Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 25, 2012, 12:50

MicrostockGroup

MicrostockGroup » Forum » Top Tier - Big 4 » Dreamstime.com » Model release for people shoot from the back?! LOL!

Microstockgroup Sponsors

« previous next »

Pages: [1]

Topic: Model release for people shoot from the back?! LOL!

(Read 2782 times)

Peter

« on: March 18, 2008, 10:10 »

#link

I got rejceted those:

Reason:
The main subject of the image is a person, a model release is required even if the face is not visible.

Cheesy

does not make any sense... I can write my own MR, and claim it is me on the photo, can you prove it? Of course not. nonsense...


	Ignore \| Logged

Seren

« Reply #1 on: March 18, 2008, 11:21 »

#link

The person in the photo could identify themselves. Therefore a model release needed. If you have pictures with people in that you do not have a model release for, you should sell them rights managed, not for advertising use.


	Ignore \| Logged

Peter

« Reply #2 on: March 18, 2008, 11:46 »

#link

I dont think it is possible to recognize people from the back.

how come other agencies do not ask for mr, just DT?


	Ignore \| Logged

Karimala

« Reply #3 on: March 18, 2008, 12:45 »

#link

IS asks for them now, and more than likely all the other sites will follow suit in the future. At Alamy, photos like these can only be sold as Rights Managed.


	Ignore \| Logged

madelaide

Premium Member

« Reply #4 on: March 18, 2008, 18:21 »

#link

You may not recognize the person, but if the person recognizes himself, he can make a claim. So I was told many times.

I have mentioned here before the woman who sued a bank for a photo of her at the beach, shot from the back, used in their advertisement. She possible became the best-paid butt in Brazil...

And Chode, you can forge any model release, that doesn't make it legal.

Regards,
Adelaide


	Ignore \| Logged

Phil

« Reply #5 on: March 18, 2008, 19:50 »

#link

StockXpert also require mr for any person shot.

I saw a couple of years ago, where someone went and tried to claim and 50 pics of mouths, hands etc was theirs. they didn't have any luck though.

it comes down to if I say that is a photo of me on that roof, can you prove that it isn't?


	Ignore \| Logged

madelaide

Premium Member

« Reply #6 on: March 19, 2008, 11:24 »

#link

Quote from: clearviewstock on March 18, 2008, 19:50

it comes down to if I say that is a photo of me on that roof, can you prove that it isn't?

I can't. But the person in the photo may, as he probably had that specific clothes, shoes and makes a living being on roofs.

It's not the agency that needs the release, it's a guarantee for the final user that nobody will hit on his door claiming they're using his image.

Regards,
Adelaide


	Ignore \| Logged

fotografer

Premium Member

« Reply #7 on: March 19, 2008, 11:35 »

#link

Quote from: madelaide on March 19, 2008, 11:24

I can't. But the person in the photo may, as he probably had that specific clothes, shoes and makes a living being on roofs.

He would be especially annoyed if it ended up being used by a rival company.


	Ignore \| Logged

stokfoto

« Reply #8 on: March 19, 2008, 13:20 »

#link

had it been 2-3 years ago I would have been surprised over this rejection.but now I know they are more strict on this issues and I must say I agree with their point.to my point of view by rejecting such photos they in a way protect us too from getting involve with some sort of legal infringements.No offense intended.I think as suggested above it is best selling them as RM -editorial


	Ignore \| Logged

null

« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2008, 04:50 »

#link

Quote from: Chode on March 18, 2008, 10:10

Can you prove it? Of course not. nonsense...

Of course I can. It's my uncle Gene and his partner. I can tell very well from their back. I know they were in plumbing, I'm just surprised they are in roofing now. And his brother, uncle Jeff, is a lawyer and he would love some easy money Grin

The point is, can you prove it"s not my uncle Gene if uncle Jeff drags you to court?


« Last Edit: March 20, 2008, 04:54 by FlemishDreams »	Ignore \| Logged

basti

« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2008, 07:47 »

#link

You dont need to prove it isnt him - HE needs to prove its HIM! And he cant! Thats it. Anyway I got refusal with just sihouttes of persons far in landscape - I dont think they even could recognize themselves! I stay away from shooting models for microstock and thats it for me.
One refusal of 600 years old building because of property release was also LOL. I wonder how I could ask Mr. Matyas from Arras to sign property release when hes dead couple centuries... And I dont agree with signing it by current owner (state) - at first they are not the copyright holder and it was shot from public place and second they will never agree to that just because they dont have any office for such purpose so nobody could sign it!


	Ignore \| Logged

Dr Bouz

« Reply #11 on: March 20, 2008, 15:00 »

#link

if person can identify themselves - photo requires a release, and that's o.k.
but one of the best stupidities on dt is that i had a nude body parts rejected with asking me to upload release, and a copy of some kind of ID (passport on example - that's nice too- flat scans of us currency are not allowed (which is o.k.), and flat scans of some person's passport are asked to send over internet .
i think that i asked support "whose release, and passport do i need? - i do not remember which was the answer.

another one nice stupidity - recently i had image rejected with "this image do not need release" - but i have to say that i could easily identify person on the photo. - for this i am sure i had no reply from support. (i pointed on that issue with "i can't believe that you rejected ...(that) image with that rejection reason.
but.. life goes on..


	Ignore \| Logged

snurder

« Reply #12 on: March 20, 2008, 16:58 »

#link

All of the agencies are tightening up. I noticed the change at IS just about in tandem with when Getty got involved. The rest are beginning to follow suit in drips and drabs.


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: [1]

« previous next »

Jump to:

Related Topics
	Subject	Started by	Replies	Views	Last post
	model release form - stupidest release request? Off Topic	fintastique	1	2214	June 23, 2006, 04:27 by leaf
	Model Release Required for Unidentifiable People @ IStock? iStockPhoto.com	GeoPappas	15	2748	May 01, 2007, 06:32 by StockManiac
	new model release for every single photo shoot? « 1 2 3 » iStockPhoto.com	thaimacky	57	6834	November 13, 2009, 20:05 by ErickN
	New Model Release for each shoot with same model?? Newbie Discussion	Dantheman	12	1218	October 31, 2011, 07:53 by sjlocke
	iStock -> Each Shoot with same model needs new release-> Is there a solutions? iStockPhoto.com	Dantheman	14	1021	April 08, 2012, 02:06 by vannphoto

Microstockgroup Sponsors

MicrostockGroup Email Updates

Microstock Poll Results

Site	Earnings Rating
Top Tier - Big 4
Shutterstock	100
iStock	66.7
Fotolia	34.9
Dreamstime	26.7

Middle Tier
DepositPhotos	21.6
123RF	16.3
Canstockphoto	11.2
Bigstockphoto	9.5
Veer	8.7

Low Earners
PantherMedia	6.7
PhotoDune	5.8
isignstock	4.1
Zoonar	3.5
GLStockImages	2.7
Stockfresh	2.2
YayMicro	1.8
FeaturePics	1.4
MostPhotos	1.3
ScanStockPhoto	1.1
Crestock	0.8
Cutcaster	0.6
AllYouCanStock	0.1
ClipartOf
Pond5
RevoStock
Clipcanvas
DrawShop
ClipDealer
PhotoSpin
VectorStock
GraphicRiver
Pixmac
PhotoCase
The3dStudio
photaki
SuperHug
PhotoKore
Vivozoom
StockPhotoMedia
Regimages
ImageVortex
Imagegate
ViscoImages
iRockStock

More Poll Results Updated: 2012-05-25

Advertise on Microstockgroup.com | Contact: [email protected]