|
|
Welcome, Anonymous (Profile, Private Messages)
Having trouble signing into the forums? Please [ logout ] and log back in.
 Log in
| Author |
Message |
bluerhine
Joined: 04 Jul 2009
Posts: 438
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:34 am
|  |
I am a contributor as well as a buyer. Editorial images are limited for non-commercial usage. For example, we need an image for our products showing a rescuer in an earthquake scene, there is only one image (with bad lighting) to choose, others are all for editorial use. If Shutterstock doesn't want to send buyers to competitors (IS has more such images for normal usage), they should loosen the criterium for editorial images, as soon as a face is not recognizable, for example Image:87596206.
Last edited by bluerhine on Sat Mar 31, 2012 4:22 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
drskn08
Joined: 05 Nov 2011
Posts: 383
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:15 pm
| |
yes i agree with bluerhine here. Further i want to add that even more subject matters should be allowed. Though i have not submitted any editorial image yet but i wish the subjects should not be restricted to Newsworthy images only.
Last edited by drskn08 on Sun Apr 15, 2012 10:53 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
biketourist
Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 172
Location: Central California
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:59 pm
| |
Yes, far to conservative regarding requirements for model or property releases. Actual editorial usage of photos, both now and traditionally, is far broader than the limited "newsworthy" criterion.
But, SS has to deal world wide with many conventions and laws. I suppose fear is their motivation for such policies. |
|
akatz
Joined: 25 Jan 2012
Posts: 188
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:57 pm
| |
| drskn08 wrote: | | yes i agree with bluerhine here. Further i want to add that even more subject matters should be allowed. Though i have not submitted any editorial image yet but i wish the subjects should not be restricted to Newsworthy images only. |
Funny thing, I haven't been on SS that long. My first two batches of images were all commercial. Then I sent two, just two, editorial shots from LA landmarks that aren't especially newsworthy at the moment. Both were accepted, no problem.
Then I sent some additional shots I'd done of St. Patrick's Day in NYC & Occupy Wall Street. Both were pretty up to date when I sent them in. Used the same captioning scheme I had with the first two.
I heard nothing back. Finally I found the lists of submitted, accepted & rejected images. All of the latter editorial submission had been rejected for captioning. I carefully re-captioned them, re-submitted. Same thing.
There definitely needs to be greater consistency in editorial images, else the other posters are right, SS will simply cede that market to other agencies. I don't think I'll bother submitting any more editorial shots to SS for a while, in no small part because I don't want to get into the trouble with too many rejections over which I have no control.
& I quite agree that their policy of "does the person recognize him or herself?" as requiring a model release is way too restrictive. Why aren't the buyers & end-users responsible for how the images are ultimately used?
andy |
|
spe
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 76
|
|
Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 7:34 am
| |
It would be nice that images rejected for wrong caption format only to be returned to the "submitted photos" for edit, as to upload them again is quite a fuss, when in most cases all you need is to correct some text. And yes, caption field sometimes too short for proper description, more to say amount of characters for that lessened also by unnecessary duplicating of the date in caption. I really cannot understand, why same date and place need to be mentioned twice, maybe somebody knows? |
|
| |
|
  |
Page 1 of 1
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
|
Shutterstock Forum for Contributors
|
