MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Model Release or not  (Read 14303 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 23, 2014, 09:27 »
0
Hey guys,

I'm curios about this... on iStock, they ask me for a MR, for this image



and similar images in SS, don't have a MR... like this

http://www.shutterstock.com/es/pic-78725104/stock-photo-welder-with-protective-mask-welding-metal-and-sparks.html?src=2unpKOOIUF8yf4UlDCK9Vw-1-51

What do you guys think?

Cheers!


« Reply #1 on: October 23, 2014, 09:45 »
+3
The very distinct eye protection with flames makes him recognizable. If someone can recognize himself, i would always get a model release.

You might need a property release too, this is an indoor location.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #2 on: October 23, 2014, 09:48 »
0
iS would normally say that the person would recognise themselves from the context. Is that a branded mask with the flames or custom-made? They'd normally want a PR for that. It would be OK if you'd PSd the mask but you'd have to say that in the description.

That said, bizarrely they have asked me to resubmit an editorial photo I submitted last week, with almost 30 mostly-recogniseable people, as 'creative' and submit MRs. Clearly, if I had  MRs I'd have submitted them, and it must be clear from the photo and my title and description that these are tourists at a well-known tourist site and not a bunch of models.

« Reply #3 on: October 23, 2014, 09:57 »
0
Well, I guess I was thinking the MR thing in the wrong way...

I thought it was like "can this person 'prove' is him/her in the picture"... because it there when is really a problem...

In this case in particulary, it can even be a maniqui and there is no way to know that it isn't...

but I guess just someone saying "it is me" it's enough.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 09:59 by Cajarima »

« Reply #4 on: October 23, 2014, 09:59 »
+2
I would agree that the custom helmet might be problematic and might require a property release or some heavy retouching, but a model release isn't needed.  I've always followed the rule that it doesn't matter if the subject of a photo recognizes themselves; it only matters if a third party who wasn't there when the photo was taken could identify that person with any degree of certainty.  I have a few candids that were accepted at Shutterstock and elsewhere; none of them showed the subjects' faces or involved clothing so distinctive that someone would know them.

« Reply #5 on: October 23, 2014, 10:04 »
0
I would agree that the custom helmet might be problematic and might require a property release or some heavy retouching, but a model release isn't needed.  I've always followed the rule that it doesn't matter if the subject of a photo recognizes themselves; it only matters if a third party who wasn't there when the photo was taken could identify that person with any degree of certainty.  I have a few candids that were accepted at Shutterstock and elsewhere; none of them showed the subjects' faces or involved clothing so distinctive that someone would know them.

Is nice when some one agree with you... :P

I thought it was the role "oh look that's Carl", but the rule maybe be "oh look! I guees that's me".

« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2014, 10:26 »
+3
I think the better way to approach this is to submit as editorial. Why take a risk of legal action and big hassles (I assume you don't have a model release and couldn't get one) for what earnings you might make shooting stock?

Even if you cloned out the flames (which you shouldn't do if you go the editorial route), there's a good chance the subject would recognize the workplace and their gear and get miffed about this being used without their permission. They don't have to prevail in a lawsuit to cause you expense and grief. Just not worth it, IMO.

Lightrecorder

« Reply #7 on: October 23, 2014, 10:28 »
+1
The amount of unreleased people images on SS is staggering

« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2014, 10:39 »
0
I think the better way to approach this is to submit as editorial. Why take a risk of legal action and big hassles (I assume you don't have a model release and couldn't get one) for what earnings you might make shooting stock?

Even if you cloned out the flames (which you shouldn't do if you go the editorial route), there's a good chance the subject would recognize the workplace and their gear and get miffed about this being used without their permission. They don't have to prevail in a lawsuit to cause you expense and grief. Just not worth it, IMO.

Yeah, that's the way to go if I can't get de MR, but what I don't like for this is the editorial way have a very low dowloads. Even the "most downloads" photos are not that grate.. but yeah 1 dollar in editoraial is better than 0 in my hard drive.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2014, 10:49 »
-3
What are you smoking?

A mannequin?

Welding with sparks flying?

And what magic is making this happen?

As soon as a spark would hit the mannequin it wood ignite into a blazing fire!

Well, I guess I was thinking the MR thing in the wrong way...

I thought it was like "can this person 'prove' is him/her in the picture"... because it there when is really a problem...

In this case in particulary, it can even be a maniqui and there is no way to know that it isn't...

but I guess just someone saying "it is me" it's enough.

« Reply #10 on: October 23, 2014, 10:55 »
0
What are you smoking?

A mannequin?

Welding with sparks flying?

And what magic is making this happen?

As soon as a spark would hit the mannequin it wood ignite into a blazing fire!


Relax, I'm not saying that it is actually a maniqui inside... Off course it's a person. But if there were not sparks, how can you tell it's a person inside?.... the point is not if in this image is a maniqui or not... or if this can be prove...

The point is the this person is cover in many layers of clothes that in theory there is no way it can be recognice... or at least I thoungh that. And how much the MR is important in this case.

PD: I don't even smoke cigarretes.  ;D

Lightrecorder

« Reply #11 on: October 23, 2014, 11:43 »
+1
What are you smoking? A mannequin?



 ;D

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #12 on: October 23, 2014, 19:51 »
-1
I have been an auto tech longer then  you can imagine and I can clearly tell you that if I was dressed like that I sure would know it was me as would whoever is all dressed in your shot!

Anybody in dam near any certain given instance in certain situations could almost always know whether it was them or someone else.

And yeah the welding helmet should require a PR.

What are you smoking?

A mannequin?

Welding with sparks flying?

And what magic is making this happen?

As soon as a spark would hit the mannequin it wood ignite into a blazing fire!


Relax, I'm not saying that it is actually a maniqui inside... Off course it's a person. But if there were not sparks, how can you tell it's a person inside?.... the point is not if in this image is a maniqui or not... or if this can be prove...

The point is the this person is cover in many layers of clothes that in theory there is no way it can be recognice... or at least I thoungh that. And how much the MR is important in this case.

PD: I don't even smoke cigarretes.  ;D

Uncle Pete

« Reply #13 on: October 23, 2014, 20:33 »
0
Model Release or Not?



and



Answers tomorrow

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #14 on: October 23, 2014, 20:51 »
0
Yes.

Your Mother making Pizza and you and the crew having blue jello shooters?

Model Release or Not?



and



Answers tomorrow

Uncle Pete

« Reply #15 on: October 23, 2014, 21:29 »
0
Sharp eye but those are not jello they are just blue shots during a Super Bowl game. Panthers? (or was it NCAA March Madness and Michigan?)  :)  Mom is poking home made ravioli at Christmas, close enough.

For anyone who wants blue drinks. Blue Curacao is a nice mildly sweet liquor for coloring. Not overpowering. Makes green well with OJ. Clear liquor, Blue Curacao, add a little Grenadine and you have purple. Yow, nice!

Gin and Tonic glows bluish under UV, it's the tonic / quinine water.

Yes.

Your Mother making Pizza and you and the crew having blue jello shooters?


Lightrecorder

« Reply #16 on: October 24, 2014, 01:50 »
-1
Ruxperiencediam, you come off as a bit aggressive, man.

Model releases for hands is only on Alamy. There is no judge in the world who would allow claims for portrait rights on any of the photos Uncle posted.

As for the welder, its not as clear cut as you make it out to be.


« Reply #17 on: October 24, 2014, 02:22 »
+1
i submitted very similar images to istock, some of them needed release others no....depending on moon and season, maybe also weather condition at istock headquarters   ;D ;D....

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #18 on: October 24, 2014, 03:46 »
0
Model releases for hands is only on Alamy.

Not so, there is a precedent at iStock for exactly this.
Unfortunately, as iS recently removed some old rejected files, the actual images in question aren't now visible, but they were of a person rolling a grass turf, with only his forearms and hands visible at the top of the image:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=68478&page=1

Contextual model release info towards the bottom of this article:
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=395

That said, I'm fully expecting Uncle to say that one of these needed a release and the other didn't, at random.


Uncle Pete

« Reply #19 on: October 24, 2014, 13:15 »
0
Mom poking ravioli - IS needed a model release. People drinking blue shots at a bar - no release. (can't say for SS they rejected both for lighting  ::) )

It's not just hands it "can the person identify themselves or could someone else identify them" I don't see it as one or the other, but either. Note the sweater, eyeglass lanyard? And maybe she could have remembered the table cloth? The bar is pretty generic, table, glassware, tray, no jewelry, everything (except the top of Betty's head), could be anyone anywhere.

Welder, no one answered, is that a custom paint hood? The part he's working on, is not generic. The workshop is fairly unremarkable. But back to the question: Could this person recognize himself if he saw the image? Than it needs a release.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #20 on: October 24, 2014, 13:35 »
+1
Could be an old design from any f the following manufacturers.

Lincoln

Miller

Snap On Tools

Mac Tools

MATCO Tools

Sears

Northern Hydraulics

Harbor Freight

Lowes

Even Wal Mart.





Mom poking ravioli - IS needed a model release. People drinking blue shots at a bar - no release. (can't say for SS they rejected both for lighting  ::) )

It's not just hands it "can the person identify themselves or could someone else identify them" I don't see it as one or the other, but either. Note the sweater, eyeglass lanyard? And maybe she could have remembered the table cloth? The bar is pretty generic, table, glassware, tray, no jewelry, everything (except the top of Betty's head), could be anyone anywhere.

Welder, no one answered, is that a custom paint hood? The part he's working on, is not generic. The workshop is fairly unremarkable. But back to the question: Could this person recognize himself if he saw the image? Than it needs a release.

« Reply #21 on: October 24, 2014, 13:44 »
+2
I just bought a welding mask, and was offered one with similar paint. I didn't take it because I got an excellent deal on the plain one. :) Point being that I think lots of masks have similar flame designs. As with all graphics though it's someone's design, so there is an argument for getting a release or removing that.
I don't really see the point of this thread though. You've already had a reply on the iStock forum from the head of the inspection team there, explaining iStock's rules on this type of shot. It's their site and they can take or refuse what they like. There is no "right or wrong"
Personally I wouldn't want to risk it without a release. I'm sure I'd recognise myself "in context" if it was me working there.
Many years ago I worked in the steel industry. When the last part there closed one of the chaps started a site with shots of the works over the years. It was amazing how many people without faces in overalls could be recognised just by the fact that they were there, who they were with and where, and their build and so on.   

Uncle Pete

« Reply #22 on: October 24, 2014, 14:25 »
0
Good point and thanks Barry, I don't weld, so I wouldn't be shopping. Now I know. But it does look distinctive.

I'll add a little tale. Drivers in race cars DO have individual designs. I was watching a Skip Barber group practice and saw a guy I know go past. (he's not in the school, the cars are by draw and change every session, it's for fairness and training - the races are the same way) I emailed and asked him, he said, he was testing... So if anyone thinks that the paint designs on a racers helmet are generic, sorry, most are custom painted and would be protected just like tattoos are.

Fair warning if that's helpful.



Do you know these people? I know it's kind of obscure for the "normal" or average person, but for a racing fan, I think many would be able to identify all three of these internationally known - and currently racing - women drivers. And that was a huge hint.

Point is, normally these would be, someone in a crash helmet. But to someone in the business, it's easy to spot them. Same could very well apply to the welder in the first image that needed a release. Caution first, the agencies don't want lawsuits.


Yes Dave on a scale of 1-10 your quote below is an eleven.

I don't really see the point of this thread though. You've already had a reply on the iStock forum from the head of the inspection team there, explaining iStock's rules on this type of shot. It's their site and they can take or refuse what they like. There is no "right or wrong"

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #23 on: October 24, 2014, 15:21 »
0
Same thing in NASCAR.

The design on the welding helmet looks very similar to a NASCAR drivers paint scheme both on his helmet and on his car, and yes they are custom designed and painted



Good point and thanks Barry, I don't weld, so I wouldn't be shopping. Now I know. But it does look distinctive.

I'll add a little tale. Drivers in race cars DO have individual designs. I was watching a Skip Barber group practice and saw a guy I know go past. (he's not in the school, the cars are by draw and change every session, it's for fairness and training - the races are the same way) I emailed and asked him, he said, he was testing... So if anyone thinks that the paint designs on a racers helmet are generic, sorry, most are custom painted and would be protected just like tattoos are.

Fair warning if that's helpful.



Do you know these people? I know it's kind of obscure for the "normal" or average person, but for a racing fan, I think many would be able to identify all three of these internationally known - and currently racing - women drivers. And that was a huge hint.

Point is, normally these would be, someone in a crash helmet. But to someone in the business, it's easy to spot them. Same could very well apply to the welder in the first image that needed a release. Caution first, the agencies don't want lawsuits.


Yes Dave on a scale of 1-10 your quote below is an eleven.

I don't really see the point of this thread though. You've already had a reply on the iStock forum from the head of the inspection team there, explaining iStock's rules on this type of shot. It's their site and they can take or refuse what they like. There is no "right or wrong"


Uncle Pete

« Reply #24 on: October 24, 2014, 19:35 »
+2
Yes they are all Indycar series shots but one of them is now in NASCAR the other moved to IMSA and the third is racing ARCA. Dead giveaway for a race fan.  :) I could give their countries, and it still wouldn't say which helmet is which.

Even though it's a sidetrack, the point remains. What we don't see as infringing, and what one site does and another doesn't, will not change the reviews. It's on an agency by agency basis and they make their own rules.

Smaller agencies will take things without a blink that the bigger ones refuse. SS used to take subjects and content that they now refuse. Looking and saying, agency X has this image and agency Y refused mine, isn't meaningful at all.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
9696 Views
Last post June 23, 2006, 04:27
by leaf
3 Replies
8810 Views
Last post October 12, 2006, 08:01
by mtbcyclist
17 Replies
12725 Views
Last post August 17, 2010, 10:48
by Anyka
3 Replies
5039 Views
Last post June 29, 2013, 12:43
by Ron
7 Replies
4513 Views
Last post September 16, 2013, 08:30
by gillian vann

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors