Release confusion at Dreamstime?!

NitorPhoto

« on: September 06, 2009, 15:55 »

#link

I am getting more and more rejections stating that I attached too many releases to a photo. TOO MANY! Usually we attach as many releases as many people are seen on that particular photo. Regardless of how much recognizable they are... it is always questionable who is recognizable and who is not... so this is an extra security we use. But DT is rejecting these images. Why . do they need to reject images for this reason? I do not see the point.
Just an example from the VERY SAME batch - images linked from FTL:
http://eu.fotolia.com/id/16499125
We attached releases for both models - DT rejected the submission stating too many releases attached.

http://eu.fotolia.com/id/15929182
We attached only one release - DT rejected the photo and requiring both releases.

Uhh, so what? In the past I had not only one occasion when they rejected an image with this stupid too many releases message. We uploaded the image again and removed the questionable release... this time they rejected it because of the missing release.

Well, we are uploading a lot of images on daily bases so I don't really care if some of them are missing from DT. Usually we do not reupload images because it slows down the workflow too much. But I must say that this kind of inconsistency - even in the very same batch - is a bit annoying.


	Ignore \| Logged

MikLav

Premium Member

« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2009, 16:12 »

#link

Although I've heard that some traditional stock agencies are very strict about releases and would require 2 for photo #1 I do clearly see the logic in this case:

photo#1 - the figure on the background isn't recognizable: no face, no complete figure, etc thus second release not needed (though I don't see why they reject if you have it)

photo#2 - although the person on foreground is blurred, in principle it might be recognizable (head contour, ear form, haircut) thus second release is needed


	Ignore \| Logged

gostwyck

« Reply #2 on: September 06, 2009, 16:15 »

#link

I feel your pain. My brother has reported exactly the same thing to me and it appears to be something unique to DT. Even with only one person in the image, whether recognisable or not, DT might decide the image doesn't need an MR and therefore reject the image if it has one.


	Ignore \| Logged

Adeptris

« Reply #3 on: September 06, 2009, 16:23 »

#link

Both have two people so should require two releases.

An image of a handshake requires a model release for each hand, a Silhouette even requires a release.

If I can say that is my hand or silhouette in that image and you did not ask me to sign a release I might be able to make a claim, if I would win or not is not what the release is about, the release is to protect the agency and the buyer, and there is no point them taking any risk with the over supply of released images.

David Wink


« Last Edit: September 06, 2009, 16:29 by Adeptris »	Ignore \| Logged

icefront

« Reply #4 on: September 06, 2009, 16:24 »

#link

Subjective reviews, maybe the two images were reviewed by 2 different editors.
Both images require 1 model release.
Annoying, but DT support will solve your problem for sure.


	Ignore \| Logged

icefront

« Reply #5 on: September 06, 2009, 16:27 »

#link

Quote from: Adeptris on September 06, 2009, 16:23

Both have two people so should require two releases.

It doesn't matter how many people contains an image, only recognizable faces, tattoo or any person-specific sign(s) do matter.


	Ignore \| Logged

Adeptris

« Reply #6 on: September 06, 2009, 16:30 »

#link

Quote from: icefront on September 06, 2009, 16:27

It doesn't matter how many people contains an image, only recognizable faces, tattoo or any person-specific sign(s) do matter.

I do not know about DT but most sites will require two releases, and a tattoo could even require a model release and a property release from the tattoo artist, if it is the primary subject.

I know the topic is DT but this IS Article is a good guide.

David


« Last Edit: September 06, 2009, 16:46 by Adeptris »	Ignore \| Logged

gaja

« Reply #7 on: September 06, 2009, 16:36 »

#link

I don't understand why it should be a problem to have releases for unrecognizable persons? I understand it if they don't require it, but if you have it even when it isn't necessary, why is that a problem?


	Ignore \| Logged

Dreamframer

« Reply #8 on: September 06, 2009, 16:38 »

#link

And then, your acceptance rate plays role in search results...


	Ignore \| Logged

NitorPhoto

« Reply #9 on: September 06, 2009, 16:41 »

#link

Quote from: icefront on September 06, 2009, 16:27

Quote from: Adeptris on September 06, 2009, 16:23

Both have two people so should require two releases.

It doesn't matter how many people contains an image, only recognizable faces, tattoo or any person-specific sign(s) do matter.

Yes, I agree, but still, if I have the release and I attached it how can it hurt anyone if it's there? And what is the result of the rejection now... DT will not have that image. Well. ok it will not bankrupt them

On the other hand, I could easily accept they rejected the second image because of the lack of second release. I don't have a word against it - well, it was our mistake that we forgot to attach it.. we should have to and we used to. But if they are so cautious one time why do they punish me with a rejection next time when I do the same?


	Ignore \| Logged

Adeptris

« Reply #10 on: September 06, 2009, 16:50 »

#link

Quote from: icefront on September 06, 2009, 16:27

Quote from: Adeptris on September 06, 2009, 16:23

Both have two people so should require two releases.

It doesn't matter how many people contains an image, only recognizable faces, tattoo or any person-specific sign(s) do matter.

It is site specific but it is not that simple anyone can have a look at these examples in this IS Article which I think is a well balanced guide, I would agree that DT rejecting an image with two models and two releases is just strange.

David


« Last Edit: September 06, 2009, 16:55 by Adeptris »	Ignore \| Logged

stokfoto

« Reply #11 on: September 06, 2009, 16:56 »

#link

I don't really see their point.what would be so bad about having too many releases? To my point of view the first picture should have one model release but it could not be end of the world receiving release for the person in the background.strange really.!


	Ignore \| Logged

kevin1

New Member

« Reply #12 on: September 06, 2009, 17:42 »

#link

I'm quite confident there is a strong reason for these rejections.

I just don't see it...

Oh hang on - I'm not THAT confident Tongue


	Ignore \| Logged

Suljo

« Reply #13 on: September 06, 2009, 17:59 »

#link

As old Russian dude "tovarish" Stalin says: "People means problems, no people, no problems" Grin


	Ignore \| Logged

elvinstar

« Reply #14 on: September 06, 2009, 18:25 »

#link

I too have had images without faces rejected for no release:

I've also had images where I attached a model release rejected for not needing a release:

or another in this series...

I understand that people need releases, but I just wish that they would stop rejecting for attaching a release if they feel that the photo doesn't require one!


	Ignore \| Logged

goldenangel

« Reply #15 on: September 07, 2009, 02:31 »

#link

Well, here's my related story

First, I had this image accepted with a release:

Then this image was rejected because it HAD a release:

When I told DT how the first image was accepted, and asked them to accept the second one, they wouldn't do it.

I had to resubmit the second image without the release. However, DT then DISABLED the first image without even telling me about it. I only noticed that the number of images decreased.

I resubmitted the second image, without the release, of course, and the image was pending for weeks. I was on vacation at the time. Only after I wrote to customer support again, they accepted the image.

I wish they were more consistent, both with their reviews and also when they are deciding whether to just reverse the rejection, like they do sometimes, or to make us resubmit.


	Ignore \| Logged

lisafx

Premium Member

« Reply #16 on: September 07, 2009, 09:27 »

#link

Quote from: gaja on September 06, 2009, 16:36

I agree^^. I can see why two releases might not be necessary for those pictures, but I can't understand the logic in rejecting because two releases were uploaded.


	Ignore \| Logged

corepics

Premium Member

« Reply #17 on: September 07, 2009, 09:48 »

#link

According to Dreamstime, attaching the correct number of releases (not too few, nor any redundant ones) is really, really, really important. (yes, Really!)

In their advanced search options, you can specify the number of people, featuring in the image you're after. These search features also allow you to search by gender, age group and/or ethnicity. I believe these advanced search options perform a head count based on the number of model releases and the information the photographer needs to supply when registering new models.

That's why combining multiple releases into one document is also an absolute no-go. Go figure what happens if the photographer wants to stay on the safe side, and attaches a MR when in doubt - if such practices would be allowed, customers, searching for photos with 1 model in them, might even come across photos containing 5 models! Imagine that - it would just ruin the buyer's experience, and not to mention cause a massive pollution to the search results, wouldn't it?


	Ignore \| Logged

cclapper

Premium Member

« Reply #18 on: September 07, 2009, 09:59 »

#link

It doesn't matter how many people contains an image, only recognizable faces, tattoo or any person-specific sign(s) do matter.

That used to be case but not any more on most sites. Most require releases for silhouettes and body parts, as mentioned above.

I, too, cannot understand a rejection for two releases if there are two bodies or body parts in the picture. And if DT thinks it's really, really, really important to attach the correct number of releases perhaps they should be really, really, really specific about the rules for such on their site and they should really, really, really train their reviewers to adhere consistently with those rules so that everyone follows the rules really, really, really well! Cheesy

In their advanced search options, you can specify the number of people

So when you specify the number of people in the image, do you mean TOTAL bodies, the number of faces showing, the number of hands and arms showing (does that count as a body?), etc. That's the problem. The rules need to be very clear and adhered to on everybodys part in order not to taint the search.


« Last Edit: September 07, 2009, 10:03 by cclapper »	Ignore \| Logged

corepics

Premium Member

« Reply #19 on: September 07, 2009, 10:06 »

#link

Quote from: cclapper on September 07, 2009, 09:59

And if DT thinks it's really, really, really important to attach the correct number of releases perhaps they should be really, really, really specific about the rules for such on their site and they should really, really, really train their reviewers to adhere consistently with those rules so that everyone follows the rules really, really, really well! Cheesy

I really, really, really agree with you. I've asked DT about that, but never received a satisfying answer. (yeah - Go Search Forum. Go Search forum again. Post question. Thread removed - read forum.)


	Ignore \| Logged

corepics

Premium Member

« Reply #20 on: September 07, 2009, 10:11 »

#link

Quote from: cclapper on September 07, 2009, 09:59

So when you specify the number of people in the image, do you mean TOTAL bodies, the number of faces showing, the number of hands and arms showing (does that count as a body?), etc. That's the problem. The rules need to be very clear and adhered to on everybodys part in order not to taint the search.

Yes - the total numberof bodies, including faces. Limbs don't count as a body. I've had multiple rejections for such unforgivable mistakes as attaching a release to a hand with scar, watch and in specific settings, just like the OP. What was I thinking? Should've read the DT forum Tongue


	Ignore \| Logged

NitorPhoto

« Reply #21 on: September 11, 2009, 04:15 »

#link

Now they rejected an image telling the model release in not good legally or not in english. The same release was ok for more then 6000 times. I don't know what is happening at DT but I am thinking on to suspend our uploads until they train the new reviewers better.


	Ignore \| Logged

oboy

« Reply #22 on: September 12, 2009, 12:08 »

#link

I am sure if I had submitted this image then I would have received this rejection reason

"Too many photos/illustrations on the same subject or from the same series. Please be more selective and choose only the best shots or illustrations. Avoid submitting simple variations on the same subject."

This is the most comment rejection I receive in the moment.

My rejection have increased dramatically in the last two month at DT


« Last Edit: September 12, 2009, 12:10 by oboy »	Ignore \| Logged

Suljo

« Reply #23 on: September 12, 2009, 20:39 »

#link

Quote from: goldenangel on September 07, 2009, 02:31

Well, here's my related story

First, I had this image accepted with a release:

Then this image was rejected because it HAD a release:

Well as I can see most of us have two legs (haw haw)
Maybe on you second image under you right smallest finger is some kind of Marilyn Monroe birth mark so you must prove to them that is only yours Grin

may bee they have similar photo of unshaved Marilyn Monroe without relise too??? Who knows?!?


	Ignore \| Logged

goldenangel

« Reply #24 on: September 13, 2009, 04:31 »

#link

Quote from: Suljo on September 12, 2009, 20:39

may bee they have similar photo of unshaved Marilyn Monroe without relise too??? Who knows?!?

Now THAT would be a find


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: [1]

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: Release confusion at Dreamstime?!

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results