Author Topic: Model releases for minors cannot be signed by the photographer (Read 5052 times)

vividpixels · « **on:** December 11, 2007, 23:36 »

Who here takes pictures of there own children and signs the model release themselves?

Is there something illegal about the photographer signing his/her own child's model release? According to Stockxpert the "guardian cannot sign the model release as the photographer" I had a bunch of baby pictures rejected because of that. It sounds like pure BS and I've sent a note to support. I've been uploading images for two years to all the major agencies and I've never had something like that.

Simple - I am the photographer...My child is the subject of the model release. Me, being the parent, has signed the release...

Is there some obscure law that no other stock agency knows about that says a photographer cannot sign his/her own child's model release?

Pixart · « **Reply #1 on:** December 11, 2007, 23:41 »

Did you have a witness to the signature? That made the difference for me at DT. Of course, you can sign for your own kid. That's BS. STEVE-OH, back me up here!!!

vividpixels · « **Reply #2 on:** December 12, 2007, 00:13 »

Yep, I have a witness...

jsnover · « **Reply #3 on:** December 12, 2007, 00:59 »

I have a few pictures of my children in my portfolio, and I have signed the releases with my husband as the witness. All the sites have accepted these.

In the case where the photographer was the sole legal guardian, it would be nuts to suggest that the parent/photographer couldn't sign the release.

sharply_done · « **Reply #4 on:** December 12, 2007, 01:57 »

Perhaps StockXpert has a new reviewer who isn't quite up on things as he/she should be.

sam100 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 12, 2007, 10:21 »

Add to that my today rejection experience from DT :
13 in a row rejected for :

"The signatures of the photographer and the witness look stitched. We cannot accept digitally manipulated model releases (we only accept hand-written signatures)."

They are actually me calling a fraud, a cheater.

The model release in question is a standard model release i use for all my shoots, the witness sign on it is from the woman who accompanies me on my shoots almolst 90 %, the photographers signature is mine... that model release has been copied numerous times, thus the fading compared to the original...

But no, for DT the quality of the model release print is even as more important as the picture.
Never had any problems with my releases besides a occasional data missing (had some rejected because for belgium i had filled in B, while according to DT it had to be BE....)

Remarkable that these new reject reasons show up the same week new reviewers start.

Patrick.

ps : wanted to add that if a reviewer/inspector can't see the difference between faded ink and an digital manipulated release he/she is clearly not qualified being in that job...!!!!

DanP68 · « **Reply #6 on:** December 13, 2007, 00:53 »

Stockxpert has recently struck me as beyond clueless with some of their requirements for model and property releases. So this surprises me not at all.

fotografer · « **Reply #7 on:** December 13, 2007, 11:15 »

I have hundreds of images of my children on stockexpert and everwhere else I upload to and have always signed the release my self as the parent with somebody else witnessing.