People "as the subject matter"?
I just had one of my appeals rejected, with the following text:
I've included the nomination's photo, where you can see the person "included". Here is the full size photo for anyone interested.
Now, under the "ineligible photo" part in the "rejection criteria" section of the Wayfarer website, it says: "Photo includes one or more of emojis, tags, or personally identifiable information such as codenames, personal names or initials, or addresses; copyrighted material or watermarks, including screenshots of someone else’s photo; is obviously doctored; includes people, body parts, or live animals as the subject matter; is blurry, over/under exposed, taken inside a car, contains a watermark, or is improperly oriented."
The person in that photo isn't the subject matter in any way or form. They're very far away, under shadow, and even in the full size photo their features are blurry and unrecognizable.
In light of this rejected appeal, can we get clarification on what counts as reject-worthy "people as the subject matter"?
Comments
I have a theory. Someone was given the job of looking at appeals and a written list of rejection reasons and they were told to get to work. I doubt they really know the nuances of reviewing. They just see a person, they look at their list of rejection reasons, and they click.
Thanks for bringing this up, @SiIverLyra-PGO. We apologize for the confusion caused due to the information shared for the rejection.
The reason for the rejection is because a person's face is visible and recognizable in the image. I would suggest submitting a new submission with a better picture in this case.
.... No it isn't?
It's been a rough few days for Niantic rulings, huh
This was rejected for having people in it. Since y'all took out the examples and rewrote the criteria, you have made it less and less clear that as long as a person isn't posing for the photo, it is acceptable. New reviewers, including Niantic reviewers, are now rejecting if there are unavoidable people in the photo. Sometimes you just can't get a photo without people in it, and I can't see a recognizable face in that photo.
Do you want us all to become photo editing experts and brush people out of photos?
I dont think a photo editing expert was needed to frame the person out of the photo, was completely avoidable.
Why is this so controversial? The person in the picture is clearly identifiable and it doesn't look like it's that hard to take a picture there without people in it? Just go back later to take another picture when noone is sitting there.
@cyndiepooh-ING writes:
Since y'all took out the examples and rewrote the criteria, you have made it less and less clear that as long as a person isn't posing for the photo, it is acceptable.
That has never been true as far as I can recall. Haven't we always been told that recognizable people in a photo is grounds for rejection, just like a legible license plate? That would make sense, since it's permanently recording someone's location in the wayspot photo.
Yeah well. I don't think this is a recognizable person. I can't recognize their features in any case. But this is a futile argument - it'd just turn into a discussion about my eyesight or the semantics of the word "recognizable". Whatever.