MicrostockGroup

Some agencies - iStock for example - have started tightening the model release rules so that if a person is the main subject of the image and is recognizable (i.e. not a silhouette) they want a model release. People can recognize themselves in a number of ways, and they feel that if you are making them the subject, you need to get a release, face or no.

You can take all the pictures you want from public property and don't need permission. It's just selling it as stock that requires you to get a release.

The military logos are intellectual property and the sites are getting tougher about use of that (not all sites and the rules vary enough that it can be hard to keep track if you really want to push the limits.

I agree with the replies.  Shooting people from behind to avoid the use of a MR is something all agencies should outlaw.  The confusion comes in when some agencies actually reject an image with a MR attached because they feel it is not needed.  A few posters have had this problem with Dreamstime in recent months. 

I've had a few of these in the past, extremely stupid thing to do on their behalf.

To defend DT... (I think I know the answer to this one because I complained about the same thing before...)

The probable reason for rejecting the MR's is the way they run their search engine.  If a designer clicks the "with people" box, they don't want to receive photos of body parts or shot from the back.

But I have to agree... why not send a note to the photographer that the model release has been removed instead of messing with your acceptance ratio. 

you have to understand the consequence of literally "shooting ppl behind their backs".
i had one of a mother carrying baby , no face visible, which i submitted as EDITORIAL, which was rejected too, EVEN for EDITORIALS.
i even made it a homage "to motherhood, for international mother's day".  but it was rejected.  and i can understand when the reason was given to me.


the thing is, we have to realise, that sometimes, we don't like to see ourselves on the cover of some cereal box, and not being told about it.
some ppl don't like it, based on religion, or old fashioned cultural reasons.

can i tell if someone took a picture of me from behind, that it's me?
you betcha your booties i can!

so will those riders,etc...

hey, i am not against the decision of the need for MR entirely.
i have lots of people photos that i couldn't use too. but it's the reality.
find something else to shoot, instead of other people's backs!
good luck! 

on that note, i think what's even worse is to see many ppl publishing photo with frontal faces from 3rd world poor countries, all without MR. i think that is crass. poor ppl have rights too.

 

I'm not sure how you know that they didn't get a model release?

I have something in the queue now with 3 people, back to the camera, in a shot out in public. I have a model release for all 3. Just because a picture is accepted with a shot of someone's back, doesn't mean no model release was provided.

I've told this before, there was a woman here in Brazil who won a lawsuit against a bank that used a shot of her on the beach (back facing the camera, entering the water) in their advertisements.  This was a very famous case then, and she made a lot of money out of her butts afterwards (like posing for Playboy).

I wonder if there was some kind of need to prove in court that the body in the ad was hers.

Regards,
Adelaide

Simple: It's a national guard, a soldier in his uniform. He cannot provide a model release even if he wants to.

I think you should not smoke some funny stuff if you are reviewing uploads! 

maunger , you are right. as many buyer are uninformed as many photographers. They assume that the world wide web is open space and free market. We see the problem already with music and films. Now it's slowly moving to stock photography.