In your situation, Anyka, I can see your point.

I think all the sites take the model release thing a little bit too far. Unrecognizable faces are unrecognizable people. I don't care if they can identify themselves by their clothing or their dog. Unless their clothes are handmade by them and their dog is the only one of it's kind in the world, there are a million other people with those same clothes and same dog.

I would say a good % of images that are submitted with unrecognizable people were taken in public places. If somebody doesn't want their clothes or their dog to be photographed, then they should stay in their house. That being said, it is still the sites' requirement and I would not jeopardize my sales by doing anything against the rules.

I AM totally with the model release requirement though if their face is showing.

Oooooh,
I think you're leaning yourself bit far out of the window with this statement...

To say 

Unrecognizable faces are unrecognizable people

is flat out wrong.

This is the reason why people who have tattoos, piercings, missing limbs or other visual disabilities still require a release because they can be identified.
It has nothing to do with their face.

Quick story (from Alamy): An image of a dog lifting its hind leg to pee on to a priest who was holding a sermon outdoors was on of these cases. The image only showed the lower part of the priest's robe and the dog. No faces, no tattoos, no tag on the dog with its name on it - NOTHING. Yet the priest won the case in court because he knew who it was and that he would have never approved this image to be used commercially.

See this is the issue, it's not about people becoming paranoid in public when they are being photographed. Heck, take pictures of people outdoors all day long. But when it comes down to promoting animal testing or other "hot" topics you have to realize that some people don't want to be commercially "used".

As a street photographer you have the right to display the images as you reflect the world as it is. No problem there.

But you have to be careful using other peoples' bodies (LOL - without their consent) for commercial usage. It's not just because of the face!

A potential partial temporary solution to the problem of people stealing images, faking MRs and any other stuff which undermines the business as a whole would be to require photographers and illustrators to hold a minimum balance on their accounts of, say, a few thousand $. Hence effectively delaying payments over a few weeks or months.

I'm sure it would also make sense to require people to nominate a proper bank account and the royalties transferred directly.

Sign me up, but I guess only a few people would go with that.

Something along those lines would definitely deter those idiots who try to trick the system.

hoi ha,

I also know a lot of people who do that.  Approach a local, chat, take some photos, leave some money or a gift in exchange, then he thinks he "own" rights because the people let him photograph them.

In those cases, it's very simple: people should not sell these images for commercial purposes.  I know people who sell the same type of images as RF editorial in SP, and I also do not agree with this because in fact you have no control about how the images will be used, and they can be used out of context.

Any site should be suspicious of MRs signed by people in the circumstances you cited, but indeed many sites carry them (they are even at IS's Vetta).

great...sammy is wilddingo and god knows who else.  seriously, can we either not ban IPs or stop people from re-joining a million times under different names.

Do people not have better things to do?

Hi All,

 We don't shoot a frame till the model release is signed and a photo of the model holding the release has been taken. This is added to our archives and guarantees we will not be sued down the road. Easy to do and totally covers you. Along with a witness to the signing of the release and your safe as can be.

Best,
Jonathan

Amen, you only gotta do it right once.