What's wrong with scanning images for stock?

Presuming one has a good scanner, of course, and maximizes the scanner's capabilities. I've read this about Alamy, but I imagine it applies to others as well. If I understand correctly, they do not want scanned images. Why not?

My guess would be the high chance that the images would be covered by (someone elses )copyright.

It would be very easy to scan work in and pass it of as your own work.

I meant scanning one's own originals. I was under the impression they have an issue with the quality of scans, or something.

Plus a scanned image wouldn't contain any Metadata.

dugcross wrote in post #9201617
Plus a scanned image wouldn't contain any Metadata.

None of my images that I would submit anywhere would have metadata anyway. That's stripped as part of the editing process.

Quality is the reason, a pure digital file retains all the quality from the original and a scanned (second generation or worse) is degraded. Now some places except high res film/transperancy scans from medium format but even that is rare and slipping away. The advantage of a digital original is so great and there is SO much content out there and growing they really don't need to accept this. I know one photographer who is associated with Getty who is restaging his best images from film and shooting them digitally.