Author Topic: Sites accepting unidentifiable people (Read 3853 times)

Freedom · « **on:** December 19, 2008, 14:46 »

Are there still any sites accepting unidentifiable people or body parts as RF photos? Thanks.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #1 on:** December 19, 2008, 15:13 »

I just had one accepted from Washington DC with people walking on the Mall, they were far away and their back was facing the camera so you couldn't tell much about them at all. Dreamstime has rejected a few (every one actually) of my images when I added a model release to it if the image had only an arm or hand in it, I'm confused about that I would think a model release even when not 100% necessary would still be good.

hali · « **Reply #2 on:** December 19, 2008, 17:12 »

bigstock

vonkara · « **Reply #3 on:** December 19, 2008, 18:05 »

All of them, but don't mess with heads, even from back it's unacceptable

This one accepted everywhere

epixx · « **Reply #4 on:** December 19, 2008, 20:08 »

Quote from: Vonkara on December 19, 2008, 18:05

All of them, but don't mess with heads, even from back it's unacceptable

This one accepted everywhere

I would accept her as well

Freedom · « **Reply #5 on:** December 19, 2008, 20:31 »

LOL, bad boys.

Traveller, which site accepted yours?

sharply_done · « **Reply #6 on:** December 19, 2008, 20:54 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on December 19, 2008, 15:13

... Dreamstime has rejected a few (every one actually) of my images when I added a model release to it if the image had only an arm or hand in it, I'm confused about that I would think a model release even when not 100% necessary would still be good.

I've had a few of those as well - a rejection for "Model Release not required" doesn't make sense to me either.

As far as sites that allow images that show people but without a MR is concerned, they all accept them even though oftentimes it's at the whim of the reviewer.

fotografer · « **Reply #7 on:** December 20, 2008, 04:58 »

It really annoys me when they reject for that reason. If they don't want the MR attatched then it would be enough to just de-attatch it not reject the image which messes around with our acceptance ratios.

Quote from: sharply_done on December 19, 2008, 20:54

Quote from: traveler1116 on December 19, 2008, 15:13
... Dreamstime has rejected a few (every one actually) of my images when I added a model release to it if the image had only an arm or hand in it, I'm confused about that I would think a model release even when not 100% necessary would still be good.

I've had a few of those as well - a rejection for "Model Release not required" doesn't make sense to me either.

As far as sites that allow images that show people but without a MR is concerned, they all accept them even though oftentimes it's at the whim of the reviewer.