Jump to content

Updates to our Similar Content Policy


Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Mark Godden said:

They always did once. Focus issues, noise issues, composition issues, colour balance issues, commercial value, amongst others were all up for judgement before images were accepted at SS. 

Yep.  It wouldn't be a bad idea to see this kind of scrutiny return.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

they always can buy vertical or horizontal,  or square  or many other format that SS Offers to the buyer.  

they have that option already    

Seriously!!!??? 

Posted Images

7 hours ago, Phil Lowe said:

Technical issues are not subject to the winds of change or the whims of buyers. If a contributor can't get a subject in focus, properly lit and exposed, and with little or no noise and straight horizon, then that image shouldn't be in the database, period.

maybe for your domain since you are a wildlife photographer.  In the editorial side there is demand for getting the image, even if the technique is not 100% perfect.  do you think the clients really worried of the quality of the nuclear explosion in Marshall Islands?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2019 at 4:25 PM, Anna Shutterstock said:

In order to improve the overall quality of the Shutterstock image collection, we are updating our policy for review of similar content. We avoid accepting Similar Content because it creates a poor user experience for customers and contributors by having large volumes of nearly identical images or clips. Browsing through large volumes of repetitive search results is time-consuming, and prevents customers from purchasing relevant content that fits their needs.

We are outlining tighter guidelines for what we consider to be similar content and this policy will now also apply to footage submissions. You can review the details of the policy changes and check out visual examples in the Contributor Support article Why was my content rejected for Similar Content?  This policy will go into effect starting on August 12, 2019.

As a result of these stricter guidelines, some of you may encounter rejections of some types of content that was previously accepted. Please take the time to review explanations and examples provided in the support article and contact us if you have additional questions.

And as always, thanks for your continued support and participation in our marketplace!

@Anna Shutterstock  Anna, what will be the policy for editorials.  All of the example  are clear on the creative commercial side. If there is enough variety in the interpretation of the seen, will we be allowed to let customer decide what they want? 

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

New paragraph:

Customers, or rather the new wave of customers care little about noise, sharpness, etc. A photo good enough for a blog, doesn't have to be pixel peeped, at 100% zoom, like it used to be, when Atilla the Hun was king.

That's because our customers' customers, being so used with smartphone photos, don't care at all about what you consider "quality".

Our customers just want pictures useful for their needs. Those pictures don't have to be "right" or "nice", in a photoclub way.

This is the principle 'why should we try to stop overall degradation and tawdriness, if we can make money on it? Nah! Let's become the richest degradants!'

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a question about similars / footage that I sent to support.... while this isn't the actual question / response, it went like this

Q. Hi, is it going to rain today as I need to know because I don't want to get wet.

A. Hi, thank you for your message... we really appreciate this feedback, idea and we'll forward it to the team.

Q. Hi, did you really mean to reply to my question with a response that doesn't answer it?

A..... silence.

@Anna Shutterstock Would you be able to tell if the query I raised is being answered? Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2019 at 7:48 PM, T R A V E L A R I U M said:

Great news! But explain to me these 2 examples in support article please.

1. All examples have the same background. Different objects describing the meaning of the photo - Acceptable

shutterstock_749710501-copy.thumb.jpg.4eb213bc69459f5c0fa2ea2a4ca8ad06.jpg

2. All examples have the same background. Different objects describing the meaning of the photo - Not Acceptable

iconoverlays.thumb.jpg.7655c542c0377da3938281115f4bbf4f.jpg

What is the difference?

I feel like the bottom row should be allowed up to a point (maybe 5-7 images) - As each image conveys a different narrative, and can be used for different reasons. Not all end-users have the ability to create the icon overlays - some are just wanting to use a completed image for a specific narrative. As a photographer who has to hire a studio and model, I would hope to get more than 1 image out of each shoot/set-up. I mean how many different ways can you photograph someone in a suit pointing to a see-through touch screen? (to get a different looking background for your overlays).

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jean-francois.me said:

or stick to obsolete values,  and become extinct.

There's nothing obsolete about good photography.  And as far as editorials go, the only editorial that should get a technical exemption is breaking news images: gun fight in progress, or some other captured-in-the-moment event (plane crash, shooting, etc.)  Most editorials on this site are not of this type of breaking news nature, so there's no excuse for not getting it right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mandritoiu said:

smartphone photos

With a depth-of-field approaching 1 AU, most smartphones don't have problems getting just about anything in focus.  

This isn't about a "photo club way".  It's about offering customers professional products for the price Shutterstock is charging them.  SS, after all, still does promote itself as a provider of professional media.

2019-08-07_06-27-52.jpg.d7c05805795aa8178643b9ab5d658664.jpg

Not "photo club".  Professional.  p-r-o-f-e-s-s-i-o-n-a-l.

That's the benchmark.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sunshine Seeds said:

I feel like the bottom row should be allowed up to a point (maybe 5-7 images) - As each image conveys a different narrative, and can be used for different reasons. Not all end-users have the ability to create the icon overlays - some are just wanting to use a completed image for a specific narrative. As a photographer who has to hire a studio and model, I would hope to get more than 1 image out of each shoot/set-up. I mean how many different ways can you photograph someone in a suit pointing to a see-through touch screen? (to get a different looking background for your overlays).

I agree. Given that often buyers really have very little idea how to edit an image - if they did they would probably not need to buy so much! Some of these examples of not allowed similars seem a little strange.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Phil Lowe said:

There's nothing obsolete about good photography.  And as far as editorials go, the only editorial that should get a technical exemption is breaking news images: gun fight in progress, or some other captured-in-the-moment event (plane crash, shooting, etc.)  Most editorials on this site are not of this type of breaking news nature, so there's no excuse for not getting it right.

show me your market research.  In fact what you are clearly implying is that You know better than Shutterstock what the Shutterstock clients want.  Pretty bold claim. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jean-francois.me said:

show me your market research.

Here:

https://www.shutterstock.com/features/contributorsuccess/en_shutterstock_contributor_success_guide.pdf

Note the following:

2019-08-07_14-26-28.thumb.jpg.8a9eb2e6c4560eb73b37c76a728f743f.jpg

That's Shutterstock's research, not mine. 

And, @jeffde, by Mandritiou's "logic and reason", Shutterstock should accept everything, regardless of quality, and let the buyer choose.  If you agree with that, as you appear to have done, shoot a memo off to your boss telling him he's wasting money on reviews and reviewers. 

Shutterstock can't have it both ways: you can't say on the one hand that you're all about "high quality, professional" images, and then accept some of the content we've seen in some of the "Why aren't my pictures selling?" threads over the years since SS lowered the standards for acceptance as a contributor here.  Either have high QC standards that you enforce, or let everything in and stop with the "high quality, professional" hype.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm probably crazily sentimental but for me, if someone's heart and soul is not driving their photographic creativity then something vital is missing. Jeff's message was a bit of a shot through my heart to be honest. I remember when to be accepted at SS really meant something. It honestly did. Obviously now the World has moved on and us 'oldies' must get with the programme or get out. As I've said a hundred times, this is a hobby for me and I'll always spend much more time tinkering with images than the returns justify but that's me. I always want to do my best (aiming as high as I can) and I won't apologise for that...... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mark Godden said:

Well my friend, the landscape around has changed beyond recognition. Once quality was king but no longer it seems. 

If that really is the case, SS should fire all the reviewers and stop marketing a database filled with "high quality, professional" images.  As I wrote before, it cannot be both ways. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mark Godden said:

Jeff's message was a bit of a shot through my heart to be honest.

It also makes me wonder if Jeff was speaking only for himself, or Shutterstock.  I think that should be made clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mandritoiu said:

Jeff is empowered to represent and speak on behalf of the company in its relation with us, contributors.

So this specific remark:

7 hours ago, jeffde said:

@mandritoiu crushing it with the logic and reason lately

represents Shutterstock's corporate view?  I think I would prefer to have @jeffde confirm that himself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, mandritoiu said:

but you don't like to be proven wrong.

Maybe you missed this part...

2019-08-07_14-26-28.thumb.jpg.bfff2fd7de8474c370473223d689b5fa.jpg

Still looking for @jeffde to tell us if he was speaking for himself or Shutterstock when he threw in his support for your "logic and reason."  Because if he was speaking for himself, he was perfectly within his right to do so, but in disagreement with Shutterstock's written contributor guidelines, part of which is cited above.

But if he was speaking for Shutterstock, I'd like to know when we will see the cited guidelines changed to mirror your point of view.  In either case, only he can answer this and I think he needs to.

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...