that�s a new one on IS

I had like 30 files approved already with those releases and they do have description, why is this week different?

I really don�t understand, reviewers don�t look into our portfolio?

need to have a lot of paTience :/

This has happened to me a few times.  I just contact support and they always fix it and accept the images.

I've been bothering my models for at least a year now to sign it every time, again and again. I'm of course talking about the same models. It gets even more on their nerves than mine to do it. But that's what IS is all about anyway, nitpicking, giving us hard time constantly for such little minor things. And MR stitching, oh how I hate doing that just for IS (yeah I know, but I won't use DM)

Quote from: wut on November 16, 2011, 18:21

I've been bothering my models for at least a year now to sign it every time, again and again. I'm of course talking about the same models. It gets even more on their nerves than mine to do it. But that's what IS is all about anyway, nitpicking, giving us hard time constantly for such little minor things. And MR stitching, oh how I hate doing that just for IS (yeah I know, but I won't use DM)

It's a PITA for me, but my models don't mind it.  Once someone has modeled for me once, I fill in their info in an editable version of the release and save it.  After that, I just print out the prefilled release and all they have to do is sign and date it.  Then I sign and put the subject(s) of the shoot. 

Like I said, PITA for me, but relatively painless for the models

Wow that's a great strategy . All I managed to think of is that the models I use regularly sign a few MRs in advance (just signatures) and I fill out the rest. But I've been doing this since summer, before that they had to do it every single time. And was harder for me to see them roll their eyes than to fill everything out by myself. I'm already used to being hassled by IS, they aren't. They trained me like a monkey lol and I'm really not a patient man and I have a short fuse too (meaning I'd say f them and just stop submitting if my earnings were dropping like they seem to be for a lot of ppl)

Wow that's a great strategy . All I managed to think of is that the models I use regularly sign a few MRs in advance (just signatures) and I fill out the rest.

Quite, and that's exactly what the 'shoot description' system is supposed to prevent. I pointed it out at the time, but they just pooh-poohed me. No change there, then!

Quote from: wut on November 16, 2011, 18:47

Wow that's a great strategy . All I managed to think of is that the models I use regularly sign a few MRs in advance (just signatures) and I fill out the rest.

Quite, and that's exactly what the 'shoot description' system is supposed to prevent. I pointed it out at the time, but they just pooh-poohed me. No change there, then!

Of course not! For instance, we're friends with my fav model and I have a good relationship with the rest. It's all about trust anyway. I do have that from my models and my rap is intact. No piece of paper will prevent misuse, well perhaps in the states, where the legal system works, ppl get sued every day and the cases get resolved swiftly (so ppl know that and are terrified of law suits). It's something else in the rest of the world. But than again, it's an American agency, so I can understand that and it's logical in a way (though most agencies are from the states and don't overcomplicate with the legal stuff)

Quote from: wut on November 17, 2011, 03:56

Quote from: ShadySue on November 16, 2011, 20:03

Quote from: wut on November 16, 2011, 18:47

Wow that's a great strategy . All I managed to think of is that the models I use regularly sign a few MRs in advance (just signatures) and I fill out the rest.

Quite, and that's exactly what the 'shoot description' system is supposed to prevent. I pointed it out at the time, but they just pooh-poohed me. No change there, then!

Of course not! For instance, we're friends with my fav model and I have a good relationship with the rest. It's all about trust anyway. I do have that from my models and my rap is intact. No piece of paper will prevent misuse, well perhaps in the states, where the legal system works, ppl get sued every day and the cases get resolved swiftly (so ppl know that and are terrified of law suits). It's something else in the rest of the world. But than again, it's an American agency, so I can understand that and it's logical in a way (though most agencies are from the states and don't overcomplicate with the legal stuff)

It's a Canadian agency. Similar legal system but we're not usually a litigating people. Still, being so close to the states and having so many of them as buyers I guess it's better safe than sorry for them.

Wrong (I did think about that), it's owned by Getty which is Seattle based. Since 2006. These changes have been made in 2010

Well, kind of makes you wonder why istock still has offices in Calgary Alberta then. I mean if all decisions on every issue are being made by Getty.

Smoke&mirrors man, I thought that was obvious by now. No IS CEO had any word at absolutely anything important (well they did put their name below the announcements, but that's it), since Getty bought them things started going the wrong way, CV, cuts, mirroring GI content, disgusting hypocritical attitude, censorship etc