Author Topic: Rejection for Valid Model Release!?! (Read 4186 times)

gilmourbto2001 · « **on:** November 27, 2009, 15:52 »

This is a new one for me - I just got an image rejected at a site I won't name and the reason was "Please remove Model Release." The shot is a simple close up of my sons legs and feet in the green grass. Fun image that is similar to thousands of others out there, right?

Okay, but why reject it and tell me to remove the model release? I have the option of resubmitting it, but for cryin' out loud - isn't that a tad harsh. I am busting my butt to get these images up and you tell me that you want me to take that hard earned Model Release OFF?

I'm not a hardcore professional, but I have been doing this awhile - and this just seems nitpicky to me.

Wouldn't it simply be safer (and easier for us all) to just keep the image covered by including the release, and if it never comes up . . . it never comes up?

Anyone else experience this rejection reason lately?

elvinstar · « **Reply #1 on:** November 27, 2009, 16:04 »

Good 'old Dreamstime!

Hard to tell what needs a release there...

ap · « **Reply #2 on:** November 27, 2009, 16:06 »

if it's dt, then you don't need to provide a mr for a body part. i know it's annoying, but at the same time they don't want the mr either.
as for other sites, i have yet to come across one that requires mr for body parts.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #3 on:** November 27, 2009, 16:10 »

Hi Gil,

Yep, very standard for Micro agencies. They won't just delete it, they send it back and make you start all over. Wait, there are so many more that will surprise you. I personally think they are better putting any model release on file when a person is involved, identifiable or not. I believe they take less risk by removing the models release legally I imagine that is their reason for not including them. Don't try to shoot to many photos of people using Text Messaging or MP3 players or any device unless it is super non identifiable or that are up to date either, even if you hide the identifiable parts with your models hands and remove all the logos. They can't afford the risk of law suit. I had a photo of children playing with their blocks that we built and colored ourselves rejected because the Micro agencies are worried about copyright infringement, we made the darn things : ) We also make our own doctors tags and fake hospital names for their badges, we stopped doing that because all of them were rejected by Micro. I learned fast there are some things that are totally fine with Macro but not in the Micro world. Super safe is best.

Best,
Jonathan

Pixart · « **Reply #4 on:** November 27, 2009, 16:12 »

Yes, annoying - but it's a valid. Their search is attached to the model releases and Dreamstime has a search button "with people". Wouldn't a buyer be annoyed if they searched for people and got a hand with no body and face?

I wish they wouldn't refuse the photo though. They should really send a note that they did not attach the release.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #5 on:** November 27, 2009, 16:43 »

I agree Pixart,

Just remove the release. And everyone, let's not make this just a Dreamstime problem. I get this from Istock as well.

Cheers,
Jonathan

gilmourbto2001 · « **Reply #6 on:** November 30, 2009, 14:59 »

Thanks so much for the positive responses. You all nailed the agency, of course.

I guess I just don't see the problem with having the release. I'm over it and have resubmitted the way they want it . . . but on a common sense level it is just silly. Cover yourself with the release and be protected. Simple as that.

The search engine issue is a strange one. I'm not quite sure how that connects to the model release problem, but oh well.

I do enjoy the agency - it's a vibrant community and I like the website logistics. This is just one of those bizarre twists that are around every corner in the Microstock world, I'm discovering.

sam100 · « **Reply #7 on:** November 30, 2009, 16:47 »

Quote from: gilmourbto2001 on November 30, 2009, 14:59

Thanks so much for the positive responses. You all nailed the agency, of course.

I guess I just don't see the problem with having the release. I'm over it and have resubmitted the way they want it . . . but on a common sense level it is just silly. Cover yourself with the release and be protected. Simple as that.

The search engine issue is a strange one. I'm not quite sure how that connects to the model release problem, but oh well.

I do enjoy the agency - it's a vibrant community and I like the website logistics. This is just one of those bizarre twists that are around every corner in the Microstock world, I'm discovering.

Don't hold your breath....

I got an image rejected for having a model release... reuploaded, no model release attachted... again rejected for not having a model release.

Patrick H.