pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Why requires IS model release for images like this?  (Read 2904 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 17, 2010, 17:31 »
0
It's the nth case when my image is on hold and waiting for me to upload a model release, but in the reality the image doesn't require mr. I'm unable to create a scout ticket since the image isn't rejected. I created a normal support ticket.
My last image:

The following note was supplied by an administrator:
After serious consideration, we would require model release(s) for accepting this submission into the iStockphoto collection. In the context of this image, we feel that the people are recognizable. Thanks for your understanding.


donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2010, 17:40 »
0
Wonder why they say that? The person isn't recognizable.

ShadySue

« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2010, 17:41 »
0
Have you read this article http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=648?
The bottom line isn't why they need the release; it's that they do. Scout and support tickets won't make any difference.
From the article:
"A couple of general rules:
   1. Always submit a release if you can. In the end it makes everything better for everyone involved.
   2. Dont be a jerk. If you think the person in your viewfinder wouldnt sign a release, dont take their picture with a 'creative crop' and sell it as stock."
« Last Edit: January 17, 2010, 17:49 by ShadySue »

« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2010, 17:46 »
0
You should just plan on ANY image with any kind of body part in it is going to need a model release now. I think it's insane, but their game, their rules.

« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2010, 17:58 »
0
Expect to see this practice of unnecessary model release requirements in the micro industry. Eventually it will be a standard rule that if there is a primary human subject in the frame, regardless of identifying marks or features, a MR will be mandatory.

It really has nothing to do with law or traditional stock industry practices. If I was to make an assumption it would be that a primary reason the agencies will use this practice will be to help cut down on the hundreds of thousands of images that are uploaded using poor cropping or composition to compensate for shooting models without consent. Clearly this shot was not taken without consent. However, if a company wants to establish a standard rule they cannot make exceptions or else it becomes more time consuming and costly. That's my guess.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2010, 18:02 »
0
That still really doesn't make alot of sense. A person could attach any model release they have and attach it since the person is not recognizable.

ShadySue

« Reply #6 on: January 17, 2010, 18:03 »
0
Clearly this shot was not taken without consent. However, if a company wants to establish a standard rule they cannot make exceptions or else it becomes more time consuming and costly. That's my guess.
There's a huge difference between giving consent for a photo to be taken and being willing for it to be used to advertise any product or service.

« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2010, 18:04 »
0
Of course, I have a model release. You may imagine, at the time of shooting I made many other images containing the model's face. This just isn't the case of a sexy hotel worker...

ShadySue

« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2010, 18:07 »
0
Of course, I have a model release. You may imagine, at the time of shooting I made many other images containing the model's face. This just isn't the case of a sexy hotel worker...
Just attach it and reupload.

RT


« Reply #9 on: January 17, 2010, 19:39 »
0
Expect to see this practice of unnecessary model release requirements in the micro industry. Eventually it will be a standard rule that if there is a primary human subject in the frame, regardless of identifying marks or features, a MR will be mandatory.

It really has nothing to do with law or traditional stock industry practices.

If you uploaded this shot to a traditional agency for sale under a RF license they would require a model release, it's not just a microstock industry thing, and there is no law that specifically covers model releases.

The agency you review at is one of the few remaining agencies that wouldn't require a model release for this shot, one of the big reasons is the buyer practices from traditional agencies is now starting to make a major impact on microstock, traditional picture editors will not consider an image such as this for commercial use if it doesn't state there is a release available.

Note to the OP: it's a good stock shot but you might consider cloning out the electrical socket, it's not a integral part of the image but reduces it's worldwide usability, for instance we don't have sockets like that in the UK.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2010, 19:43 by RT »

« Reply #10 on: January 17, 2010, 20:21 »
0
That still really doesn't make alot of sense. A person could attach any model release they have and attach it since the person is not recognizable.

you got it!
;o)

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #11 on: January 17, 2010, 20:32 »
0
That still really doesn't make alot of sense. A person could attach any model release they have and attach it since the person is not recognizable.

you got it!
;o)
Yup ::)

« Reply #12 on: January 17, 2010, 21:22 »
0
You know the funny part...  I always submit a model release.  If there is a human in the picture (hand, arm, leg, whatever) I submit a release.  I figure it's just easier...  But, if I do that with Dreamstime they will reject the same image because I've included a model release.  Kind of weird...

Anyway, cool concept shot, hope it does well when you get it online!

Duane...

« Reply #13 on: January 17, 2010, 21:40 »
0
if I do that with Dreamstime they will reject the same image because I've included a model release.  Kind of weird...

Right!
I had a rejection on dreamstime because I uploaded a MR ifor an image that showed just a part of a body: that made me freak out a bit.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
4896 Views
Last post June 23, 2006, 04:27
by leaf
3 Replies
5401 Views
Last post October 12, 2006, 08:01
by mtbcyclist
2 Replies
1934 Views
Last post May 11, 2008, 14:17
by viki2win
14 Replies
4397 Views
Last post March 27, 2009, 08:09
by Milinz
26 Replies
4244 Views
Last post June 10, 2016, 15:31
by mcuda

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors