MicrostockGroup

People need to start 'thinking outside the box', a model release is a contract between YOU (the photographer) and the MODEL, the agencies are not part of that contract, the model release needs certain information for it to be legally binding in the country where the photo was taken (names,addresses,signatures etc)

Nearly every agency requires a model release uploaded with the photo, and they require certain information on them, however NO agency is legally entitled to use any of this information and they will break data protection laws in most countries if they do.

Some people have mentioned their models are concerned about their personal information being shared with other parties.

If there ever was a legal case regarding a photo bought via a stock agency and the release needed to be presented it would have to be the original that you hold, not the one that you've uploaded to the stock agency.

Think laterally people it's not rocket science!

Correct.  It is a contract between you and the model.
And Istock also says it should be within the law of the country of model and photographer.

I had my MR reviewed by a lawyer.  It was (originally, before review), a mixture of the Istock and Shutterstock releases. 
The lawyer added two clauses :
1. a maximum claim of 500 euros (this is very low compared to the average US claim, but quite normal in Belgium)
2. the courts to be used in case of dispute should be the Belgian ones (this clause can be found in EVERY Belgian contract).

Until now, this adapted version of the MR has been approved by every agency (for more than 1,5 year now).  Recently, one Istock reviewer refused it for 2 photos, that's all.

Sorry you see what I wrote as a lecture it wasn't intended to be, I was trying to help some others out who appear confused by all this.

I'll try and explain it more clearly.

When you photograph a model with the intention of selling the shots for commercial stock you need a model release (contract) between you and the model and it needs to be worded in a way that is legal in your country or more precisley the country in which the shoot took place.

When you upload these shots to agencies they require a copy of a release with all the information as previously mentioned.

However the agencies are not legally entitled to that information and in many countries they break data protection laws for:
a. asking for it
b. using the information

So the point I am making is:

You MUST have a legal model release signed by the model with their genuine details on to keep for your records should it ever be needed.

The agencies must have a model release with information they require on it in order to accept your shots.

BUT if you want to safeguard your models information and in most cases comply with data laws just upload a release with psuedo information on it and keep the original to yourself, the whole thing is just a 'box ticking' excercise.

Strange as it may seem in my country I am actually complying with the law by doing this.

Nothing to stop you putting any name on a model release.It's not like the agengies can be arsed phoning and checking details.
I do not have many peeps in my portfolio but they are genuine BTW.

I happen to be working on an article for iStockphoto about model releases.

While I can't go into specific rejection cases, I'd love to hear anyone's questions about the releases. But please send them as private messages, or I'll probably lose them in the chaos that is the interwebz.

I know you weren't Richard, but I was responding to Shank's comment and it certainly appears he is suggesting falsifying it.


No, I don't think there is any comparable act over here.  Would be nice if there was, from a consumer point of view.  Especially with the government talking about digitizing and linking everybody's medical records throughout the country.  But I digress...




This is an excellent argument.  I definitely see how that could be a problem. 

I have heard others say they blur the personal info when they upload the releases and that seems like a much better solution to me than actually executing a document with fake details to upload to the micros. 

I can see that blurring the info could lead to some agencies rejecting the release because the info cannot be read, there is a way around this and it's what I mentioned when I spoke of what the modelling agencies do, the release that you upload to an agency requires contact details on it, there is nothing to stop you putting your own address, phone number and email on the one you upload to the agency, if a model ever needs to be contacted they can come through you and as you hold the details of the model you can then contact them.
The details are not fake per se, they are genuine contact details for the model albeit via yourself.

The most important factor is that the photographer holds a release signed by the model, and to be honest if you speak in any great depth with any agency management you'll find that is all they are actually interested in, they know the info cannot be shared or used but they have a duty to make sure the contributors are aware of the legal implications because the images are available for commercial use.

On a side note as this thread was started in relation to iStock, I had an image rejected on iS because the release of a minor had the mothers details and under the mothers address I wrote 'same as model', the inspector wrote that the address section still needed to be filled in, I wrote back saying that the release is a perfectly legal document and that if they didn't like it just reject the image but check with a superior first, twenty minutes later it was approved. Kudos to that iStock inspector for doing the right thing but it also leads me to think that on a lot of occassions they don't know what experience the contributor has so they have to treat every images as if it was the contributors first. I know we all love to bash reviewers but I do think the agencies could make their job a lot easier.

My own personal view to how this problem could be avoided is that you upload one release for each model which is viewed at the agency HQ by agency staff, that release is then held on secure storage and when you upload a shot of the same model on subsequent occassions you just tick a box for the approved model, then no reviewer actually needs to see the release but they know an approved one exists and hence the possible security breaches are bypassed.
I actually think it would be a much better solution that what happens at present, and more cost effective in the long run, the time it takes for a reviewer to check a release to see that the i's are dotted and t's crossed could be time spent reviewing more images.

@ the guy above who said he's doing a release review on iStock, sorry I'm not typing all this again 




 

Nope. We don't have a data protection act anything like what you guys have. The closest thing we have is HIPAA, but that only applies to medical records.