MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: New Model Release for each shoot with same model??  (Read 5173 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 28, 2011, 02:06 »
0
Hi,

as i have always understood it, I need a new release for each shoot I do with a specific model. For example: I shoot Peter Pan on the 28.10.2011 at a studio and I shoot Peter Pan again a few days later, let's say the 30.10.2011 outdoors.

Do I need two releases or not?

Reason why I am asking, I have been using a new release for each shoot, which obviously is also a bit time consuming. Yesterday some of my images where Rejected at Dreamstime because of ,"Please don\'t use a new MR for each new shooting with the same model. You must have only one MR in your MR Library for each one of your models. Thank you."

so how do you guys do it.


PS: IS for example needs a shoot description. They obviously need a new release, right???????


« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2011, 03:46 »
0
yep, you are right and this is excactly the problem.

iStock demands you use a new release for each shoot
Dreamstime demands you use the SAME release for all shoots with a person

personally I think getting a release for each shoot makes more sense and covers you better in the case problem.  So, get a release for every shoot but just submit the one to Dreamstime.

« Reply #2 on: October 28, 2011, 04:40 »
0
yep, you are right and this is excactly the problem.

iStock demands you use a new release for each shoot
Dreamstime demands you use the SAME release for all shoots with a person

personally I think getting a release for each shoot makes more sense and covers you better in the case problem.  So, get a release for every shoot but just submit the one to Dreamstime.

Ok thanks a lot!  :D

« Reply #3 on: October 28, 2011, 08:41 »
0
There are two different issues.  The first is what you need to do to avoid legal problems with your model, and the second is what the individual agencies require.  Always get a release for a new shoot, so you can prove if necessary (it has not yet been necessary for me) that the model consented to commercial release of his or her likeness for the images from that particular shoot.  But don't upload that release to agencies other than iStock; all the others are satisfied with one release for a specific model.

« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2011, 10:46 »
0
Yes, I've tried to get answers on this one also.  Dreamstime (and the others) really need to link the model releases together so it stays legal and then the same model will appear when the customer hits the "more of this model" button.

rinderart

« Reply #5 on: October 28, 2011, 10:51 »
0
I have a few Models I've used for years. every now and then . I'll update them. Not for each shoot. Never a problem.

Caz

« Reply #6 on: October 28, 2011, 11:41 »
0
I have a few Models I've used for years. every now and then . I'll update them. Not for each shoot. Never a problem.

It would be if you submitted them to iStock. For shots taken after September 2009, iStock requires a new release for each new shoot, and, on that release there needs to be a meaningful shoot description and the shoot date on the release needs to match the shoot date on your exif.

« Reply #7 on: October 28, 2011, 12:42 »
0
I have a few Models I've used for years. every now and then . I'll update them. Not for each shoot. Never a problem.

It would be if you submitted them to iStock. For shots taken after September 2009, iStock requires a new release for each new shoot, and, on that release there needs to be a meaningful shoot description and the shoot date on the release needs to match the shoot date on your exif.

Yes, it was a PITA. I live with my models, and sometimes I only get one usable shot during a day (kids...). The hassle of making separate releases every day bothered me. I solved it by deleting all people shots from IS september last year, and only keeping a few other pictures there. That saved me a lot of time and annoyance.

Carl

  • Carl Stewart, CS Productions
« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2011, 20:53 »
0
I never get more than one release from a model, even though we shoot on multiple dates.  But I no longer upload to istock, either.  I also don't bother writing a shoot description on the release.  It has never been an issue for me, but if it were ever become one, I could easily overcome it.

« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2011, 21:37 »
0
I never get more than one release from a model, even though we shoot on multiple dates.  But I no longer upload to istock, either.  I also don't bother writing a shoot description on the release.  It has never been an issue for me, but if it were ever become one, I could easily overcome it.

I'm not sure the judge would go for whatever your solution is.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2011, 06:13 by sjlocke »

« Reply #10 on: October 31, 2011, 06:51 »
0
I never get more than one release from a model, even though we shoot on multiple dates.  But I no longer upload to istock, either.  I also don't bother writing a shoot description on the release.  It has never been an issue for me, but if it were ever become one, I could easily overcome it.

I'm not sure the judge would go for whatever your solution is.

I catched your first reply that you changed very wisely. It read "forgery". That would have been enough reason to accuse you of libel.
It's not because iStock sets its rules somewhere far away near to the polar circle that they are God's Gift to stock.

A year ago (when I was still uploading on iSuck) I had a bunch of releases just for them for every shoot day. Just because they can't program a proper model release library. Well with all those corporate suit-zombies there I can't blame them.

As I'm involved with a modeling agency that works with media (in Europe), our lawyers assured us that for media, commercials and also movies, a group release for the project is enough. But just for the sake of iSuck, I made a separate personal release for every turning (shoot) day for a few images for micro. All the images were accepted by iSuck at first, then their legal department came back 2 weeks later because the witness signed 24 hrs later (we had 4 turning days), and they deleted the images. Fair enough to me. I would just yell "Jump!".

For 16%, I won't even bother to write a new release, and with their "mirroring" my stuff at Stinkstock, I deleted my entire portfolio on their Suck site. It took a full evening but I enjoyed every moment of it, and I keep telling my media contacts never to buy from those sharks any more. Period. I'm gone there. Just don't accuse other people of "forgery" any more, ok?

« Reply #11 on: October 31, 2011, 07:03 »
0
A group release for the project was said to be OK by the lawyer because it is.  I believe I remember iStock saying that as well, that you can say the shoot date spans a few days.  That is a lot different than shooting a model today, in 6 months and again in 3 years and only using one release for the three totally different shoots (which is what Dreamstime wants).  I don't think your lawyer would accept that.

« Reply #12 on: October 31, 2011, 07:53 »
0
I catched your first reply that you changed very wisely. It read "forgery". That would have been enough reason to accuse you of libel.
It's not because iStock sets its rules somewhere far away near to the polar circle that they are God's Gift to stock.

Lol, please.  I changed it because I missed the part about not writing a shoot description on the release, and figured that was his supposed way out.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
5756 Views
Last post October 12, 2006, 08:01
by mtbcyclist
12 Replies
6322 Views
Last post March 20, 2008, 16:58
by snurder
57 Replies
17281 Views
Last post November 13, 2009, 20:05
by ErickN
4 Replies
2388 Views
Last post June 28, 2016, 12:39
by PhotoLA
3 Replies
1601 Views
Last post January 29, 2017, 17:01
by Lecaro

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors