I had a string of 6 rejections from a shoot submission of 70 for the following reason.

"- Your MR document is governed by the laws of a different country than the model's or photographer's and other than US. The model release represents a written agreement between the model and the photographer, therefore it must be governed by the laws of the country/state where one of the parties resides. Alternatively it can be governed by US laws or international (generic, not country related)."

That would mean there would always be a problem with a photographer traveling to shoot in any country other than his own (except of course traveling to the US according to them). Wouldn't that rule also apply to international models shooting in the US?

Funny how the other 64 were accepted.

From the wording you quoted, the DT MR must be subject to the laws of:
The model
OR
The photographer
OR
the US
OR
International / generic, whatever that means (does that have any validity whatsoever, like the non-existent "UK Laws")

I had this rejection before.  It means that the release you used (in my case the istock one with the logo taken off) is not aplicable to the nationality of the model.   Some where in all the writing there was a paragraph that talks about the laws of Canada.  Once this was removed the release was accepted.  Just check over the release for any reference to a country other than where the model resides and remove it and then the release should be ok.

Unfortunately, it would be illegal to alter the agreement after it has been signed. If the model has agreed to the jurisdiction of the Canadian courts you cannot deprive him or her of that right by deleting bits of the contract.

so if I have model that has ancestors from Japan, Russia, Poland, Ireland and Italy I will needs a model release from all these countries 

I solved the problem with a little editing of iStock's release.  I replaced this text:

I agree that this release is irrevocable, worldwide and perpetual, and will be governed by the laws (excluding the law of conflicts) of the country/state from the following list that is nearest to the address of the Model (or Parent*) given opposite: New York, Alberta, England, Australia and New Zealand.

with this:

I agree that this release is irrevocable, worldwide and perpetual, and will be governed by the laws (excluding the law of conflicts) of the United States of America.

Dreamstime accepts my modified release, as has every other agency I tried.

I got a similar type rejection recently from Istock.  I had modified the Getty release where it says it will be governed by the laws of whichever jurisdiction is closest to the place it was signed, and gave a list of places.  New York was closest to us here in Florida, so I just deleted the other cities.  Never had a problem until the other day when I had three images rejected because "Alberta, Canada" where Istock is located, was not on the release.  

I think the inspector was mistaken, but fortunately it was possible to get releases that included Alberta and upload those.  

I think some inspectors don't understand that the agencies are not a signatory or party to the releases.  It's between the model and the photographer.  Where a particular agency is located is moot.

No. The inspector was right. IStock requires releases to either mention Alberta as it does in the standard iStock release, or to make no mention of a governing location.

What are you basing your opinion on Caz?  Istock is not a signatory to my agreement with my models.  Why do they get to dictate where it is supposed to be adjudicated? You may be right, but you have offered no evidence to support your claim.

There's a thread in the Help forum:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=343095&page=1

I'm pretty sure someone who signed in Scotland to agree to abide by English laws (as the 'nearest jurisdiction' could have some fun down the line, if the relevant laws should happen to be different in the two countries.

Like the superinjunction case: "We cannot be bound by a foreign jurisdiction".

Thanks Liz.  It doesn't relate to my issue very directly though.  I use the standard Getty release, which is identical to the Istock one except for the Istock name.  It specifically says "I agree that this release is worldwide and perpetual, and will be governed by the laws (excluding the law of conflicts) of the country/state from the following list that is nearest to the address of the Model (or parent*) given opposite: New York, Alberta, England, Australia and New Zealand."

In my case, that is New York.  Not Alberta. I can't speak to the other specific issues in this thread, or the one you linked to, but I am in exact compliance with Getty and Istock's own releases, word for word.  

I'm not going to give up my anonymity here, you'll just have to trust that I have first hand knowledge of iStock's  requirements. Or don't, I don't mind either way  I'm simply trying to help you to have a less frustrating inspection experience.

I believe you, and I wouldn't encourage anyone to give up their anonymity.  What is confusing is that I have not heard a rationale that makes sense for the policy you are describing.  It is in direct conflict with the actual language of the release, as noted above in my previous post.

US models and Swedish models are lovely.  all other are just plain uggly, horrible, looks like monkies. Elieen Ford have got an agency called models-1,  hire some from there,  its cheap.

US models and Swedish models are lovely.  all other are just plain uggly, horrible, looks like monkies. Elieen Ford have got an agency called models-1,  hire some from there,  its cheap.

I have some US models who would disprove your theory  

DT recently rejected a MR because I didn't have the person's address or country... Country is easy, but the person was homeless at the time, so I am not sure what to use as the address, perhaps 1983 Toyota Camry station wagon license #.....

DT recently rejected a MR because I didn't have the person's address or country... Country is easy, but the person was homeless at the time, so I am not sure what to use as the address, perhaps 1983 Toyota Camry station wagon license #.....

I asked them about it and they said to get the address of the next of kin - what - are they dead? No, they are homeless.

In any case, DT won't be selling those pics.