Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic - Reviewers are putting NON editorials as editorials: why????

dzain · Joined: 21 Jan 2007 Posts: 2659 Location: The Netherlands

I've got two photo's approved with a few small people silhouettes seen from the backsite (no faces, no brands) and the reviewer made these editorial.

What's that for complete nonsense???

Hope Setho (or someone else) can put these photo's back to normal soon. And hope reviewers will get a message not to do this again. It'll cost me more time and work and while on editorial-status it will cost me money also.

These are the two photo's:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=12272572

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=12290335

I would have contacted support, but they never answer mails, so the forum is the only option to sort this out and hopefully get this resolved soon.

kenny123 · Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 4:45 pm

I think you'll find the tourist sites are copyrighted

stasvolik · Joined: 29 Jul 2005 Posts: 909 Location: Vancouver, BC

It's more likely that SS is just following the overall industry trend. IT's been impossible to upload usch images at IS, DT, SX for a looong time. I hoped that at least one agency won't play lemming with model releases, but... Oh, well. At least the editorial option is still open here.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Cheers,
Stas.

dzain · Joined: 21 Jan 2007 Posts: 2659 Location: The Netherlands

dtphoto · Joined: 06 Jan 2008 Posts: 579 Location: Austin, Texas

dzain · Joined: 21 Jan 2007 Posts: 2659 Location: The Netherlands

Then it's the very first time they are doing this, because I've seen lots of photo's with not recognizable people that are not editorial.

It's even in their FAQ that only when faces or brands or other specific things like tatoos are visible, it will be set editorial. So I think the reviewer has made a mistake.

devy · Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 1:59 am

I don't think the reviewer made a mistake...

It's a rule that with persons when a person is recognisable even if the face is not really visible, it's editorial...

So, the person(s) must be recognisable in this case..

greetings
devy

maatzey · Joined: 11 Jan 2008 Posts: 41

Well I had twice simular problem - non-editorials were approved as editorial. I had just dropped the email to support and next two days it was corrected (also no response on mail, but the work was done)

On the other hand I have some pictures rejected by other agencies (recognizable face) but approved here...

I guess every approver has its own view on this...

dzain · Joined: 21 Jan 2007 Posts: 2659 Location: The Netherlands

devy · Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 3:01 am

devy · Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 3:04 am

Not so long ago I submitted this one:

No face recognisable at all...and still...(needs a modelrelease which is really understandable imho)

greetings
devy

riffmax · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 2877 Location: Florida, USA

I have read a "rule of thumb" that says if someone could recognize themselves (or someone they know could) in a photo, then it is recognizable. I'm guessing that these tourists could be recognizable, even from the back. Even if only one of them was, it would create the editorial argument.

That being said, there are tons of cases where things get past one reviewer that would not get past another.

I know of one shot in particular, and there are probably many more, that is TOTALLY editorial and is not marked as such. I have determined that every single aspect of every single photo is subjective and nothing is a slam-dunk "in" (unless your a Yuri or an Andres! LOL!) or "out"!

hooyacrusty · Joined: 18 Jun 2007 Posts: 1049

devy · Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 12:19 pm

But the guy can surely recognize himself in this picture....

lilcrazyfuzzy · Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 2:00 pm