Very often, novice microstockers send photos from their archives to forums or thematic groups in social networks and ask them to criticize, to say whether this will be sold. Another thing happens: they ask, abstractly, whether such and such a subject will be sold.
Refusals: why not taking photos
Another common reason for refusals is the presence of any copyrighted element in the frame. As a result, such an image becomes unusable, and the photo bank simply will not accept it. What could it be? Let's take a look at some examples of shots with such elements.
- · Still life with an open magazine. On the centerfold of the magazine - someone else's photo. There is nothing to say here - the use of someone else's image in works for microstock is strictly prohibited.
- · The photo shows a man in a T-shirt with a print (image, inscription). Such prints make the image unsuitable for stocks. The same can be said about labels - brand names on clothes. Any logos need to be retouched before submitting a photo. Pay special attention to the buttons - they are also often indicated by the name of the company. It is better to choose plain clothes, or a checkered pattern, polka-dot pattern, or something similar.
- · All of the above applies to recognizable styles, details, accessories. Even if you retouch the Crocs logo, this shoe is so recognizable that the photo will be rejected. Moreover, even if the model is wearing Crocs-style Chinese sneakers, such a photo will most likely not be accepted either.
- · Any children's toys with a recognizable logo. For example, you shouldn't take a picture of a child playing with Lego blocks. Teddy or Mickey Mouse teddy bears are also not the best choice.
- · Books and sheet music. Yes, no matter how paradoxical it sounds, even the notes of well-known works cannot be used in works.
- Any items with a recognizable logo. A very recent example is a bottle of Kikkoman soy sauce. The design of the bottle itself is patented, so a still life with it will not be accepted, even if you remove all the labels.
- · Most of modern vehicles. If the vehicle is the main feature in the photograph, inspectors may also have questions.
Of course, this list is far from complete, but I think it will give a general idea of what you can shoot and what is better to refrain from. After all, it is much easier to dress a girl in a plain T-shirt before shooting, and instead of a teddy bear give her something else in her hands, than then get upset when receiving rejections.
I would also like to say a few words about museums and reserves and photography in them. According to the law on museums, only a museum can sell images of its exhibits, parks, buildings. Accordingly, you can shoot what is in the public domain and offer only for editorial use (even if the building belongs to the museum, and you are filming just an urban view in which this building is located). The same applies to reserves: unique species that can be obtained only on the territory of this reserve can only be proposed editorially, and in some cases they will not be accepted at all. If in the reserve they filmed “just a stream”, “just a deer” and “just a beautiful view of a birch grove,” the easiest way is not to indicate exactly where this brook and this grove are located. However, Western banks still accept such images for commercial use.
If you have any doubts, go to the microstock sites - they publish a list of places whose photos are not accepted, or are accepted editorially.
