
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:54 am
| |
Cheers Barry, didn't realise that this much had changed. I've already resubbed with a note, but I'll just be expecting a rejection now, so I guess it doesn't really matter. |
|
mikenorton

Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 3566
Location: Guide Book http://www.lulu.com/shop/mike-norton/nortons-notes/paperback/product-5079819.html
|
Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2012 2:30 am
| |
Those slide mounts look like they probably say Kodachrome and either Kodak or Kodalux on the other side. |
|
greenfield54

Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 2635
Location: Philippines
|
Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2012 5:21 am
| |
Maybe the reviewer is that kind of person who does not believe in 100% acceptance. Just like the saying "You can't get it all" sort of thing. Or maybe he was fed up with seeing several blank slides in one batch. Weird but a reality. Resubmit without the embossed numbers just to be on the safe side. :) |
|
greenfield54

Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 2635
Location: Philippines
|
Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2012 5:23 am
| |
| mikenorton wrote: | | Those slide mounts look like they probably say Kodachrome and either Kodak or Kodalux on the other side. |
Agfa uses the same system I guess. |
|
| |
|