Author Topic: Istock's NEW model release requirements (Read 21479 times)

lisafx · « **on:** August 26, 2009, 07:49 »

Here's a thread discussing istock's new model release standards:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=107471

Among other things they will now require a new release signed and dated for every photo shoot. It will no longer be possible to reupload the same release for different shoots.

disorderly · « **Reply #1 on:** August 26, 2009, 08:05 »

I've been collecting a model release for every shoot. It's been nice not having to scan and manage multiple releases for the same model, especially given the number of times I've shot some of them. Probably just as well that most of my photos at other agencies will never make their way to iStock. Just think of the time I'll save thanks to their upload quotas.

tdoes · « **Reply #2 on:** August 26, 2009, 08:10 »

After reading the reasoning behind the NEW model release requirements I understand why the changes were made. It does add more work to Istock's very tedious submitting process!

leaf · « **Reply #3 on:** August 26, 2009, 08:51 »

also new: releases require a models birthday

lisafx · « **Reply #4 on:** August 26, 2009, 09:15 »

Up to now I have been using the same release for all agencies. Seems like going forward it would be a good idea to have them sign my generic one and also istock's specific one.

click_click · « **Reply #5 on:** August 26, 2009, 09:25 »

Quote from: lisafx on August 26, 2009, 09:15

Up to now I have been using the same release for all agencies. Seems like going forward it would be a good idea to have them sign my generic one and also istock's specific one.

You bet. Better safe than sorry I'd say.

disorderly · « **Reply #6 on:** August 26, 2009, 09:26 »

This may just be the last straw for me. My model shots haven't done all that well at iStock relative to the rest of my portfolio, and their upload process takes far more time than the other agencies combined. Maybe it's time to make a change: give them scenics and architecture and my isolated shots, although they're unlikely to accept many of the latter. Give the model shots to agencies that produce results and don't put up quite so many roadblocks.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #7 on:** August 26, 2009, 09:53 »

Quote from: lisafx on August 26, 2009, 09:15

Up to now I have been using the same release for all agencies. Seems like going forward it would be a good idea to have them sign my generic one and also istock's specific one.

Lisa, you should be able to use Getty's new release which is good for all micros anyway. This should save you some time.

lisafx · « **Reply #8 on:** August 26, 2009, 10:49 »

Quote from: Zeus on August 26, 2009, 09:53

Lisa, you should be able to use Getty's new release which is good for all micros anyway. This should save you some time.

Thanks Zeus

For anyone interested, it can be downloaded here:
http://contributors.gettyimages.com/img/articles/downloads/SAMPLE_Model_Release_-_English_-_Dec_2008.pdf

Talanis · « **Reply #9 on:** August 26, 2009, 11:36 »

What a PITA it will be. Needing a release for each picture of my 4 or 6 years old kids is so dumb. At least if it could be 1 release per year. Not like I could sue myself for selling a picture of my own kid since I'm the one signing the release anyway. It's already dumb that I need a witness to co-sign my kids releases that I sign myself... once again, am I gonna sue myself?

/sigh

travismanley · « **Reply #10 on:** August 26, 2009, 11:49 »

Quote from: Talanis on August 26, 2009, 11:36

What a PITA it will be. Needing a release for each picture of my 4 or 6 years old kids is so dumb. At least if it could be 1 release per year. Not like I could sue myself for selling a picture of my own kid since I'm the one signing the release anyway. It's already dumb that I need a witness to co-sign my kids releases that I sign myself... once again, am I gonna sue myself?

/sigh

I feel the same way. I take photos of my son almost everyday. Many of those photos become stock photos I will sell later and IS wants a new MR for every photo session? This is really going to get out of hand. I really hope the Deep Meta guys come up with a good system for dealing with all of these releases.

graficallyminded · « **Reply #11 on:** August 26, 2009, 12:02 »

One word for this. Redonkulous.

Does it surprise me? Not a bit. Pretty soon we'll have to show them a video clip of the person signing it, as well as the models SS# and scan of their birth certificate. Give me a freakin break.

travismanley · « **Reply #12 on:** August 26, 2009, 12:05 »

Quote from: arenacreative on August 26, 2009, 12:02

One word for this. Redonkulous.

Does it surprise me? Not a bit. Pretty soon we'll have to show them a video clip of the person signing it, as well as the models SS# and scan of their birth certificate. Give me a freakin break.

How about "Friggn' Redonkulous." lol

goldenangel · « **Reply #13 on:** August 26, 2009, 14:39 »

Quote from: arenacreative on August 26, 2009, 12:02

One word for this. Redonkulous.

Does it surprise me? Not a bit. Pretty soon we'll have to show them a video clip of the person signing it, as well as the models SS# and scan of their birth certificate. Give me a freakin break.

I totally agree. I also shoot my son or friends and to require them to sign it every day we make a single picture is really too much.

cardmaverick · « **Reply #14 on:** August 26, 2009, 14:52 »

I actually have zero issue with these standards. I already get a release for every single shoot as it is, so no skin off my back.

The one problem I do have is with the more subjective clarity of your release form. I've already seen the IS reviewers reject for inaccurate issues about an image like bogos "filtering" claims when no filters have even been used LOL. I can only imagine how the "release form clarity" factor will come into play for non-exclusive submitters.

We shall see!

travismanley · « **Reply #15 on:** August 26, 2009, 14:57 »

Quote from: cardmaverick on August 26, 2009, 14:52

I can only imagine how the "release form clarity" factor will come into play for non-exclusive submitters.

Totally agree. Its just one more reason to reject a photo.

zzz · « **Reply #16 on:** August 26, 2009, 15:14 »

You guys can complain about it all day long. It's not gonna change. Get over with it or stop uploading to istock. Simple!

cathyslife · « **Reply #17 on:** August 26, 2009, 16:27 »

It totally cracks me up that they are being anal about these model releases, but they can't fix a simple problem like having metadata show up when photos are uploaded. How the heck are they going to manage a billion model releases in a system that doesn't even work correctly?

leaf · « **Reply #18 on:** August 26, 2009, 16:44 »

Quote from: lisafx on August 26, 2009, 10:49

Quote from: Zeus on August 26, 2009, 09:53

Lisa, you should be able to use Getty's new release which is good for all micros anyway. This should save you some time.

Thanks Zeus

For anyone interested, it can be downloaded here:
http://contributors.gettyimages.com/img/articles/downloads/SAMPLE_Model_Release_-_English_-_Dec_2008.pdf

thanks for the link, that looks like a good release to use.
have you tried it with dreamstime though? I had used the istock release before and Dreamstime didn't like that it mentioned Calgary, Alberta. This release mentiones new york, alberta, london etc... is that better?

graficallyminded · « **Reply #19 on:** August 26, 2009, 17:37 »

I have a model in a series named BJ. I have no idea what her full name is, BJ is what she goes by all over the internet. It's how she even signed the model release, and being one of the Coors Light models I'm pretty sure that she's signed a model release or two in her lifetime. They reject images of her about 50% of the time because of the initials. There's no way for me to argue this. No other agency gives me any problems about it; it's just silly.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #20 on:** August 26, 2009, 17:57 »

One would imagine that any court would have not care about Coors Light, but instead be interested in her legal name. I can't see that iStock requiring a real name is them being unreasonable.

dbvirago · « **Reply #21 on:** August 26, 2009, 18:39 »

Quote from: cclapper on August 26, 2009, 16:27

It totally cracks me up that they are being anal about these model releases, but they can't fix a simple problem like having metadata show up when photos are uploaded. How the heck are they going to manage a billion model releases in a system that doesn't even work correctly?

But before you can upload multiple MRs and reenter metadata, you have to be able to log in and they haven't fixed that problem either.

zzz · « **Reply #22 on:** August 26, 2009, 18:54 »

What do model releases have to do with how a site runs? Some of you act like little kids... If istock is oh-so-miserable, just stop uploading there.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #23 on:** August 26, 2009, 19:16 »

It became ridiculous that we have to do more and more every day for less and less money. Soon I expect agencies to ask of us to send a blood sample by post every time we submit new image. By lowering our commission they are showing us how they "appreciate" our work, yet they require more and more from us.... This becomes a nightmare...

dbvirago · « **Reply #24 on:** August 26, 2009, 19:54 »

Quote from: zzz on August 26, 2009, 18:54

What do model releases have to do with how a site runs? Some of you act like little kids... If istock is oh-so-miserable, just stop uploading there.

You've been around a couple months, posted 6 times and already two people have set you to ignore. Nice work for a troll.

zzz · « **Reply #25 on:** August 26, 2009, 20:12 »

See, people come here to this forum bashing istock all the time. Some people come up with weird reasons, half-truths, or just plain pointless rants. The same goes for other agencies but I get the impression most of the hate goes against istock and I wonder why.

I signed up here as I was planning to ask eventually for advice whether it is worth going into RM. But I can't help but see a lot of childish behavior and I don't know if asking for advice on this forum will get me the right amount of unbiased input when I ask for it. Why? Because facts will be mixed with fiction by some members.

If my opinion is unwanted, I'll just leave this forum altogether.

Sorry for going OT. Back to the regular program.

dbvirago · « **Reply #26 on:** August 26, 2009, 20:31 »

".......and I wonder why."

Apparently you don't.

I didn't bash Istock. They have a bug in their system that doesn't allow users with IE8 to log on easily. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. Their solution is to ask users to delete all cookies everytime you want to log on. I feel this is unreasonable, given that the other several dozen sites I log onto every day work fine. I especially think it's unreasonable to ask clients wanting to purchase my images to go to a lot of trouble to spend their money.

zzz · « **Reply #27 on:** August 26, 2009, 20:45 »

And, uh, what again has this to do with model releases???

Digital66 · « **Reply #28 on:** August 26, 2009, 20:50 »

Quote from: Whitechild on August 26, 2009, 19:16

...Soon I expect agencies to ask of us to send a blood sample by post every time we submit new image.

OMG!

Will that be the next step

zzz · « **Reply #29 on:** August 26, 2009, 21:06 »

Asking for blood samples seems unrealistic. Asking for proper model releases, e.g. for people that can recognize themselves even if faces cannot be seen, is sound and not asking too much.

Konstantin Sutyagin · « **Reply #30 on:** August 27, 2009, 00:47 »

Quote from: lisafx on August 26, 2009, 10:49

Quote from: Zeus on August 26, 2009, 09:53

Lisa, you should be able to use Getty's new release which is good for all micros anyway. This should save you some time.

Thanks Zeus

For anyone interested, it can be downloaded here:
http://contributors.gettyimages.com/img/articles/downloads/SAMPLE_Model_Release_-_English_-_Dec_2008.pdf

Nice! But what about this:

Quote

I agree that this release is irrevocable, worldwide and perpetual, and will be governed by the laws (excluding the law of conflicts) of the country/state from the following list that is nearest to the address of the Model (or Parent*) given opposite: New York, Alberta, England, Australia and New Zealand.

Is it okay?

Aetherial · « **Reply #31 on:** August 27, 2009, 01:07 »

the new deadline is September 1st.

can we use old releases for shoots prior to Sep 1? I have around 100 old pictures that will not be accepted before that date.

Karimala · « **Reply #32 on:** August 27, 2009, 02:07 »

Quote from: Aetherial on August 27, 2009, 01:07

the new deadline is September 1st.

can we use old releases for shoots prior to Sep 1? I have around 100 old pictures that will not be accepted before that date.

Good grief...I have over 200! Well, I guess Istock isn't getting any of those photos.

corepics · « **Reply #33 on:** August 27, 2009, 02:39 »

Quote from: Karimala on August 27, 2009, 02:07

Quote from: Aetherial on August 27, 2009, 01:07
the new deadline is September 1st.

can we use old releases for shoots prior to Sep 1? I have around 100 old pictures that will not be accepted before that date.

Good grief...I have over 200! Well, I guess Istock isn't getting any of those photos.

Shoots, which have taken place prior to September 1st can still use the "old" model release. These changes seem to go in effect for shoots, planned after 1 September. So, you should be fine to upload those older photos with the older model releases, also after the new rules apply.

leaf · « **Reply #34 on:** August 27, 2009, 03:29 »

Quote from: Konstantin Sutyagin on August 27, 2009, 00:47

Quote from: lisafx on August 26, 2009, 10:49
Quote from: Zeus on August 26, 2009, 09:53

Lisa, you should be able to use Getty's new release which is good for all micros anyway. This should save you some time.

Thanks Zeus

For anyone interested, it can be downloaded here:
http://contributors.gettyimages.com/img/articles/downloads/SAMPLE_Model_Release_-_English_-_Dec_2008.pdf

Nice! But what about this:

Quote
I agree that this release is irrevocable, worldwide and perpetual, and will be governed by the laws (excluding the law of conflicts) of the country/state from the following list that is nearest to the address of the Model (or Parent*) given opposite: New York, Alberta, England, Australia and New Zealand.

Is it okay?

yeah, that was my question too.. but you worded it better. iStock won't have a problem with those places - it is the other agencies that would. I have had a release rejected by dreamstime because it said 'goverened by the laws of Alberta'

Dreamframer · « **Reply #35 on:** August 27, 2009, 03:58 »

Quote from: zzz on August 26, 2009, 21:06

Asking for blood samples seems unrealistic. Asking for proper model releases, e.g. for people that can recognize themselves even if faces cannot be seen, is sound and not asking too much.

Of course it's unrealistic, it was just a joke. But also, asking for MR for almost every single shot is also too much.

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #36 on:** August 27, 2009, 06:25 »

This is getting out of control. I understand the concept of wanting a release for each shoot - but let's look at the practicality. IS does not have a practical way to deal with MR storage. If I shoot an adult, a teen and a child then I have to upload a minimum of 6 different MR JPEG's. This is because you must use PS and stitch the various MRs together depending on how you shoot.

There is DeepMeta but that has other issues with the new system. I tend to name the model release after the model - that way I know which one I need. When you import the MR into DeepMeta it retains the name of the file. So for a shoot in March with Jane Doe I will have an MR called "JaneDoe" and for the shoot in July I will have another MR called "JaneDoe". The fact that you have to rely solely on 3rd party software to be efficent at all is another issue all together.

I seriously doubt that the other agencies will take the new release. Understandably they won't take anything with IS's name on it. I have yet to see a release from IS that didn't have their name and address at the top along with their copyright mark on the bottom.

stokfoto · « **Reply #37 on:** August 27, 2009, 07:53 »

Quote from: leaf on August 26, 2009, 08:51

also new: releases require a models birthday

I am quite worried that models might not want to include the exact day and month only year should be enough.

Btw Thanks for the heads up and posting this I did receicve the newsletter from IS but I didn't read it properly.

Opla · « **Reply #38 on:** August 27, 2009, 08:15 »

Quote from: leaf on August 27, 2009, 03:29

yeah, that was my question too.. but you worded it better. iStock won't have a problem with those places - it is the other agencies that would. I have had a release rejected by dreamstime because it said 'goverened by the laws of Alberta'

Me too, with an MR that said "...opposite New York, Alberta, England, Australia and New Zealand".
Rejection reason: - The model release represents a written agreement between the model and the photographer, therefore it must be governed by the laws of the country/state where one of the parties reside, or by international laws.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #39 on:** August 27, 2009, 08:22 »

Quote from: azurelaroux on August 27, 2009, 06:25

There is DeepMeta but that has other issues with the new system. I tend to name the model release after the model - that way I know which one I need. When you import the MR into DeepMeta it retains the name of the file. So for a shoot in March with Jane Doe I will have an MR called "JaneDoe" and for the shoot in July I will have another MR called "JaneDoe". The fact that you have to rely solely on 3rd party software to be efficent at all is another issue all together.

JaneDoe_032009, JaneDoe_072009

That's what I do.

Opla · « **Reply #40 on:** August 27, 2009, 13:45 »

Quote from: sjlocke on August 27, 2009, 08:22

Quote from: azurelaroux on August 27, 2009, 06:25
There is DeepMeta but that has other issues with the new system. I tend to name the model release after the model - that way I know which one I need. When you import the MR into DeepMeta it retains the name of the file. So for a shoot in March with Jane Doe I will have an MR called "JaneDoe" and for the shoot in July I will have another MR called "JaneDoe". The fact that you have to rely solely on 3rd party software to be efficent at all is another issue all together.

JaneDoe_032009, JaneDoe_072009

That's what I do.

20090301 Jane Doe, 20090701 Jane Doe
is what I do.

You can delete MR's in DM btw, took me a while to find out...

icefront · « **Reply #41 on:** August 27, 2009, 15:09 »

If I shoot today and a week later and then upload 1 week later... It's ok to upload 1 release? How will they figure out when was the second shoot made?
I don't consider reading metadata since I simply can eliminate the metadata from the file.

Sorry if this is answered in the IS post but I have no patience to read those "Great article", "very useful article", "Good info" and such bigoted posts. what can be soooo good, useful or great??? It's a simple information.

Karimala · « **Reply #42 on:** August 27, 2009, 15:22 »

Quote from: taglist on August 27, 2009, 02:39

Quote from: Karimala on August 27, 2009, 02:07
Quote from: Aetherial on August 27, 2009, 01:07
the new deadline is September 1st.

can we use old releases for shoots prior to Sep 1? I have around 100 old pictures that will not be accepted before that date.

Good grief...I have over 200! Well, I guess Istock isn't getting any of those photos.

Shoots, which have taken place prior to September 1st can still use the "old" model release. These changes seem to go in effect for shoots, planned after 1 September. So, you should be fine to upload those older photos with the older model releases, also after the new rules apply.

Thank you!!! What a relief.

madelaide · « **Reply #43 on:** August 27, 2009, 17:09 »

I agree that a MR for each photo is exagerate, but I always thought a MR should be connected to a specific series of images. Just because a person allowed you to sell an image of him, doesn't mean he would allow ANY image you took of him. Once I thought that, if I were shooting people's images, I would attach a contact sheet to the release, so it would be clear which photos were agreed upon.

But then I don't shoot people.

Suljo · « **Reply #44 on:** August 27, 2009, 20:30 »

Thanks iStock for youre very good work on screwing all us about.
I love when I shoot 5 mins and spare half hours to manage some model relises.
Its fun! its cool!
Wiva Stokaaaaaaa
Before this I am very close in person with my self, but after youre new model relise I finnaly have much more time with my clients to have cheap talk and explain them that is what they dream about it.
Please dont stop and invent more useful questions. People loves you, so dont stop.
WE want more questions EG how much whiskers on youre but an so on.
Keep good work...

Cmoan iStock make my day... Ihaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Alatriste · « **Reply #45 on:** October 14, 2009, 04:20 »

Are other agencies accepting getty´s release without the part of "New York, Alberta, England, Australia and new Zeland"?
If removing this part, will Istock accept this release?

fotografer · « **Reply #46 on:** October 14, 2009, 08:37 »

He's actually being ignored by 6 members now.

Quote from: dbvirago on August 26, 2009, 19:54

Quote from: zzz on August 26, 2009, 18:54
What do model releases have to do with how a site runs? Some of you act like little kids... If istock is oh-so-miserable, just stop uploading there.

You've been around a couple months, posted 6 times and already two people have set you to ignore. Nice work for a troll.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #47 on:** October 14, 2009, 09:21 »

Quote from: Alatriste on October 14, 2009, 04:20

Are other agencies accepting getty´s release without the part of "New York, Alberta, England, Australia and new Zeland"?
If removing this part, will Istock accept this release?

Just use it as is.

PixelBitch · « **Reply #48 on:** October 25, 2009, 14:06 »

I use the Getty release as standard in fact it is adapted slightly from the iStock one anyhow. No problem having it accepted by all stock agencies...Getty, Corbis, Tetra etc. Getty are on the ball legally and it's a safe bet that their release is as tight as a fishes tucus.

FD · « **Reply #49 on:** October 26, 2009, 02:02 »

Quote from: Zeus on October 14, 2009, 09:21

Quote from: Alatriste on October 14, 2009, 04:20
Are other agencies accepting getty´s release without the part of "New York, Alberta, England, Australia and new Zeland"?
If removing this part, will Istock accept this release?
Just use it as is.

Will that also work on other microstocks like SS, DT, etc.. ?
A release for every shoot is no sweat, but two releases, one for iStock, and another for all the rest would be overkill.

leon_traut · « **Reply #50 on:** October 26, 2009, 09:42 »

Hi everyone.
How about lack of "Model ID" string in Alamy MR form?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Istock's NEW model release requirements (Read 21479 times)

lisafx

lisafx

lisafx

graficallyminded

zzz

graficallyminded

dbvirago

zzz

dbvirago

zzz

dbvirago

zzz

zzz

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors