Author Topic: Shutterstock now give you only one opportunity to get it right (Read 1951 times)

kuriouskat · « **on:** December 13, 2024, 03:13 »

As if they weren't unpopular enough, Shutterstock now have a new rejection policy.

Shutterstock Content Resubmission Guidelines

Guidelines on submitting content that has been previously reviewed or already approved.

Previously Rejected Content

Content can only be submitted once. When submitting content for the first time, please ensure it meets all Shutterstock Content Publishing Standards and Guidelines before submitting it for review. In most cases, our system will not allow you to resubmit content that has already been reviewed and rejected.

If you attempt to resubmit content that has been previously rejected, it will generally be rejected again for Previously Rejected.

https://submit.shutterstock.com/en/dashboard

cobalt · « **Reply #1 on:** December 13, 2024, 05:53 »

Whow!! That is very drastic, as making errors is simply human.

However I would see this as a preparation to take ai content.

This would be a way for them to deal with the flood if they open the door.

It also gives the other agencies and the customers there an advantage, because on Adobe and Getty customers can get the full series, while on SS there might be content missing.

Now...will the declined content still be used for dataset training?

kuriouskat · « **Reply #2 on:** December 13, 2024, 06:25 »

So if you simply forget to tick the editorial box, you can get a whole series rejected it seems, with no chance of a resubmission.

I'm not sure that this indicates that they are preparing to take AI content, but certainly it's a cost cutting exercise. No second review will obviously save time and money for Shutterstock, but it's a bit harsh on those who make genuine errors. I guess they have to weigh that up against clueless contributors resubmitting hundreds of garden snaps, but the relegation to the Data Catalog was already taking care of most of that, wasn't it?

This actually feels as if they are penalizing those who want to correct errors and learn and grow.

Surely, the best plan would be to bring back the contributor test, and be confident that all contributors submit content that reaches a certain standard.

I know they opened the flood gates so that they could stuff the AI datasets, but they surely don't need more of the same tacky rubbish now.

cobalt · « **Reply #3 on:** December 13, 2024, 06:37 »

They might already be getting a much higher flood of unsuitable content, probably also a lot of people already sending in massive amounts of ai full of errors, even though ai is not yet allowed.

Overall they have made it clear they want to automate as much of the stock inflow process as possible.

We don't know if this is to prepare for ai or to simply deal with a huge flood coming in from spammers who have just learned on youtube that stock is the easy way to get rich...

stocker2011 · « **Reply #4 on:** December 13, 2024, 07:24 »

Quote from: kuriouskat on December 13, 2024, 06:25

This actually feels as if they are penalizing those who want to correct errors and learn and grow.

These companies are flat out not interested in a contributor learning or growing, those days are long gone.

kuriouskat · « **Reply #5 on:** December 13, 2024, 07:42 »

Quote from: stocker2011 on December 13, 2024, 07:24

Quote from: kuriouskat on December 13, 2024, 06:25
This actually feels as if they are penalizing those who want to correct errors and learn and grow.

These companies are flat out not interested in a contributor learning or growing, those days are long gone.

Whilst I agree that they only have their own interests at heart, they still want good content, so it doesn't make sense to not allow a second chance to correct minor mistakes.

They should maybe have two rejection reasons - one for rubbish, that simply says 'do not resubmit', and another for good content that had some sort of submission error, which allows one resubmission to correct things.

JustAnImage · « **Reply #6 on:** December 13, 2024, 08:51 »

Shutterstock does what's good for Shutterstock - they don't care about the contributors, I think we can all agree on that :-)

I interpret the resubmission of already rejected content as follows:
-> I am not allowed to submit the exact same file a second time because it has already been rejected.
-> But if I improve/modify the image file, I consider it to be a new submission

So far I have achieved an acceptance rate of 99.6% by submitting the same image several times - after 5 attempts I stopped, but until then almost every image went through.

In future, I will “collect” the rejections and increase the brightness by 5% once a month using batch processing and submit the whole lot again.

In the end, Shutter shows us through its own behavior that we have to find other ways to get our sales ^^

kuriouskat · « **Reply #7 on:** December 13, 2024, 09:14 »

Quote from: JustAnImage on December 13, 2024, 08:51

Shutterstock does what's good for Shutterstock - they don't care about the contributors, I think we can all agree on that :-)

I interpret the resubmission of already rejected content as follows:
-> I am not allowed to submit the exact same file a second time because it has already been rejected.
-> But if I improve/modify the image file, I consider it to be a new submission

So far I have achieved an acceptance rate of 99.6% by submitting the same image several times - after 5 attempts I stopped, but until then almost every image went through.

In future, I will “collect” the rejections and increase the brightness by 5% once a month using batch processing and submit the whole lot again.

In the end, Shutter shows us through its own behavior that we have to find other ways to get our sales ^^

You may be right, but I'm not sure this is to do with needing to improve the actual image.

If Shutterstock feel that your images is underexposed/noisy/poor focus, etc.the, these images get approved only for Data Licensing, (regardless of whether the reason is valid).

If images are rejected these days, it's for things like incorrect releases, not ticking the editorial or illustration box, missing and not cloning out a small logo in a cityscape, not translating visible text, etc.

Anyway, I guess we will find out in time, as we all make occasional submission mistakes, so it will be interesting to see if we can find ways to buck the system and get good content reviewed a second time.

Yes, you could make a change and resubmit a 'new' version, but it's a bit of a pointless exercise for both parties.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #8 on:** December 13, 2024, 14:22 »

Quote from: kuriouskat on December 13, 2024, 03:13

As if they weren't unpopular enough, Shutterstock now have a new rejection policy.

Shutterstock Content Resubmission Guidelines

Guidelines on submitting content that has been previously reviewed or already approved.

Previously Rejected Content

Content can only be submitted once. When submitting content for the first time, please ensure it meets all Shutterstock Content Publishing Standards and Guidelines before submitting it for review. In most cases, our system will not allow you to resubmit content that has already been reviewed and rejected.

If you attempt to resubmit content that has been previously rejected, it will generally be rejected again for Previously Rejected.

https://submit.shutterstock.com/en/dashboard

Except that SS doesn't reject much anymore. Everything now is put into "Eligible for data licensing". To get a rejection, you have to do something pretty extreme. Someone will have to test the theory that a missed check box, for Editorial, for example, makes an image impossible to upload again. How about rejection for improper Editorial caption, is that a death sentence for the image?

Doesn't sound right, but this is Shutterstock. Anything is possible, no matter how unlikely or illogical.

cascoly · « **Reply #9 on:** December 13, 2024, 16:33 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on December 13, 2024, 14:22

...To get a rejection, you have to do something pretty extreme. Someone will have to test the theory that a missed check box, for Editorial, for example, makes an image impossible to upload again. How about rejection for improper Editorial caption, is that a death sentence for the image? ...

i had some rejections recently because i'd failed to check editorial the first time, fixed & re-sub'd - sometimes accepted. there seem to be 2 reasons concerning editorial

Editorial Designation: This content can only be accepted for editorial use. Please select the "Editorial" button before submitting..

or

Metadata - Editorial Requirements: Editorial captions must include day, month, year, and geographic location information and a description. Descriptions, keywords, categories, and locations must be accurate, descriptive, and relevant to the subject matter, and must be in English. They should not contain any potentially objectionable or offensive language. Remove special characters or repetitive words/phrases and check spelling/grammar errors.

I've re-processed many older shoots, but can't always remembered what' lso been submitted (at lesser quality) -- been getting:
Previously Rejected: This content has already been submitted to Shutterstock.

i also got that msg when i resub'd images falsely identified as genAI, but nothing about not submitting again

worse tho is reviewer inconsistency - non-licensable is still a big reason for rejection - until recently some reviewers would reject entire batches, and others accept those on resubmission. and as far as forgetting to click editorial, they should do what DT does - automatically move to editorial if they find it should be

gnirtS · « **Reply #10 on:** December 13, 2024, 16:47 »

Quote from: kuriouskat on December 13, 2024, 03:13

As if they weren't unpopular enough, Shutterstock now have a new rejection policy.

Shutterstock Content Resubmission Guidelines

Guidelines on submitting content that has been previously reviewed or already approved.

Previously Rejected Content

Content can only be submitted once. When submitting content for the first time, please ensure it meets all Shutterstock Content Publishing Standards and Guidelines before submitting it for review. In most cases, our system will not allow you to resubmit content that has already been reviewed and rejected.

If you attempt to resubmit content that has been previously rejected, it will generally be rejected again for Previously Rejected.

https://submit.shutterstock.com/en/dashboard

In theory its a good thing.

In reality its nonsense. Years ago with actual human reviewers, if content was rejected it was a good reason and you know it was looked at individually. These days its all algorithm, no human in the chain and sometimes the results are absolutely, utterly random (Model release needed for algae anyone?).

That said, given their system doesnt even flag identical images that have been stolen from existing images online on submission, the chances of them actually detecting a resubmission have to be near zero anyway.

gnirtS · « **Reply #11 on:** December 13, 2024, 16:49 »

Quote from: stocker2011 on December 13, 2024, 07:24

Quote from: kuriouskat on December 13, 2024, 06:25
This actually feels as if they are penalizing those who want to correct errors and learn and grow.

These companies are flat out not interested in a contributor learning or growing, those days are long gone.

Shutterstock see contributors as a drain on resources, a waste of money and an inconvenience now. They see themselves as a Big Data company for training models not a media company. They've got a library almost big enough that they can afford to ditch new submissions entirely. In a few years time they wont be selling themselves as a stock agency any more, it'll just be a data company selling various portions of a vast, keyworded dataset.

gnirtS · « **Reply #12 on:** December 13, 2024, 16:51 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on December 13, 2024, 14:22

Quote from: kuriouskat on December 13, 2024, 03:13
As if they weren't unpopular enough, Shutterstock now have a new rejection policy.

Shutterstock Content Resubmission Guidelines

Guidelines on submitting content that has been previously reviewed or already approved.

Previously Rejected Content

Content can only be submitted once. When submitting content for the first time, please ensure it meets all Shutterstock Content Publishing Standards and Guidelines before submitting it for review. In most cases, our system will not allow you to resubmit content that has already been reviewed and rejected.

If you attempt to resubmit content that has been previously rejected, it will generally be rejected again for Previously Rejected.

https://submit.shutterstock.com/en/dashboard

Except that SS doesn't reject much anymore. Everything now is put into "Eligible for data licensing". To get a rejection, you have to do something pretty extreme. Someone will have to test the theory that a missed check box, for Editorial, for example, makes an image impossible to upload again. How about rejection for improper Editorial caption, is that a death sentence for the image?

Doesn't sound right, but this is Shutterstock. Anything is possible, no matter how unlikely or illogical.

The only rejections i see now are IP related. Ive had a few where genuinely it was touch-and-go with a silhouette binned. The others its mistaken sand patterns for logos and so on (isnt AI great....). I dont THINK there are any technical limitations (exposure, sharpness, WB etc) which could trigger a rejection now. Everything is accepted provided its not a person or logo.

synthetick · « **Reply #13 on:** December 13, 2024, 17:09 »

Could it be the case that people are overthinking this? Sure, if you resubmit the same content it would be rejected again. But if you make changes to fix issues with it then it will no longer be the same content, and you could resubmit it? The guidelines are not worded clearly.

zeljkok · « **Reply #14 on:** December 13, 2024, 21:18 »

Lots of noise .. about 10 cents. If rejected, just move on. Not worth the effort

Injustice for all · « **Reply #15 on:** December 14, 2024, 06:42 »

I'll leave my 2 cents.

as I have said many times in the past,my opinion is that continuing to upload to these agencies like SS or Istock only serves to ruin the agencies that respect and value our work,like Adobe.

if we continue to support SS or Istock or anyone else who pays us 0.10 cents or less for or even 1 usd for a video,15% royalty or whatever,what on earth do you think could happen?

if we instead abandon these digital vampires,Adobe will be able to maintain more honest prices and earnings for everyone.

if we fail to understand this, we ourselves will ruin the microstock, because we allow ourselves to be used by those who treat us without respect.

now someone comes and says: "yes but you don't only earn 10 cents" or "I earn more on Istock"

ok,go ahead,everyone does as they want,but then don't complain if you see 0.30 cents on Adobe,because we ourselves create the conditions for which this happens.

my opinion is that we need to stop supporting agencies that are ruining the microstock,if Adobe has exclusivity on a high percentage of the content,it will be able to set a fairer price.

gnirtS · « **Reply #16 on:** December 14, 2024, 06:51 »

Given the various things Adobe have done to contributors plus the AI deluge its very hard to give a convincing argument that they're somehow the good guys.

Injustice for all · « **Reply #17 on:** December 14, 2024, 07:02 »

Quote from: gnirtS on December 14, 2024, 06:51

Given the various things Adobe have done to contributors plus the AI deluge its very hard to give a convincing argument that they're somehow the good guys.

I respect your opinion but I really don't know how you can think this way.

people are blocked because problems emerge with their account,but then they are reinstated after verification,unless something serious happened.

meanwhile with Adobe we have free software,various bonuses all year round,the best royalties,and much more.

Here it's not a question of seeing who the good guys are,in my opinion the facts speak for themselves.

zeljkok · « **Reply #18 on:** December 14, 2024, 13:24 »

Quote from: gnirtS on December 14, 2024, 06:51

Given the various things Adobe have done to contributors plus the AI deluge its very hard to give a convincing argument that they're somehow the good guys.

Agreed. They -or any other stock agency for that matter- are neither good or bad guys. They are just businesses that really care about profits only, Adobe included.
Belief that boycotting one agency over the other will reverse microstock nosedive is completely detached from reality

gnirtS · « **Reply #19 on:** December 14, 2024, 19:12 »

Quote from: Injustice for all on December 14, 2024, 07:02

Quote from: gnirtS on December 14, 2024, 06:51
Given the various things Adobe have done to contributors plus the AI deluge its very hard to give a convincing argument that they're somehow the good guys.

people are blocked because problems emerge with their account,but then they are reinstated after verification,unless something serious happened.

Not always. Majority yes but there are plenty of cases where legit contributors have been blocked, some have never been reinstated, most that have took months and months of banging their head against a wall, totally unable to speak to a real person and lost a lot of money in the process.

Quote

Here it's not a question of seeing who the good guys are,in my opinion the facts speak for themselves.

Indeed. The facts are they're all moving away from contributors. Adobe have been particular bad polluting the library with AI meaning the review times and main library suffered hugely. No option to opt out of AI training (ie training the software to replace you). Inflation into account royalities all decreasing.

Free software is OK yes but its a small part.

Injustice for all · « **Reply #20 on:** December 15, 2024, 05:31 »

Quote from: zeljkok on December 14, 2024, 13:24

Quote from: gnirtS on December 14, 2024, 06:51
Given the various things Adobe have done to contributors plus the AI deluge its very hard to give a convincing argument that they're somehow the good guys.

Agreed. They -or any other stock agency for that matter- are neither good or bad guys. They are just businesses that really care about profits only, Adobe included.
Belief that boycotting one agency over the other will reverse microstock nosedive is completely detached from reality

it is detached from reality because unfortunately it won't happen,but in the event that it does happen,Istock and SS should change their policy.

however,it is a useless discussion because the policy of SS and Istock is a policy of excluding contributors in the long term,since they are only interested in training their AI and not in making the contributors earn money with the AI too.

Meanwhile,Adobe continues to find new ways to keep us working and making money,including now the ability to use generative edits for customers,which results in more royalties for us.

cobalt · « **Reply #21 on:** December 15, 2024, 05:45 »

"Meanwhile,Adobe continues to find new ways to keep us working and making money,including now the ability to use generative edits for customers, which results in more royalties for us."

That is a very important distinction. We are treated as real partners by Adobe, also of course because many of us are customers.

istock does continue to have a good relationship with their exclusives. There is a lot of trend research, there is a forum with real interaction with the community and exclusive prices and royalties are quite good. Also exclusive content is favored in the search. Still lots of people making a full time income, even giving up other jobs to just work with istock/getty.

ss is the one that closed their forums, has no visible producer interaction team and seems to be hell bent on avoiding contact with producers as much as possible.

Which is sad, because they used to have one of the most friendly outgoing teams in the industry.

Back in those days when they still were growing their agency business and had a great stock price

Now they keep losing clients even though they spend hundreds of millions buying customer contracts.

Who then leave them mostly for Adobe...

Injustice for all · « **Reply #22 on:** December 15, 2024, 05:47 »

Quote from: gnirtS on December 14, 2024, 19:12

Quote from: Injustice for all on December 14, 2024, 07:02
Quote from: gnirtS on December 14, 2024, 06:51
Given the various things Adobe have done to contributors plus the AI deluge its very hard to give a convincing argument that they're somehow the good guys.

people are blocked because problems emerge with their account,but then they are reinstated after verification,unless something serious happened.

Not always. Majority yes but there are plenty of cases where legit contributors have been blocked, some have never been reinstated, most that have took months and months of banging their head against a wall, totally unable to speak to a real person and lost a lot of money in the process.

Quote
Here it's not a question of seeing who the good guys are,in my opinion the facts speak for themselves.

Indeed. The facts are they're all moving away from contributors. Adobe have been particular bad polluting the library with AI meaning the review times and main library suffered hugely. No option to opt out of AI training (ie training the software to replace you). Inflation into account royalities all decreasing.

Free software is OK yes but its a small part.

strange because I instead see everything exactly the opposite,since with Adobe it is also possible to earn with AI,which in my opinion is not a "software that replaces us" but a further opportunity to increase sales.

I agree with giving the possibility of an opt out,but these are difficult choices that are made because I believe that it is important for the company to adequately train Firefly,to have an AI that keeps up with the times.

As for blocked accounts,I am only aware of contributors who were blocked and reinstated in a short time,or contributors who were not reinstated and who probably violated the terms intentionally,but I am clearly not aware of all the cases,but knowing the way Adobe works,I find it difficult to believe that some accounts are permanently blocked without a well-determined and verified reason.

gnirtS · « **Reply #23 on:** December 15, 2024, 06:37 »

There are literally several cases on this forum of people waiting months for reinstatement (and in some cases, getting nowhere until Matt intervened).

zeljkok · « **Reply #24 on:** December 15, 2024, 14:23 »

And now Matt is gone without apparent replacement, so that important link is lost. Was he just really working for promotion I don't know, but fact is he helped a lot of people here, provided valuable info etc.

Re SS, the way they handled and eventually shut down their Forum was really disappointing. Yes, there were trolls but also good support and info sharing. Towards the end they simply couldn't be bothered & there was piles of Asian spam pouring daily. Really a shame because discussion Forums are integral part of Microstock. Alamy Forum is elitist, iStock Forum little more than standard whining after earnings release, all that is left is MSG.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock now give you only one opportunity to get it right (Read 1951 times)

kuriouskat

cobalt

kuriouskat

cobalt

stocker2011

kuriouskat

JustAnImage

kuriouskat

Uncle Pete

cascoly

gnirtS

gnirtS

gnirtS

synthetick

zeljkok

Injustice for all

gnirtS

Injustice for all

zeljkok

gnirtS

Injustice for all

cobalt

Injustice for all

gnirtS

zeljkok

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors