Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I had this image rejected twice with the following:

 

Rejection reasons (1)

Objectionable Content: Content contains potentially objectionable or offensive subject matter.

 

The first time I thought it was a mistake. The second time I started asking myself why is it an “Objectionable Content" and/or can it be an "Offensive subject matter"?

Your views on the issue would be much appreciated. Thanks

Estoril - Tamariz Beach II.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have lots off images accepted from the beach. Even recently. I noticed as long sensitive body parts are fully covered it get accepted. As soon a little bit is visible rejection. I could bet that the person in the lower left part of the photos is the reason. His or her $&# is half showing 🤐

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 1000 Words Images said:

His or her $&# is half showing

You can usually see a lot more with a plumber who bends down to clear the drain. 
If I were the OP, I would try to upload the image again with the "Mature content" box checked. 
I don't know if that works. I have no experience with such photos, because I only stay in places where people are fully clothed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, geogif said:

You can usually see a lot more with a plumber who bends down to clear the drain. 
If I were the OP, I would try to upload the image again with the "Mature content" box checked. 
I don't know if that works. I have no experience with such photos, because I only stay in places where people are fully clothed. 

True that haha. But did you try to upload such plumber? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, chris kolaczan said:

Those of you talking about how horrible Shutterstock is for caving into the puritanical streak that apparently is the US might want to re-think your argument.

Do you think that it is at all possible that Shutterstock is aware (and you apparently aren't) that there have been international rings of pedos who will go around collecting images of pre-adolescent kids to feed their need? Is it possible that Shutterstock isn't interested in participating in this? Is it possible that the parents of these children aren't interested in having you make money off of this? Personally, I'm fully willing to sacrifice a few $0.38 downloads to not add to the problem.

But, of course, this isn't the issue here, it is all just about "breasts are bad" and everything. Give your head a shake.

I don't know any paedophile, but I have very strong doubts that the wide-angle photo of the OP from a completely normal beach scene is suitable as a masturbation model. 
I am also of the opinion that this is a remnant of American exaggerated puritanism, which leads to the rejection of such completely harmless photos. 
Of course we can adjust to this, and of course we can do without the few cents. Especially if we save a child's soul from abuse. However, here, in the questionable picture of the OP, the sense of proportion seems to be completely missing with the American censors.  
So the moral-cultural difference remains and should be communicated as it is. It should not be concealed by any nonsensical reasons, such as the feared abuse by paedophiles. 

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2019 at 8:39 PM, chris kolaczan said:

Those of you talking about how horrible Shutterstock is for caving into the puritanical streak that apparently is the US might want to re-think your argument.

Do you think that it is at all possible that Shutterstock is aware (and you apparently aren't) that there have been international rings of pedos who will go around collecting images of pre-adolescent kids to feed their need? Is it possible that Shutterstock isn't interested in participating in this? Is it possible that the parents of these children aren't interested in having you make money off of this? Personally, I'm fully willing to sacrifice a few $0.38 downloads to not add to the problem.

But, of course, this isn't the issue here, it is all just about "breasts are bad" and everything. Give your head a shake.

Please show me the data proving your international ring of pedos (sic!) are using cropped images of stock photography as part of their sources....

Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be a shutdown on images where minors are in the image, not only on SS but I have also experienced this on IS. I had a lot of photos taken at the World Human Statue Festival ( which is a yearly event in the Netherlands ) and includes a youth selection. After uploading some images to IS of children participating ( mostly closeups of faces ) they where accepted , another batch of similar images some weeks later where rejected with 'Minor without a release'. All images where editorial. At that time SS accepted all images but if I where to upload today I would wonder if they would be accepted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The line should be drawn at the limit of the common sense. Explicit images of naked children is over the limit of the common sense and a "bold large line" must be drawn. However a an innocent family beach where a minuscule section of that image shows a topless child, is ridiculous. I was told by someone from Contributor Support that, again a minuscule section of the image, with the back of the gentleman sitting and showing the gluteal muscles (buttocks) would also be a reason for rejection. However, bullets and guns are perfectly normal and acceptable!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, ribeiroantonio said:

Ok, I gave my head a shake! However and on different issue, I still can not understand how bullets and guns can be socially acceptable.

Gun ownership is a recognized, protected, inalienable right in the U.S.  Photos of partially nude minors is not, and may even land one in jail depending on the context.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Phil Lowe said:

Gun ownership is a recognized, protected, inalienable right in the U.S.  Photos of partially nude minors is not, and may even land one in jail depending on the context.  

Ok Phil. I'm finishing here my participation on this "enlightening" discussion. We are all culturally different, even on the inalienable rights.

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

Gun ownership is a recognized, protected, inalienable right in the U.S.

That's a good point.
We have something similar in Germany, on the motorways. 
It's called "Freie Fahrt für freie Bürger" (free travel for free citizens).
And it sometimes leads to the same result as the firearms in God's own country. 

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...