I'm setting up to add some new values, but I don't know how you photographers do this. Now I'm on the subject of "model release".

Is stock photography so brutal that you actually hold your models captive?

In any event, how does this work? I'd like to keep it as simple as a "YES/NO/NA" value.

By putting "YES" you would simply imply you could produce such proof on demand.

Otherwise does microstock tradition have it that this must be available in a downloadable / available format?

Need feedback 

Yes, it makes sense to keep them locked up. Keeps them away from the competition.

All I've been doing is mentioning that any relevant photos are model released in the photo description. Since I am my only model it's not really an issue for me, but I expect any other "people" shooters will want to have their releases under a bit more control or a bit more visible.

Quote from: Leo on April 26, 2013, 22:21
I'm setting up to add some new values, but I don't know how you photographers do this. Now I'm on the subject of "model release".

Is stock photography so brutal that you actually hold your models captive?

In any event, how does this work? I'd like to keep it as simple as a "YES/NO/NA" value.

By putting "YES" you would simply imply you could produce such proof on demand.

Otherwise does microstock tradition have it that this must be available in a downloadable / available format?

Need feedback 

most agencies require that you have a MR filed with them, but obviously a photographer controlled site can be more flexible.  just showing it's available should suffice

Glad to know. Its a technicality I have to address for some other things.

Don't forget property releases as well.

Got them thanks.

I mention somewhere (either FAQ's or EULA) that I have them and have a link to a page where there is a sample available).  Other than that I am only stating when I don't have one and that the picture is editorial.  I would not pass on an actual signed model release due to its containing personal details,  to a client unless there was an exceptionally good reason such as a court order

Quote from: Tinny on April 27, 2013, 13:53
I mention somewhere (either FAQ's or EULA) that I have them and have a link to a page where there is a sample available).  Other than that I am only stating when I don't have one and that the picture is editorial.  I would not pass on an actual signed model release due to its containing personal details,  to a client unless there was an exceptionally good reason such as a court order

I fully agree with Tinny's  approach.
To me the best would be:
--> by default : I have MR or property release (for picture where it is relevant)
--> if not it is specified that pictures are for editioral purpose only

It would be wonderful if we could bulk mark pictures as "editorial only" if this is possible!
jean