3 Correct answers
I suspect that it does not meet Adobe's definition of " nudity with artistic value". It does seem that you took this image surreptitiously. I would not define this as having artistic value.
From this Help page: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/submission-guidelines.html
Follow the rules on nudity.
For submissions containing nudity that has artistic value, the model must be at least 18 years old and the model release must include the model's photo ID so we can verify age. Never s
...
Hello!
Reason of rejection - impolite, indecent photo that humilitates the model. Angle of view - it looks like photographer was hiding, stalking and shooting people without their permission.
Shutterstock is not a criterion. Adobe and Shutterstock are two different companies with different standarts.
Hi @names58321676 ,
For the reviewers it's a matter of if the files are to be accepted or not. Their job is not to find the faults of our files and inform us to correct them to resubmit. That would be the case if it was a training exercise. As far as they are concerned you should check to ensure your files are of acceptable quality. It is possible that each time you submit the file it goes to a different person, in which case you get different reactions. Once the reviewer sees a reason for rejec
...
28
Replies
You are mistaken on several assumptions. Let me first state the obvious:
- Adobe's turf, Adobe's rules. If Shutterstock accepts this image, that does not mean, that Adobe needs to accept. So, that has never been a good argument to bring up here, especially in subject/header.
- The picture probably needs a model release. I wonder why Shutterstock did not ask for this. I have pictures refused by Shutterstock, where they asked for a model release for people walking up a way, photographed from behind.
- Adobe moderators refuse on the first issue they detect. There is no guarantee that there aren't other issues in with the picture. This is for efficiency. The first moderation is always done on the terms of quality, as that is the easiest to detect/decide upon. It is not said that the same person checking the quality is also the one checking other requirements.
-
This is incorrect. You simply can't photograph people without they're giving their approval. For private pictures, there is a certain grey zone, but the girl cannot expect to see her “charms” as you call it, on a billboard or in a magazine. The young lady can expect to get some gazes, but she should not expect to be pictured as you did it. Using a different angle would have made this picture less inappropriate.
The girl lies on the grass not in her summer cottage, but in a public place. And if she shows her "charms", then she should be ready for the fact that her can take pictures. If she's not ready for it,
then she must cover them with clothes or choose another pose!
By @names58321676 - Even if she has an exhibitionistic tendency, she has a right to know that you are taking pictures of her. Even then, the pictures should stay private, except if you have a written authorization.
- Moderation is not done to pleasure contributors, but to protect buyers. There are no “robot algorithms”. But moderators chose between several predefined refusal reasons. The text is always the same.
- I have never seen a moderator participating here on the fora. They simply don't get paid for that. I even doubt that they read the fora.
On a personal note, and really on a personal note, I would have sorted a picture like this out if I had taken it accidentally. That may happen, when the model moves to take on a different position when I take my picture.
The girl lies on the grass not in her summer cottage, but in a public place. And if she shows her "charms", then she should be ready for the fact that her can take pictures. If she's not ready for it,
then she must cover them with clothes or choose another pose!
By @names58321676
=============
Oh spare us the lecture on decency. It's insulting. Only a pervert would think to photograph a woman's private parts without her permission and then try to sell it commercially. That's criminal activity in many parts of the world.
Peeping or Voyeurism isn't funny. It violates privacy laws and could easily land you in jail and hurt you financially. I fear you're either clueless, classless or too immature to take pictures of people. Find another hobby.
Oh spare us the lecture on decency. It's insulting. Only a pervert would think to photograph a woman's private parts without her permission and then try to sell it commercially.
By @Nancy OShea
OP does typical victim shaming. It is not for nothing that in the last years, laws emerged, that make such photos illegal. I think that Shutterstock did not make itself a favour for accepting this.
I believe the image would be of a better composition or value if her face was visible or more of the book was showing. As it is the focus is on her crotch and everything else falls in the background.
By @jacquelingphoto2017
I think, the refusal reason is “Non-compliant Image”. And your description is undoubtedly why it's non-compliant.
AdChoices
