Rejected for HAVING a model release

MSBS

New Member

« on: December 14, 2009, 14:34 »

#link

Had a few rejections a few weeks ago of a woman's pregnant torso.

Rejected for HAVING a model release. Yes you did read that right.

Upon questionning it, I have been told to upload without the MR.

Is it just me, or is that crazy? I would have thought it would be better to eer on the side of caution, not reject a file cos it does have a MR....

Anyone else have any simliar experiences?


	Ignore \| Logged

disorderly

« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2009, 14:44 »

#link

Been there, resubmitted that. In my case it was a shot of a model's legs. I was shocked at the rejection, muttered quite a bit and then resubmitted without the release.


	Ignore \| Logged

Randy McKown

« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2009, 23:21 »

#link

yeah a ton of laws, rules and industry standards have been all jacked up when it comes to micro policies ... you can just expect duh moments from time to time .. especially when you are dealing with the agencies whose decision makers knew nothing about the industry prior to micro.


	Ignore \| Logged

leaf

Premium Member

« Reply #3 on: December 15, 2009, 01:57 »

#link

Yeah i still think it is surprising that DT is rejecting releases for this. I am sure that in the modeling industry when a hand / leg / foot / belly model, models for a shoot - they sign a release. I can understand that if it is just a body part you can get away without having a release as people are not THAT good at recognizing hands etc., but if the photographer HAS a release i don't see why they aren't encouraged to upload it.

I would think that DT and the other sites would rather reward the photographer who went to the work of getting a release, providing more secure, legally protected imagery. I wouldn't be surprised if a site put released pregnant torsos higher up in the search than non-released ones... but alas.


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2009, 05:15 »

#link

I'd be pretty certain that the model release policy on Dreamstime loses them sales, buyers are too savvy these days and they're concerned of any possible legal implications, if you were a buyer who wanted a shot that contained a body part would you buy it from the site that says it has a model released attached or the one that says it hasn't?


	Ignore \| Logged

holgs

« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2009, 06:22 »

#link

Quote from: RT on December 15, 2009, 05:15

On the other hand - what possible cause of action does a model who has an unrecognisable body part used commercially have against an image user?

The ridiculous thing about microstock is that there is a requirement for all sorts of releases that just aren't necessary.


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #6 on: December 15, 2009, 07:41 »

#link

Quote from: holgs on December 15, 2009, 06:22

Quote from: RT on December 15, 2009, 05:15

Whether a release is necessary is subjective, likewise as to whether a body part is recognisable or not, and as there is no law dedicated to model releases it is also dictated by individual agencies as to when one is required, ridiculous or not that's the way it is.

The point is by Dreamstime not allowing images such as this to have a release attached when one is available and provided by the contributor only makes purchasing that image through them less appealing to a buyer, who could buy the same image at another agency with the assurance that there is a release should there be any legal implications in the future.


	Ignore \| Logged

MSBS

New Member

« Reply #7 on: December 15, 2009, 08:02 »

#link

Quote from: holgs on December 15, 2009, 06:22

Quote from: RT on December 15, 2009, 05:15

Question is tho, how unrecognisable is the torso and bump of a pregnant woman in her favourite dress....?

I'd prefer to cover my a*se. I wont upload the images without a MR, so will sell them elsewhere. No biggy.