Jump to content

New "Guidelines for Submitting Diverse and Inclusive Content" requirements are INSANE!

Recommended Posts

(...or why my only submissions of people from now on will be self portraits)

"Hi, lovely day out here in the park.  I noticed you and your friend enjoying some private time.. but mind if I take your picture?

Thanks, that was great.  Oh, can I get you to sign this model release?  Thank you so much.

Now please tell me your race, ethnicity, disabilities, religion, age, gender and sexual orientation so my photo agency won't reject this photo and I can make 10 cents.

Ouch, that hurts, why are you throwing rocks at me!"

Signed: A caucasian person of northern european descent with significant hearing loss, protestant, old male, heterosexual... did I cover everything? Probably not, since class distinction is a "thing", SS will amend these requirements to include asking them their income as well.


Screen Shot 2021-09-01 at 4.49.09 AM.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is completely mad, I agree. I wouldn't even ask a model I know well their sexual orientation.  That's not anyone's business.

It's an invasion of privacy at the best.  How many models will want their religion and sexuality etc available for the world to see via the keywords, as Sstock suggests?


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, balajisrinivasan said:

 this only makes SS look far worse than before while it's pretending to look all woke while crushing the incomes of creators who made it what it is.

Plus withdrawing every avenue of communication and support with us 😐

I'm going back under my stone.  It's less annoying there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Studio 2 said:

FFS.  This Sstock is all show.  On the face of things they pretend they are caring and principled.

Woke Identity Politics. "What matters is not goodness but the appearance of goodness, we're no longer human beings... We are now angels jostling to out-angel one another.".

When ever I see a company behaving in this manner, I avoid them. I like to treat everyone as an individual and not try and place them in neat groups just so I can say how good I am. </Rant Over>

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not even completely rude to ask a business partner for their sexual orientation or whether they have some disabilities - Unless it's in some way visible and therefore relevant to the photo , I don't even understand the point of it? Like, if I want to portrait a woman doing yoga, what has her sexual orientation to do with it? Why should I even mention it in the title? How is it relevant to the buyer? I don't get that.
Same with disabilities - If I photography someone with for example an amputated arm and it's visible in the photo, surely I would mention it in the title - but if the disability is not visible, surely I would not ask the model "Hey, do you happen to have any disabilities"? and then I would name the photo "Young homosexual woman who suffers from hearing loss disability doing yoga". Same with all the other stuff like religion.

So, I want to take a photo of a woman doing Yoga and the title is supposed to be:

"Young 23 years old Christian homosexual Afro American woman who identifies as female and who suffers from hearing loss disability doing yoga".

Really? Isn't the Shutterstock search giving customers poor results because of horrible title and keywording anyways? Now they want customers who search for words like "disability", "Christian" or "homosexual" to get search results that don't really depict any of these at all? Maybe I should also add to the title that in her free time the woman likes reading books and gardening? That she lives in new Orleans? Has 3 Children?

Unless you are depicting a certain sexuality, sexual orientation, disability or religion in a picture, it should not play any role and should not be mentioned.  This has nothing to do with political correctness or inclusion, but simply with the fact that customers won't find what they are looking for that way.

And if I was a model, doing yoga for a photographer, I would not want my sexual orientation, identification, my religion, any disabilities or illnesses to be listed for the whole world to see. That's my very private information. Asking these things of a model and making that information public is not "political-correct" or "inclusive". It's an extreme invasion of privacy.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calm down everyone!

Reading the guidance and the examples given here: https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/article/Guidelines-for-Submitting-Diverse-and-Inclusive-Content?language=en_US, it's quite clear that you do not have to always ask models about their religion or sexual orientation etc on every shoot you do with them. You only have to put it if it's relevant and in context with the photo you have taken. e.g, if you are photographing someone who is transgender, and the theme of the shot is clearly related to transgender issues, then yes, you mention it. If it's just a couple watching the TV holding a cup of coffee, then obviously it's irrelevant, and you don't have to mention it. See below one of the examples supplied by SS. No mention of religion or disability etc. All the keywords make sense.



Link to post
Share on other sites

What about vector illustration? Does this new guideline apply to vector illustration? Vector illustration is not real people.

Can I say "Disabled man working in office"? Or must I change it to "A man with physical disability working in office" for vector illustration?

And what about keyword? Can I still put keyword like "disabled" or "handicapped"?

I hope to get more clarification on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, David Calvert said:

Calm down everyone!

Reading the guidance and the examples given here: https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/article/Guidelines-for-Submitting-Diverse-and-Inclusive-Content?language=en_US, it's quite clear that ...

Only problem with that is that Shutterstock's reviewers misinterpret guidelines the way they want.

When Shutterstock introduced the new guidelines for similar images I read through the guidelines carefully and then was relieved, because I never would have even tried to submit images as similar as were shown in the examples in the guidelines. I thought the guidelines were very clear, very specific and that it would not concern me. Turned out I was not allowed to submit a photo of one of my dogs wearing a Tyrolean Oktoberfest hat and a photo of it wearing a Halloween witch hat in the same batch, because they were "too similar".....🙄
So I don't trust reviewers to understand and carry out these new guidelines in any way that makes sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...