Do you?  and is it worth it financially speaking or mostly just for fun?

I have not.  Sometimes there is a competition that really gets my attention.  But the images are exclusive and they have pretty strict rules restricting you from using similars on other sites.

My most selling photo at DT has about 50 dl's and we all know that a good photo at IS or SS may sell a few hundred or thousand times in the same amount of time.

I'm not saying I wouldn't enter an assignment though.  Their prizes are usually pretty good.  If I have special that isn't part of a series I might try it some day.

Never tried. But interestingly, maybe I should.

Has anyone read Photocritic? He was one of the judges on the last Crestock comp, not many people enter those comps.

http://www.photocritic.org/category/competitions/

After reading about the DT one with IOFoto, I'd have entered that if I knew.  So it depends on what's up for grabs!

Sometimes.  I decided to upload an exclusive RF sports image to them for their new contest.  It took a lot of time to post-process, removing all of the logos and jersey numbers.  The faces were not visible obviously.  They turned it down saying it needed a model release.  So that's the last time I bother with RF sports there.

So instead of it being exclusive at DT, it's now on Shutterstock, 123RF, FP, MP, and FT, and awaiting review at 4 other sites.  Oh well, I tried.

Of course, the argument is that you shouldn't be selling royalty free images of people who didn't give you permission (I'm not convinced about royalty free editorial) since that person could be used to advertise a product they don't agree with.  And I'm sure most of your sportsmen in your portfolio could recognize themselves.  Just because a face is not visible, does not mean they can't be recognized!

I've seen you post alot of times here about how frustrated you find it to get your sports work approved at the microstock...

Hmmm, examples?  I only recall this post, and the problem I had giving them to StockXpert and iStock (which seems to accept them from exclusives based on recent search results).

I find it amusing that you take this stance.  It took me 10 seconds to look at your portfolio and find this sniper shot of yours of a person in a kayak.  No model release.  Why not? 



Oh, here is another from your portfolio:



Again, no model release.  Couldn't this person recognize themselves?  Obviously I assume you know the person in the shot, since you have no model release, but that doesn't change the legalities.  People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

And this is my favorite from your portfolio:



Tell me why you don't have a model release for this one?  This is a sniper shot if there ever was one.  Some poor guy is minding his own business, surfing along the coast, and you take his picture and upload it to microstock sites for profit.  Perhaps you wish to re-think your argument now?  Have you brought up your concerns about Editorial stock usage on the Dreamstime message board?

I cannot post RF sports to Dreamstime, nor iStock.  Stockxpert takes them provided the jersey number and logos are removed, and the face is not visible.  Most other sites take them regardless of the jersey number. Shutterstock accepts these shots without fail.  I assume they know what they are doing.  I'm not complaining about it.  What I am saying is, Dreamstime is asking for these types of images, and I still can't give one to them. 

If you look at the accepted images in the latest image drive, there are no true Live Action shots except one youth hockey image where a kid is model released.  Everything else is a kid in a pool, or a kid holding a soccer ball, etc.  That doesn't define sport for me.  The bottom line is they are under served in the sports category, which is why they are doing an image drive.  But the latest drive has not generated actual action shots from actual games, while they continue to build at places like Shutterstock, Bigstock, and Fotolia.  I love Dreamstime.  I'm just trying to help them obtain the shots they are asking for, and offering them as exclusive.

BTW I don't see you claiming Rinder's shots, or anyone elses, should be removed from microstock.  Why just mine?

Dreamstime shows whether the image is model released.  A few others do too.  With iStock, you have to inquire.

Simple answer is, I'm trying to get my portfolio online across as many sites as possible, so if I don't need to add a model release then I don't!  It doesn't mean that I don't own one!

Hmmm...ok.  So you have a model release for the surfer then, right?  This doesn't make sense to me.  How does not uploading a model release allow you to build your portfolio with as many sites as possible, as fast as you can?  If you have a release, I assume you use it.  Most sites only require you to upload it once, so speed shouldn't be an issue.

Besides, you only have about 300 images at iStock and 80 at Dreamstime.  How long does it take to attach releases if you have them?  I uploaded 300 images to MostPhotos, including model released images, in a few hours.  I could upload my entire portfolio to the 10 sites I am on, along with releases, in about a week if I needed to.  Neither you nor I have huge portfolios which require that much work.

I never said you did anything illegal.  What I am saying is, you are uploading people images without model releases attached just because the face isn't visible, then turning around and flagging me for shooting sports. 

It isn't illegal to stand on the street and shoot images from behind of girls walking by with shopping bags.  And a lot of microstock sites unfortunately accept such shots, judging from the image libraries online.  But it is arguably unethical.  I just don't see the difference between something like that, and shooting a surfer alone on a beach.  At least with legitimate sports contests, everyone assumes their pictures will be taken because it is a newsworthy event.  But you don't even seem to buy into the idea of editorial stock usage.  Interesting, and in my opinion, inconsistent.

But I think there is a direct misuse of the status which seems particually prevalent on microstock editorial sites.  People are using the editorial banner to sneak in pictures that they just don't have a model release for.  They're not newsworthy, they're not going to be used for "editorial" purposes.  Alot of the shots seem to be "hey, I'm uploading these pictures as editorial because I don't have a release for them".  An editorial picture would be a shot of Paula Radcliffe winning the London Marathon, Lance Armstrong training on his bike, or Tom Cruise at the oscars. 

This part of your argument, which has prevailed from your first reply, really ticks me off.  You are insinuating that people like me are trying to get around model releases, when all we are doing is uploading editorial stock.

Editorial does not equal newsworthy.  You are wrong about this.  It doesn't have to involve a "star" to be editorial.  Newsworthy suggests it is happening now, and is important.

Editorial could be used today, or 20 years from now.  Let's say Sports Illustrated wants a picture of small college football to go along with a story on small school sports.  Clearly, that is not an advertisement of any sort.  What if D3football.com, which covers small college football, wants a picture I shot for a story about a college involved in that game?  What if someone writing a blog wants a picture of a basketball game?  What if someone who runs a website about sports injuries wants a picture from one of your small league matches?  That isn't ad based.  Should a high school kid writing a story about baseball for his school newspaper need a model released image?  There are a million legitimate uses for these images, none of which need to involve George Bush or Tom Cruise riding a bike.

All of those examples I gave, and countless more, qualify as editorial.  Just because it isn't newsworthy enough to show up on the front of the NY Times tomorrow does not mean it isn't editorial.  Like I said, if you think all of this editorial work is just an excuse to weasel out of model releases, you should bring it up on the Dreamstime boards.  And for that matter, bring it up on the Shutterstock boards too, because they follow the same criteria.  Really, do so, if you know so much more about the intent than do the people in charge of these microstock sites.  I'm DJP on the Shutterstock boards.  I'd be happy to debate you there if you feel editorial is just an excuse for people like me to abuse the system.

And before you go accusing people of sneaking around model releases, you should really have your own uploaded releases for images of the backs of people's heads.  Again, total lack of consistency in your argument.  I don't care about claims that you know this person or that person, or that you have a release stored somewhere at home.  All I see are images without releases.

Newsworthy suggests it is happening now, and is important.


Like I said, if you think all of this editorial work is just an excuse to weasel out of model releases, you should bring it up on the Dreamstime boards.  And for that matter, bring it up on the Shutterstock boards too, because they follow the same criteria. 

And before you go accusing people of sneaking around model releases, you should really have your own uploaded releases for images of the backs of people's heads.

1. Yes, newsworthy is happening now and is important.  Totally agree.  Never said I didn't at all.  That is what editorial photography should be.  I am saying microstock sites should put a blanket ban on all shots of people without a model release unless they're for editorial usage.  The problem is, people upload things like art nude shots as "editorial".  Art nude clearly is not editorial.  More likely it's someones pictures of their ex girlfriend or the model isn't aware of the shots being sold!  IMHO microstock sites need to tighten up and accept only newsworthy shots as editorial.  Where to they draw the line?  I guess at shots that couldn't be "staged".  For instance, most of your football shots are pretty unidentifiable (except to the players or teams themselves) so you could easily take four or five football players down to a park and set those shots up (of course they would still look real, because they would be doing real tackles etc).  Then you would have model releases.  You could have good light on them, and make good isolations without hard shadows, much more productive use of time.  They would be almost identical, except you would actually have the players permission to sell them as royalty free stock.  Just imagine this.  Your photo is used in an advert for an advertisement to ban football because it's violent... how would the player that wasn't aware of you taking that shot to sell for advertising usage feel?  What if his friends recognized him?  What if an opposing team recognised him?  It could cause him problems.  That is why you should not sell shots of people that you do not have a model release for as royalty free.

2. This was discussed recently on the Shutterstock boards.  I wouldn't even know how to post on the forums at Dreamstime, I find the site hard to navigate.  I don't have time to spend over there, since it doesn't make me any money.  And their policies are their own, I don't really care at the end of the day.  I'm merely stating from an ethical viewpoint.

3. I've already said, I don't have any shots on stock that I don't have model releases for.  That surfer shot which you have so much problem with, was show 100 yards from my house in Aberystwyth in a place called the trap.  I know the surf club very well, I go drinking with the members when I can get back to Aberystwyth.  The guy in the shot was my housemate, I could upload a release for him if I so wished.  But it is not worth my time to scan and upload, since there are only two photos of him online, and I don't think they've ever sold.  They wouldn't make me the money back.  They'll proberbly be in my next lot to deactivate at iStock.  There is a difference here, I am saying I do have model releases, you are saying that you can't be bothered to track down the people in your shots and ask for a model release.  They might say no, they don't want their image to be sold as stock!

In fact, I just went to attach a model release to those three images (after scanning them just now on my lunch break from work) and I can't seem to do it.

So if anyone tells me how I'll add the releases...

The problem is, people upload things like art nude shots as "editorial".  Art nude clearly is not editorial.  More likely it's someones pictures of their ex girlfriend or the model isn't aware of the shots being sold! 

Do micros accept that?  I saw this happening in SP (snapshots in bedroom, poorly done, not artistic), but they don't review an image, so you can put anything as editorial, they don't care.

Regards,
Adelaide

You should provide concrete examples if you want to claim people are taking nude shots of their ex girlfriends and passing them off as "editorial."  Give us an example. 

As I said, in SP there are many nude snapshots available as editorial. I don't think any serious person would do that if he could have the girl sign a release.  They can be present or ex-girlfriends, one night stands, prostitutes, whatever, but I would bet the girls don't know their photos are there.

But indeed I can't imagine most sites (micros or not) allowing this.

Regards,
Adelaide

A prime example is Dan.  He seems to be a big follower of American Ball Throwing.  He could track down the players in the shots with relative ease and get model releases signed from them at the end of the game IF THEY AGREE TO BE SOLD AS STOCK.  The point is, the people in his images may not wish to have their identify used this way, and if they found themselves in an image could have a case against Dan, especially in the States where as we all know, the compensation culture is rife. 

Enough of the USA bashing. Every country has its own set of issues and to make some BS blanket statement like this isn't doing much for your credibility.