Jump to content
Harry Green

Anyone know why these images have a 'Non-Licesensable content.. compliance....' rejection?

Recommended Posts

Hello

Does anyone know why these images submitted as editorial have received a 'Non-Licensable Content -- Due to legal compliance restrictions, we cannot license this content in ou' rejection reason?

Would've accepted a variation of 'not very good' rejection reason but i can't see any graffiti and I wouldn't have thought there was a problem with the bank names on the skyscrapers or identifiable cars because editorial, so I'm a bit stumped as to what's wrong? It may well be perfectly obvious, but not to me!

 

Any help would be much appreciated

 

Thanks

Harry

815_IMG_2453_sml.thumb.jpg.77fb247ec82954ec0df5c24767d087ee.jpg817_IMG_ri_5687_sml.thumb.jpg.6e0afb4403810082062008538d9e27d5.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO, first one car accident may have court case between owners or car manufacturer may proceed legal action if the image was wrongly used. Then you or SS may be ask to appear in court as witness. The same goes to 2nd image if that dry tree trunk later fell on person underneath it and become legal issue. I don't think it is because of bank logo or name which mine have no problem always being approved under editorial.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, oleschwander said:

If that’s the case millions of images should be rejected.

I like your question probably we could continue in constructive discussion. Although I am small kid as of my avatar, your question much better than a full grown adult still fantasizing outer space cartoon than in real life. It is just... you not offer your POV.

If you know composition, you will know what is dominance main subject and what it is going to tell. If you can't see clearly, it is not my fault but yours. So, case millions of images should be rejected is not related. Will you mind to share one?  

By the way, Harry, why not make some improvement on 2nd image and submit under non-editorial. If you do not know a very fast way using 2 steps color remover to remove unwanted obstructions without any blurry edges and effect, pm me. Laurin know very well too, I learned the small part the way how he did it. 

5a82642734375_SStemp1.jpg.5fa7f73a3790086e5a7ee322b2061acb.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Harry Green said:

Also, got another rejection this morning for the same reason!!! Still not clear why

In this case, one or more of the buildings or the entire district are protected, so removing the logo wouldn't help. They are still recognizable by their shape.
It seams this kind of rejection cannot be fixed on SS:

https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/Why-was-my-content-rejected-as-Non-Licensable-Content?l=en_US&c=ContributorKB%3AContent_Rejection_Reasons&fs=Search&pn=1

However, the same buildings can be seen on Getty and all other agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got Canary Wharf images with the same buildings (different angle), submitted as editorial, and accepted, including the bank signage.  So unless there's been yet another change of mind, or there's a different reason, I'd just re-submit and see what happens.

As for the car shot, I know that some vehicle images are in the KIRL, so it might be that the manufacturer has an issue.  I suspect if they weren't fire-damaged they might have got through.  All slightly bizarre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the comments, all. I clicked through the link you sent Whiteaster and found what seems to be the rejection reason, shown in the screenshot below - thanks for sharing it. For all 3 photos I was in a royal park which it says cannot be used for editorial or commercial. The canary wharf photo was taken from greenwich park and the other two primrose hill. The one with the cars was not in the park but I must've mentioned primrose hill which got it the rejection. Doesn't explain why 11 pages of primrose hill photos with the park clearly visible already exist, but maybe it's only a recently enforced restriction. will just have to be more vague in descriptions - the queen surely has enough money!
 

6 hours ago, Whiteaster said:

In this case, one or more of the buildings or the entire district are protected, so removing the logo wouldn't help. They are still recognizable by their shape.
It seams this kind of rejection cannot be fixed on SS:

https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/Why-was-my-content-rejected-as-Non-Licensable-Content?l=en_US&c=ContributorKB%3AContent_Rejection_Reasons&fs=Search&pn=1

However, the same buildings can be seen on Getty and all other agencies.

 

Screenshot 2018-02-13 17.31.24.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Laurin Rinder said:

Im Not a fan Of the Images as Images but I think this is again a classic inconsistency issue with SS.

You wouldn't mind sharing what you think are the main negatives of the photos would you, Laurin? The car one is a snapshot from my iPhone as walking past, i thought the old houses and tall buildings made a nice contrast but the composition is not great on the left hand side with the trees and maybe I whacked up the colour a bit too much. I thought the one with the couple looking towards city of london was ok, although a fairly dreary overcast day.

Be interested to hear your opinion anyway, thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Harry Green said:

You wouldn't mind sharing what you think are the main negatives of the photos would you, Laurin? The car one is a snapshot from my iPhone as walking past, i thought the old houses and tall buildings made a nice contrast but the composition is not great on the left hand side with the trees and maybe I whacked up the colour a bit too much. I thought the one with the couple looking towards city of london was ok, although a fairly dreary overcast day.

Be interested to hear your opinion anyway, thanks

Sure Harry. Pls write to Rinderart@aol.com for a unbiased critique and a link to your port with any questions.and I'll try to get to ya. Im working with 26 folks now trying to straighten them out. Remember I don't blow smoke up rear ends or sugar coat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's looking like they're banning imagery from UK National Parks such as the Lake District, Snowdonia and the Cairngorms because the land is owned by the National Trust. This of course is crazy as it is open access land and not even the National Trust look to see restrictions of this type of imagery.

It seems there is a misunderstanding between the word property & properties. I'm hoping to get clarification from SS but it's starting to look like a blanket ban of National Parks, Outdoor and mountain imagery in the UK (given the National Trust maintain / own most of it a lot of it). Complete overkill and lack of understanding of the UK law. Hopefully someone sees sense! After all, the trails in these places are public rights or way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Laurin Rinder said:

Sure Harry. Pls write to Rinderart@aol.com for a unbiased critique and a link to your port with any questions.and I'll try to get to ya. Im working with 26 folks now trying to straighten them out. Remember I don't blow smoke up rear ends or sugar coat.

Thanks a lot, Laurin. Will mail you in a minute - and however you deliver your critique is fine by me - it's generous of you to offer your time.

 

1 hour ago, Duncan Andison said:

It's looking like they're banning imagery from UK National Parks such as the Lake District, Snowdonia and the Cairngorms because the land is owned by the National Trust. This of course is crazy as it is open access land and not even the National Trust look to see restrictions of this type of imagery.

It seems there is a misunderstanding between the word property & properties. I'm hoping to get clarification from SS but it's starting to look like a blanket ban of National Parks, Outdoor and mountain imagery in the UK (given the National Trust maintain / own most of it a lot of it). Complete overkill and lack of understanding of the UK law. Hopefully someone sees sense! After all, the trails in these places are public rights or way.

 

See what you mean, Duncan. Hadn't seen National trust on that list, i think you must be right about the properties being taken out of context - at least I hope so, about 50% of my PF is on national trust land! Nice images of north England by the way, had to move from Newcastle back to London after living there for a few years - great place. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Harry Green said:

Thanks a lot, Laurin. Will mail you in a minute - and however you deliver your critique is fine by me - it's generous of you to offer your time.

 

See what you mean, Duncan. Hadn't seen National trust on that list, i think you must be right about the properties being taken out of context - at least I hope so, about 50% of my PF is on national trust land! Nice images of north England by the way, had to move from Newcastle back to London after living there for a few years - great place. 

 

Cheers... I'm just lost for words with this at the moment. They just won't listen to sense. How do they think magazines get published if they can't publish images they take for walking routes. The National Trust would be shutting down every magazine in the UK. Shutterstock would appear to have decided to give the right to the National Trust to block all mountain outdoor imagery for sale in the US when they can't even do that in the UK and to be fair, the National Trust wouldn't have even asked for that, just protection for their Pay To Access Properties. I guess the magazines and books that buy my images here will have to deal with me directly now they won't accept them!

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

×