Whenever I create an illustration that uses NASA resources (usually a photo of the planet earth) and upload it to iStock (giving credit to NASA in the description), iStock rejects it with the following:
It appears that the map you have submitted was derived from a map, or similar source, using distinctive elements that are recognizable from the original. Since the map is the predominant aspect of the file, it may be a prohibited derivative work.

Please include the following information in your description of the file to have this file reconsidered:
- The source of the map you have used for reference (URL or a scan to verify ownership)
- The software you have used to create your file
- The date your file was created
- The layers of data used.

There are many images on iStock using photos of the planet earth, they simply say "courtesy of NASA" in the description field. Do they really require ALL of this information whenever a NASA image is part of the overall illustration? Theses two images (the devil one submitted a while ago, the other just recently) were both rejected with the above message.
Here are links to the images in question:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=45968809
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-21003310/stock-photo--d-render-depicting-the-devil-in-control-of-the-earth.html

So does anyone know how I can possibly get these types of images into my iStock portfolio?

thanks...

sjlocke,

Regardless of the subject/quality of the image, I think the issue here is the rejection reason.  If it's about the NASA image, it sounds strange indeed.

Using free or purchased models with a simple sphere wrapped with a texture does not show a level of work high enough for iStock acceptance (thank goodness).  This is the kind of thing that is great for SS, but not for IS.

Had I received a 'not suitable as stock' rejection, your reply might make sense. As it is, it's merely a pointless insult that doesn't address my original question. Frankly, I'm offended by the rudeness of your response.
I wanted to know how to go about submitting images that contain NASA content. I didn't ask for a critique of my work, and if iStock rejected it for quality issues, then they should have stated the real reason for the rejection.

I'm curious sjlocke, I know you have experience working in 3D, so why do you regard the use of 3D models as requiring less skill than using live human models? Since I find it's much easier to ask a human strike a particular pose than it is to actually pose a 3D character myself, I'm interested in hearing the reasoning behind this.

Had I received a 'not suitable as stock' rejection, your reply might make sense. As it is, it's merely a pointless insult that doesn't address my original question. Frankly, I'm offended by the rudeness of your response.
I wanted to know how to go about submitting images that contain NASA content. I didn't ask for a critique of my work, and if iStock rejected it for quality issues, then they should have stated the real reason for the rejection.

I'm curious sjlocke, I know you have experience working in 3D, so why do you regard the use of 3D models as requiring less skill than using live human models? Since I find it's much easier to ask a human strike a particular pose than it is to actually pose a 3D character myself, I'm interested in hearing the reasoning behind this.

Be offended if you like.  I'm just telling you that iStock wants more work to be put into something than a simply posed model on a texture wrapped sphere.  Look at it as a variation on this thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=127861&page=1#post2098761

I recently had a fairly simple image - incorporating a NASA earth photo, credited in the description - accepted at IS.   I think the problem with the 'devil' image is that the Earth looks like a a copy of a map or globe, not a photo. Was it actually a NASA photo?

Quote from: Allsa on February 11, 2010, 17:46

Had I received a 'not suitable as stock' rejection, your reply might make sense. As it is, it's merely a pointless insult that doesn't address my original question. Frankly, I'm offended by the rudeness of your response.
I wanted to know how to go about submitting images that contain NASA content. I didn't ask for a critique of my work, and if iStock rejected it for quality issues, then they should have stated the real reason for the rejection.

I'm curious sjlocke, I know you have experience working in 3D, so why do you regard the use of 3D models as requiring less skill than using live human models? Since I find it's much easier to ask a human strike a particular pose than it is to actually pose a 3D character myself, I'm interested in hearing the reasoning behind this.

Be offended if you like.  I'm just telling you that iStock wants more work to be put into something than a simply posed model on a texture wrapped sphere.  Look at it as a variation on this thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=127861&page=1#post2098761

Actually a great deal of work went into those images. The original renders had problems with distortions in the mesh which required a considerable amount of correcting in photoshop; in fact, the clothing in the pig image was severely distorted. The earth photo was a flat NASA image doctored to look 3 dimensional, again, you assumed wrong. I could have mapped the earth image to a globe, but I decided to create the illusion of 3D with a 2D image. What difference does it make one way or the other? You have many simple 3D images in your portfolio, so your responses don't make any sense to me.

You are one of the most successful people in microstock, so I value your opinion here - but you aren't making much sense as far as I can see.

Allsa,

Maybe the problem is the 3D characters and not the map?  Like they want to know if you created the character yourself or if it's a preset from some program?

Is it because you are exclusive or Superman?

It could be that they are several years old, or it could be that they are not NASA textures simply wrapped on a sphere.

I did not say that I did not use NASA textures.  I said they were not textures simply wrapped on a sphere.

I also suspect that many people have the full set of references on for inspection and then delete them afterwards (although you aren't supposed to)

Current istock rules are that for anything where it looks like a map was used to source an illustration image, all those fields quoted in the rejection have to be filled in in some way - certainly true for vector illustrations and also for renders. It's easy enough to do for NASA images assuming it's an acceptable source (my understanding is that most but not all of the NASA images are usable as a stock image source). These rules  have been in place for a while, but not for all time - eighteen months to two years ago, is my recollection of when the istock vector forums started seeing a lot of enquiries about rejections for map sources like this. I suspect there is further confusion as these NASA earth images are not always obviously maps - some might be considered photo of an object, some show countries more clearly, so I suspect some images get through with just the basic NASA acknowledgement, some get asked for the full map reference hoopla.

I can understand that they want an URL for where you obtained the NASA image, but why do they need to know the software I used, the date the image was created --- and --- this one I really don't get --- Layers of data used?!?! (come to think of it, I'm guessing that it probably has something to do with placing a cloud layer over a 3D sphere, with a terrestrial map in one layer, and the clouds in the outer layer) . I think I'll just avoid submitting images with NASA content to iStock -- unless it's something I really REALLY want to get into my portfolio. Thanks for your help 

"Uploads which mainly feature unmodified NASA images, or even slightly altered versions without a strong concept, will not be accepted. Using a NASA image (properly credited in the image description) as the basis for a strong new original composition will be allowed."

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=395

Quote from: sjlocke on February 11, 2010, 16:10

Using free or purchased models with a simple sphere wrapped with a texture does not show a level of work high enough for iStock acceptance (thank goodness).  This is the kind of thing that is great for SS, but not for IS.

hmm the samples of yours here look rather simplistic and in view of what is already available at SS I very much doubt they would be original enough to make the grade I'm afraid to say, so not sure about the argument that the level of istock work being always higher!

If I were concerned about submitting to SS and an unasked for critique, your post would be very useful.  Thanks for the tips!