MicrostockGroup

How cautious do agencies need to be with regards to model releases?  I just had
five out of six videos rejected due to identifiable people and lack of model release.  While I certainly understand the importance of model releases with identifiable people, etc. as well as the need to be cautious, this seems to go over the top:

http://footage.shutterstock.com/clip-240502-high-definition-time-lapse-video-of-machu-picchu-in-peru-an-unesco-world-heritage-site-and-new.html

The video is a time-lapse at Machu Picchu taken from a distance as an overview of the entire city.  While I do not disagree that there may be identifiable people, they are only a few pixels in size and appear for only a couple of frames at a time.  Furthermore the clip is taken at a heavily touristic place at a non-descript day and time.  The odds that somebody would recognise himself are astronomical...  Even in this remote circumstance, could they really push for action against the buyer of this clip and argue that they are being associated with the product being sold? 

While they were all approved at Shutterstock, Stockxpert gave me these rejections.  Will wait and see the response at iStockPhoto.... 

It will particularly annoying if iStock rejects them considering the reviewing times are around a month for videos...

The response from StockXpert to my questioning the rejection was basically that it was borderline and that they have to err on the side of caution...  Sounds like the standard "policy is policy" response with no real rationale behind it.

They are really going too far!!! There's no way to recognise face or person in this video. And I like this video, nice work 

Unless your the one getting sued. When that happens the sites will not help you. The TOS on all sites Put's the blame solely on you , The submitter.Get releases on everyone and everything. trust me.