Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Anna Shutterstock

3D Content Policy Change

Recommended Posts

3D illustrations and renderings are amazingly realistic images. To a customer who might not know about 3D illustrations, they may appear to be photographs of real people, interiors and other objects.

 

All 3D content should always be designated as an “Illustration” in the content editor so that customers will find 3D renderings only when they search for illustrations.

In order to further clarify 3D content for our customers, we are now requiring that all 3D renderings and illustrations include the term “3D rendering” or “3D illustration” in the description as well as the keywords.

 

Using these terms will help customers better understand they are viewing 3D renderings and it will inform reviewers on how to properly review your content in a timely and consistent manner.

 

We will not require property releases for software used to create 3D renderings of objects, people, animals, vehicles and exterior architecture.

 

3D renderings of room interiors will continue to require a 3D Property Release. Please refer to this earlier post for more information about submitting 3D interior renderings.

 

Please note, if a reference image was used to create a 3D model, contributors must own the copyright to the reference image. Refer to the this support article for further clarification.

This policy does not apply to vectors, only to JPEG Illustrations.

 

3D images submitted without the words “3D illustration” or “3D rendering” in the title and keywords will not be approved for the following reason: 3D Title/Keyword Requirement: 3D images require the phrase “3D illustration” or “3D rendering” in the title and keywords.

 

Whether the 3D illustration is realistic or stylized/cartoony they would both require the 3D Illustration designation in the metadata.

 

You will find more information and examples in our blog post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so just to make sure we're crystal clear here; 

 

In your post, you have "3D rendering" and "3D illustration" in their own separate quotation marks. Is this like how "illustrative editorial" used to be, where they had to be in the 'same keyword' and not as two individual words? (but both being present)

Because I started doing 3D rendering about a week ago, and they've all had; "3D" "render" and "illustration" present in the keywords, and "3D" and "render" present in the title, but not housed  within a single keyword.  Before today, none were rejected. But then today just had a batch all rejected which I am pretty sure I submitted right about the time this post went live in the forum. Would have been nice to have a day - or at least as long as the queue was at the time this was posted (~14 hours) before these rejections reasons would take effect.

 

Thank for your clarifications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also, just a suggestion; would be smart to put "3D" into the keyword/caption dictionary now that its mandated so that every submission of a render we send doesn't get returned for misspelled keywords, just an idea  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow that's annoying. I just saw this post a short while ago, so rushed to update the keywords and description of queued image to include these - although this is already made clear in my descriptions (there has always said "3d digitally rendered illustration" at the end of my description). Obviously not quick enough as I've just had this rejection.

 

How about giving people a bit of advance warning before you make this kind of changes, instead of causing us to waste more time?

 

Edit - Also - question: does this also apply to Bigstock submissions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so just to make sure we're crystal clear here; 

 

In your post, you have "3D rendering" and "3D illustration" in their own separate quotation marks. Is this like how "illustrative editorial" used to be, where they had to be in the 'same keyword' and not as two individual words? (but both being present)

Because I started doing 3D rendering about a week ago, and they've all had; "3D" "render" and "illustration" present in the keywords, and "3D" and "render" present in the title, but not housed  within a single keyword.  Before today, none were rejected. But then today just had a batch all rejected which I am pretty sure I submitted right about the time this post went live in the forum. Would have been nice to have a day - or at least as long as the queue was at the time this was posted (~14 hours) before these rejections reasons would take effect.

 

Thank for your clarifications.

within the title the words "3D rendering" or "3D illustration" should be together. In the keywords they will become separated, but we ask that you enter 3D and illustration or rendering as individual keywords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow that's annoying. I just saw this post a short while ago, so rushed to update the keywords and description of queued image to include these - although this is already made clear in my descriptions (there has always said "3d digitally rendered illustration" at the end of my description). Obviously not quick enough as I've just had this rejection.

 

How about giving people a bit of advance warning before you make this kind of changes, instead of causing us to waste more time?

 

Edit - Also - question: does this also apply to Bigstock submissions?

I am sorry about that review, we will take that into consideration. This policy does not currently apply to Bigstock submissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Anna M.

It seems there is now a problem with 3d renders at Bigstock? I just received a message for a render that it needs a release "for a photograph taken on private property"! Even though it is clearly marked as a 3d render and illustration! Maybe you need to bring this new policy in at BS soon as the reviewers seem to be getting confused!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anna M.

So maybe it's time to add finally the word "3d" in the dictionary? I always see the message during uploading of my 3d renders:

The word 3d in the 'Description' field may be misspelled. Suggested alternate spellings are D, d, DD, dd, yd, AD, Ad, CD, Cd, Ed. If the spelling is correct, make no changes and click the Submit button again.

And one more extra mouse click I need to do again and again.

Is it a real task?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anna M.

It seems there is now a problem with 3d renders at Bigstock? I just received a message for a render that it needs a release "for a photograph taken on private property"! Even though it is clearly marked as a 3d render and illustration! Maybe you need to bring this new policy in at BS soon as the reviewers seem to be getting confused!

 

I will pass this information along, but I encourage you to reach out to our colleagues in Bigstock Support for specific questions regarding the review of your images.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also, just a suggestion; would be smart to put "3D" into the keyword/caption dictionary now that its mandated so that every submission of a render we send doesn't get returned for misspelled keywords, just an idea  ;)

Hello Chris,

 

Thank you for your suggestion.

We have added 3-D and 3D to the dictionary, so you will no longer see the misspelled alert in your content editor.

If you see any issue regarding 3D keywords, please feel free to contact us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, my first submission after the policy change was rejected for "3D Title/Keywords Requirement -- 3D images require the phrase "3D illustration" or "3D rendering" in the title and keywords" . I have always included "3d" and"illustration" in the keywords of my images and I specifically added "3d illustration" in the title / description for that submission so I was really puzzled by the rejection . Is there a specific format that is required , like 3D vs 3d ? Am I missing something ? I sent a question to support more than a week ago and still haven't heard back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Chris,

 

Thank you for your suggestion.

We have added 3-D and 3D to the dictionary, so you will no longer see the misspelled alert in your content editor.

If you see any issue regarding 3D keywords, please feel free to contact us.

thank you Nancy that's great news. 

 

 

and nobeastsofierce, you need "3d illustration" in the keywords, as a single keyword, no comma between 3d and illustration to separate them.  I was using render before, but there were too many issues with the suffix being ING, or ED, or no suffix, so I stick to 'illustration' now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you Nancy that's great news. 

 

 

and nobeastsofierce, you need "3d illustration" in the keywords, as a single keyword, no comma between 3d and illustration to separate them.  I was using render before, but there were too many issues with the suffix being ING, or ED, or no suffix, so I stick to 'illustration' now. 

Thanks for clarifying that it should be a single keyword . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a rejection from Bigstock due to this new requirement now.

 

Yes. Me too! Last we were told here was it wasn't a requirement on Bigstock and I haven't had any formal notification from Bigstock about this. Get the requirements organised please!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't like about this change, is that there's no clear distinction between 3D, photos and some heavy 'post' work in Photoshop. Both from the client's perspective and us, the contributors, what's important is to get a great picture that will visually portrait a certain thing, or a concept. I understand that vectors are a different bunch altogether, but the line between photos and illustrations is very blurry. There are thousands of images described as "photos" where someone just pasted a photo of a model in a 3D environment and somehow this counts as a photo. 

 

So this is a photo:

 

 stock-photo-business-people-and-metaphor

 

or this

 

stock-photo-businessman-jumping-on-sprin

 

But this (which is actually my 3D rendering), counts as illustration

 

stock-photo-sunshine-in-a-mysty-forest-2

 

Just think if you're actually doing the right thing here. Is the client getting the best pictures possible? is the client getting the images he had in mind, by filtering either illustrations or photos? 

 

I'm all about clearly labeling 3D renders and those collages as not-real-photos. That's a good idea. But hiding from clients a huge chunk of your database and at the same time leaving a lot of heavily edited, mixed media Photoshop pictures is doing us all disservice. The client gets a worst service, you loose revenue and many of us, contributors, get less exposure and less sales. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a pointless change which only results in additional hassle for contributors. The vast majority of the images I submitted after this requirement was brought in (but before I knew about it) did not contain '3D illustration' in the title but were accepted nonetheless so it's clear the moderation team aren't adept at enforcing this rule. It was only when one batch of 60 in the middle of uploading hundreds of images suddenly got rejected on SS and BS that I even knew about it.

 

I've always had '3D', 'illustration' and 'render' in the keywords, despite SS flagging '3D' as a spelling mistake until recently yet neither the system nor the moderators caught the hundreds of other obvious 3D illustrations I uploaded and rejected them for not meeting this new requirement.

 

Whilst I understand the reasoning behind this decision the haphazard way it is being enforced makes it pointless and since none of the images I submitted in this case were photorealistic anyway it hardly matters whether the users knows that they are 3D illustrations or even knows what 3D illustrations are because they definitely know it is not a photo. Shutterstock already had a system for differentiating between photorealistic renders and photos and that was the requirement to designate it as an illustration. Since SS is not going to waste time retroactively renaming the millions of 3D illustrations on the site already the only effective way for buyers to filter out 3D illustrations is still going to be to search just for photos and not all images anyway.

 

This additional requirement is just cluttering the title and especially annoying for contributors like me who upload to other sites which have lower word or character counts for the title. Now I'm either going to have a harder job keeping titles below 10 words for IS or just accept the additional time to name them all separately for that site.

 

If Shutterstock really wants to separate 3D illustrations from other content for the user then they should add a 3D illustration designation instead. I notice that my jpg renders have stopped being classed as vectors now which is a big (and long overdue) improvement for both contributor and buyer alike but this new requirement is a step in the wrong direction.

 

 

Also, whilst I am here and whilst SS and BS seem to be up for making some changes to their systems. Isn't it about time that SS sent images rejected for trifling reasons like this back to the submission editor like BS does? It is your bandwidth I am wasting when hundreds of images get rejected and require re-uploading just because I forgot to check the illustration box or because I didn't write '3D illustration' in the title...

Share this post


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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...