MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: new model release for every single photo shoot?  (Read 17590 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 12, 2009, 06:42 »
0
i just got a rejection i never had before. it says:

"You will need a new, updated model release with signature dates matching the approximate date of this photograph. iStockphoto no longer accepts \"catch all\" model releases and now requires a unique release for each unique photo session.  Standards regarding model releases have recently been updated.  The changes aren\'t really new but have been slightly clarified for legal reasons."

it's getting really complicated now! what happens if i took a picture last year with a proper signed model release but i want to upload it today. how do the reviewers know if the release and the shoot date are the same or not? i have pictures i took month ago (with model release) but i would like to upload them now or even later. it would be quite a hard work to contact every single model and ask them to sign another release for the shots the signed already (and then maybe 3 month later again because i still have more pics of them)....

how will you guys handle this in future?


« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2009, 07:06 »
0

« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2009, 07:09 »
0
there was a discussion  about this back in August.  Check out this thread
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock%27s-new-model-release-requirements/

How do they know when a shot was taken?  Unless it has been erased, they could look at the meta data in the image file.  I'm not sure if there would be another way.

Make sure you have the birthdate of the model, as well as the date of the shoot on the release.

« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2009, 07:52 »
0
The company was built on everyday people shooting everyday photos, but now they are weeding the everyday people out. If you want to play with the big boys, you must bring your expensive toys!

« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2009, 08:23 »
0
well I can see where iStock is coming from and would have to agree, even though it is more work for us.

If man takes picture of wife and she signs a release, then man keeps taking pictures of wife for the next 20 years and uploading them to stock sites.  Man and wife get separated and then wife complains about all the images that are for sale of her that the husband is cashing in on.  Wife sues man, wife wins.  I don't think a model release that is supposed to span 20 years of photos would hold much weight in court.

iStock is really helping protect us, the photographer.


« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2009, 09:18 »
0
Just to add that professional photographer always used to sign a new release for new shoot - ages before istock existed!

I don't see it as an issue when working with external models.

Only annoying when you need to do it again and again with family members or close friends.

grp_photo

« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2009, 09:19 »
0
A modelrelease signed today can't be valid for a photoshoot in two weeks, that is common sense and logic. I'm not a fanboy of istock but in this regard they are totally correct and if you submit to serious agencies like getty or corbis they have the same policy.

« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2009, 09:22 »
0
Not to mention this will massively slow down the upload process at SS, DT, FT, BS, SX, 123, and others, if it becomes the trend across most or all micros.  Oy-vay!

« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2009, 09:26 »
0
Yep have to agree that you really need model releases covering specific shoots - signing a release isn't a blanket document giving you a right to use someone's image for different photo sessions. Sounds like a pain to administer, but that's all part of running a business.

If you want to be an everyday person shooting everyday photos, don't try to earn money from them - someday the paperwork will catch up with you! ;)

« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2009, 09:56 »
0
Well if I needed just one more reason not to do model shots, this would be it.

It seems like this craziness will just keep spiralling upward until there's some serious tort reform in this country.  As a supporter of the ACLU it pains me to say this, but people's expectations of privacy - or maybe I should say anonymity -  have to change. 

« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2009, 10:13 »
0
Well if I needed just one more reason not to do model shots, this would be it.

It seems like this craziness will just keep spiralling upward until there's some serious tort reform in this country.  As a supporter of the ACLU it pains me to say this, but people's expectations of privacy - or maybe I should say anonymity -  have to change. 

What?  How is getting written permission assigned to a particular session "craziness"?  I certainly don't think people are out of line expecting that others are not able to use their likeness for whatever they wish.

« Reply #12 on: October 12, 2009, 11:50 »
0
There are two issues here.  One is getting a release for every shoot, which I always do.  The second is having to scan, doctor (inserting information iStock demands but no one else requires, and which make the release less usable for other agencies), manage and upload all those releases.  Other agencies accept and store one release per model, which reduces the work for the photographer but in no way reduces the requirement to fill out a new release for each shoot and keep it on file.

It's a pain to have to upload a copy of a release for every model photo, a demand no other site I know of puts on photographers.  Now having to deal with multiple releases per model just adds to the pain.  Just as well that iStock's piddling upload quotas keep me from submitting most of my model photos.

« Reply #13 on: October 12, 2009, 12:36 »
0
Any photo, taken anywhere, that includes peopel 100 yards away who might claim that they can recognize themselves because they were wearing a particular jacket that day - is now a "model shot".


« Reply #14 on: October 12, 2009, 13:19 »
0
If you want to be an everyday person shooting everyday photos, don't try to earn money from them - someday the paperwork will catch up with you!

If professional photographers have always done this, why didn't istockphoto do this from the very beginning?

I am in no way saying it's wrong or a bad thing to have model releases for every shoot. I'm down with that. What I am saying is the company started out as one thing with one set of rules and now that they have built up their library on the backs of the everyday folks who have earned money from them all this time, they are changing the rules.

You can see why some people are angry and confused. istock didn't ASK professional photographers to upload photos four or five years ago...they asked everyday people to submit photos and build up their library. NOW they are asking for professional photographers and expecting the everyday shooters to instantly transform into pros.

Just sayin...

« Reply #15 on: October 12, 2009, 13:20 »
0
If you want to be an everyday person shooting everyday photos, don't try to earn money from them - someday the paperwork will catch up with you!

If professional photographers have always done this, why didn't istockphoto do this from the very beginning?

I am in no way saying it's wrong or a bad thing to have model releases for every shoot. I'm down with that. What I am saying is the company started out as one thing with one set of rules and now that they have built up their library on the backs of the everyday folks who have earned money from them all this time, they are changing the rules.

You can see why some people are angry and confused. istock didn't ASK professional photographers to upload photos four or five years ago...they asked everyday people to submit photos and build up their library. NOW they are asking for professional photographers and expecting the everyday shooters to instantly transform into pros.

Just sayin...

Avery good and valid point.

Patrick H.

« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2009, 13:38 »
0
If you want to be an everyday person shooting everyday photos, don't try to earn money from them - someday the paperwork will catch up with you!

If professional photographers have always done this, why didn't istockphoto do this from the very beginning?

I am in no way saying it's wrong or a bad thing to have model releases for every shoot. I'm down with that. What I am saying is the company started out as one thing with one set of rules and now that they have built up their library on the backs of the everyday folks who have earned money from them all this time, they are changing the rules.

You can see why some people are angry and confused. istock didn't ASK professional photographers to upload photos four or five years ago...they asked everyday people to submit photos and build up their library. NOW they are asking for professional photographers and expecting the everyday shooters to instantly transform into pros.

Because iStockphoto evolved from a simple sharing site to a major stock licensing corporation.  Those who have been there for a while have evolved along the way as well.  If you want to come in late to the game, you need to play by today's rules.  Simple enough.

KB

« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2009, 14:14 »
0
I agree with MikLav.

This is the right thing to do with most model shoots, except those with immediate family. One release covering 20 years is obviously too much, but would one per year be that bad an idea?

« Reply #18 on: October 12, 2009, 14:20 »
0
Release have  evolved a great deal over time. It used to be that you could someone to sign a release that was the size of a business card. Simple name and signature, that's it. I wouldn't doubt that they would still hold up in court. Thing is agencies won't take an image with that type of release so it isn't a question of whether it is any good or not it's a question of whether you want your image to be accepted for sale. They make the rules. We abide by them. The good thing is they (the agency) have their and in this case our interests at stake. It doesn't hurt to have the extra protection when it comes to releases. It's true that it can make many older images difficult to place because of the age of the release. However it doesn't mean that the image isn't released and can't be sold as such.

« Reply #19 on: October 12, 2009, 14:23 »
0
I agree with MikLav.

This is the right thing to do with most model shoots, except those with immediate family. One release covering 20 years is obviously too much, but would one per year be that bad an idea?
I used to make up yearly releases for family and close friends but again many agencies seem to have stopped accepted releases with spanning dates so now I get a  bunch signed in one go a fill in dates as I need them. If it is obviously family and friends I get the witness line signed in bulk and fill in the date later. Not so for unknown people though.

« Reply #20 on: October 12, 2009, 16:06 »
0
Ebay is another example of a company that built their success on small sellers, then gradually squeezed them out by raising fees and introducing other restrictions that favored big sellers that could still "make it up on volume".   They lost a lot of sellers (Ebay "stores")  along the way and actually had to backpedal and try to mend fences to some extent.   

« Reply #21 on: October 12, 2009, 17:18 »
0
Ebay is another example of a company that built their success on small sellers, then gradually squeezed them out by raising fees and introducing other restrictions that favored big sellers that could still "make it up on volume".   They lost a lot of sellers (Ebay "stores")  along the way and actually had to backpedal and try to mend fences to some extent.   

But that was a rapidly developing new market, in the true sense of the word, and obviously eBay wants to generate the most profit for the least work/hassle (just like any other business) so it was bound to favour the bigger players that helped them. A lot of small players were also squeezed out by their own naivety and the inability to scale their operation. eBay is a meritocracy, you get the respect or advantages that you earn __ just like microstock.

lisafx

« Reply #22 on: October 12, 2009, 18:19 »
0
My first reaction was that this would be a big PITA and add yet more layers of bureaucracy to the upload process.  

On second thought though, it is a good idea from a legal standpoint.  Even though one blanket release is enough to get the images on most of the sites, I doubt it would protect us if we were ever sued to have a release on file that is dated weeks, months or years before the shoot in question.  

I definitely agree with Disorderly, though, that it should be enough for us to have it on file.  Uploading new ones every time to Istock really does make the already tedious upload process more so.  Not to mention if you have multiple models and combinations of models.  Istock is the only site that requires you to cut and paste multiple releases together into a single file.  

Wish their site design team was as forward thinking as their legal team  :-\

« Reply #23 on: October 13, 2009, 14:58 »
0
Istock is the only site that requires you to cut and paste multiple releases together into a single file. 
DeepMeta allows for multiple releases to be attached to the file.

« Reply #24 on: October 25, 2009, 14:04 »
0
It is simply good business sense and legal protection for all concerned to get a signed release for each shoot with the same model...we do it even when using the same model on consecutive days...then you are protected as best you can be. When uploading to sites I simply add a number to the models name for each subsequent release...ie John Doe 1, John  Doe 2 etc.

I agree about the PITA of uploading a release each time you upload an image to IS...their site seems to be from the Jurassic era of Microstock.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
6506 Views
Last post March 20, 2008, 16:58
by snurder
12 Replies
5290 Views
Last post October 31, 2011, 07:53
by Sean Locke Photography
14 Replies
4083 Views
Last post April 08, 2012, 02:06
by gillian vann
4 Replies
2129 Views
Last post June 20, 2012, 11:28
by lisafx
1 Replies
1000 Views
Last post May 17, 2018, 02:51
by mindstorm

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results