pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Canstock requiring model release for all minor models even if face isn't visible  (Read 6872 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 01, 2006, 14:08 »
0
I haven't been uploading to CanStock for very long but I got a picture rejected today because there wasn't a model release.  They said in their email there must be a model release for any minor even if the face isn't visible.  What's up with that?  My picture that got rejected was the back of my son's head while he's looking out over a lake.  Seems kind of strange.  I don't know of any other site that requires that.


« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2006, 14:26 »
0
Scrappinstacy, I just got a picture approved at CS with 3 teenagers not showing their faces.
Has this specific picture been already approved on another site without a MR ?

« Reply #2 on: October 01, 2006, 14:59 »
0
Here's a cut and paste of the body of the email they sent me (I took out the extra line breaks):

Hello Stacy,
Unfortunately, your photo entitled "Echo Lake watcher" was not approved for distribution on Can Stock Photo.
Reason(s) for rejection:

* A model release is required for this photo. A model release is always required
whenever there is identifiable faces present in the photo. If possible, please
consider obtaining a model release and re-submitting.
\n* Comment:all children need model release even when you can\'t see their face, sorry\n
If you are able to fix the above problem(s), please feel free to re-submit the photo. Many issues are usually relatively minor and easy to correct.

Thank you.
- The Can Stock Photo Team
http://www.CanStockPhoto.com
---------------------------
Refer a new member and make fast cash!
Details: http://www.canstockphoto.com/referral.php


Here's a link (hopefully) to the same photo approved on BigStock w/o a model release
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/thumbs/2/2/7/medium/722835.jpg

They also disapproved this picture for a lack of model release: http://www.bigstockphoto.com/thumbs/2/1/8/medium/812148.jpg
However, on this one they didn't make that comment section about all children needing a model release even if face isn't visible.  I don't think any face is recognizable in this particular picture.

Thanks,
Stacy
« Last Edit: October 01, 2006, 15:07 by scrappinstacy »

« Reply #3 on: October 01, 2006, 15:32 »
0
When I was on the other side of the fence, the key regarding MR was: could this person be identifiable or not ?  if the answer was yes, or if there was any kind of doubt about it, we would ask for a model release.  I can understand why the approver would err on the side of caution with these pictures. You can see part of your son's  face too, even if the picture was taken from behind.  Hope that this helps, Stacy.

« Reply #4 on: October 01, 2006, 17:51 »
0
I can see your point, Berryspun.  However, their comment says "even when you can't see their face"  This makes me wonder why and makes me feel the reviewer thought the face wasn't recognizable. 
I tried to edit one of my pending files of the back of a child's head and I guess once it's pending, you can't add a model release.  Oh well, guess I'll wait to see if the pending shots get rejected also.
Thanks again for your opinion, Berryspun.

« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2006, 18:19 »
0
You're welcome  :) 
The comment "even when you can't see their face" could have meant that maybe someone could recognize this person, even from the back, that doesn't necessarily means a change of policy.  Sometimes the short explanations can be puzzling, to say the least.
Also, there is definitely an human touch in the review process to consider, we all know it, what may pass for one may be rejected by the next, and vice-versa.  Nothing personal.  But I understand that it can be frustrating at times.   ;)
Submitting to several sites, I find it therapeutic, because the pictures that are questioned are usually never the same, and I take it more as a site policy than a personal slap!  So... I just go with the flow...

« Reply #6 on: October 01, 2006, 19:28 »
0
I also find it therapeutic to submit to more than one site for the same reasons.  If I only submitted to one or two, boy would I be frustrated.  I'm not sure why I got so irritated with CanStock over this.  Had they used some other reason for the rejection, I would have just let it go.  Thanks for letting me vent.  ;)

« Reply #7 on: October 01, 2006, 21:01 »
0
Hi!  It isn't possible to add a model release once the image is in the queue; however, it is possible to delete the image yourself and resubmit with the model release.  Would it be possible to resubmit the image of your son with a model release?  You could pm one of the reviewers and let them know what happened, and I'm sure they would help you with it.  (I've done the same thing). 

« Reply #8 on: October 01, 2006, 22:56 »
0
Thanks for the suggestion, ancientimages.  I'm going to resubmit the pic of my son with a model release when I get the chance.  As far as the others in the queue, I'll see what happens with them since I'm maxed out on my uploading quota at the moment - lol  Thanks again to both of you!

« Reply #9 on: October 02, 2006, 07:37 »
0
It could just be that they have taken a view to stop certain actions (ie. lurking in bushes taking random shots of young people (there are some state in US that this is illegal aren't there??). 

I think I heard that there is one web site that also requires model released for any bikini,lingere,etc type photos even if you cant see the face or recognise.

The problem is not so much with the rules (we can work around them), it is taht each site has different rules and they are constantly changing and there is no easy way to keep track other than trial and error (otherwise know as submit, reject and resubmit)

« Reply #10 on: October 02, 2006, 07:47 »
0
yeah i don't think that is such a dumb idea (requiring a model release even if you can't see the faces).  If someone is in an add, they should have consented to it, even if it isn't 'easy' to tell who they are, one can often still 'tell' if they know the person.

One example,
I saw an add in a little magazine a drug store was giving out.  The add was from dreamstime, and showed a family by the beach with their two kids, taken from behind so no faces were showing (probably not model released).  It was an ad for diareah medicine.. :S  not sure they would be too excited to see that ad.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
2396 Views
Last post December 30, 2007, 11:10
by null
5 Replies
2601 Views
Last post July 06, 2014, 09:09
by Sean Locke Photography
2 Replies
1299 Views
Last post February 02, 2016, 16:56
by MilanStojanovic
0 Replies
1921 Views
Last post June 09, 2017, 00:05
by sarah2
12 Replies
2443 Views
Last post November 09, 2018, 02:56
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results