Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

mreco · Joined: 12 Mar 2009 Posts: 1019 Location: Hampshire, UK

i like my light tent

milinz · Joined: 10 Mar 2007 Posts: 3413 Location: Planet Earth

Grune punkt is registered and copyrighted. So, fellow illustrators and photographers try avoiding to put it in your artwork or photos:

http://www.gruener-punkt.de/?L=1
http://www.ecoromambalaje.ro/eng/punctul_verde.php#c

And so on results from google search 'grune punkt'.

[Quote from site:]

Der Grüne Punkt Trademark
Der Grüne Punkt became an international trademark, more than 460 billions of packages are marked with this financing symbol on their labels.

The presence of Der Grüne Punkt trademark on a package shows that for that specific package a financial contribution was paid to a national package recovery organisation, according to the principles stipulated by the European Directive 04/12/EC on packages and package waste and by the each national legislation.

Der Grüne Punkt logo indicates to the buyer that the manufacturer or the importer of those products is a socially responsible company, since it took the commitment to have all its product packages recycled or recovered after being collected from the population in separate bins.

Since 15 October 2004 ECO - ROM AMBALAJE S.A. has licensee for using Der Grüne Punkt trademark in Romania .

[end quote]

So, under condition you or buyer pay licence to use grune punkt trademarked logo you, any agency and any buyer may come to deep sh...

If by some chance you have any such logo in your artworks on-line I advise replacing images without that logo.

Best Of luck to all!

stephenkirsh · Joined: 22 Mar 2009 Posts: 148 Location: California

Maybe I missunderstood the purpose of this thread, but I'm guessing this is to discuss rejected images? If not, please delete/move this (and message me so I know)

This images was rejected because "Limited Commercial Value--We do not need this image at this time."

Seems that when I search for "closed gate" I don't see any images that are similar.
Would you guys agree with SS?

milinz · Joined: 10 Mar 2007 Posts: 3413 Location: Planet Earth

martingillman · Joined: 05 Apr 2009 Posts: 1

Well, we all learn quickly, like the last poster said, leave the ego at the door. I got 3 silhouettes rejected for underexposure, the sunset wasnt, the subject in the foreground was black.... well that was the idea! its a silhouette. So you can imagine I was somewhat perplexed. But, what SS want is what they get, its the customer, just because I may 'think' I know better means nothing.

I used to be a songwriter, still am now and again, now you should experience the feedback in that game, blunt is too subtle a word for it, trust me the reviewers here are big fluffy kittens..

zrmedia · Joined: 05 Feb 2008 Posts: 7

soctober · Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 12:29 pm

i find some comments in here about rejections apalling. How could people paint the reviewers as evil and full of conspiracy. this is subjective business and we need to take hint to strive for better. Whats so wrong with being rejected, work hard and come again, but you have to have the perseverance to do that.

giancarlo · Joined: 07 May 2009 Posts: 1

I know there are about a million or so threads, but I knew about the strictness of the requirements and believed my pictures were of decent quality.

Here are 2 examples of what I submitted but was rejected.
What do you think?
Both images have reduced quality as orignals were over 7MB each.

milinz · Joined: 10 Mar 2007 Posts: 3413 Location: Planet Earth

milinz · Joined: 10 Mar 2007 Posts: 3413 Location: Planet Earth

ozzi · Joined: 16 Mar 2009 Posts: 9

hello all. I think rejection is part of the game. It's the way you go about it is the difference. I can say that all of us are here to make money, SS and photographers. SS wanted to excel and keep the quality of there product to stay in the business. Photographers are trying to do the same thing. As a lot more people submit photos, the quality of work sometimes dwindle. It is great that SS are able to evaluate the photos being submitted, this differentiate who can get it or not. I had been rejected twice and finally got in the third time. What I've learned is to think in the buyers perspective instead of mine. To be more commercialize with the images I turn in. I think that's what we all have to think about. Don't get mad because the bottom line is "it's just business."

traci1002 · Joined: 28 May 2009 Posts: 3

I haven't resized the image to post here but I just had an image of a cheetah under a branch rejected as trademark/copyright infringement. I was wondering if the fact I listed the specific zoo where it was taken could be the reason?

Brand new to SS so just learning the ropes as it were :) Thanks!

njstorr · Joined: 18 May 2009 Posts: 1

I am new to SS and always welcome comments on photo's I've taken, it helps me improve my skills.

I have submitted 2 lots of 10 photos for the site but failed to get in. The one thing I find confusing/unhelpful is when I first submitted my 10 photo's I kept a note of which ones had been approved, I then re-submitted them and different photo's to make up the 10 I needed for my second go. This time a photo that had been approved last time was rejected this time.

I know there is a standard to be upheld on the site, quite rightly so, but this varies depending on who looks at your photo's. In turn this appears to invalidate the standard the website wants, as everyone has a different perception of what it is. How are you meant to improve your photo's if different people have different views?

kenny123 · Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:25 pm

usc1985 · Joined: 07 May 2009 Posts: 1

I was surprised when three photos that I have on isotckphoto, which have been downloaded, were rejected by Shutterstock.
I have one of a "Don't Tread On Me" flag that was taken in the middle of a cloudless sunny sky, and it was rejected for "Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect." I was suprised because there aren't any shadows (full sun), and when looking at the photo, the while stipes of the flag are perectly white.
I would appreciate other's comments so that I can figure out how to correct the photo.

Thafor any input.