Author Topic: Istock's NEW model release requirements (Read 24185 times)

lisafx · « **on:** August 26, 2009, 07:49 »

Here's a thread discussing istock's new model release standards:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=107471

Among other things they will now require a new release signed and dated for every photo shoot. It will no longer be possible to reupload the same release for different shoots.

disorderly · « **Reply #1 on:** August 26, 2009, 08:05 »

I've been collecting a model release for every shoot. It's been nice not having to scan and manage multiple releases for the same model, especially given the number of times I've shot some of them. Probably just as well that most of my photos at other agencies will never make their way to iStock. Just think of the time I'll save thanks to their upload quotas.

tdoes · « **Reply #2 on:** August 26, 2009, 08:10 »

After reading the reasoning behind the NEW model release requirements I understand why the changes were made. It does add more work to Istock's very tedious submitting process!

leaf · « **Reply #3 on:** August 26, 2009, 08:51 »

also new: releases require a models birthday

lisafx · « **Reply #4 on:** August 26, 2009, 09:15 »

Up to now I have been using the same release for all agencies. Seems like going forward it would be a good idea to have them sign my generic one and also istock's specific one.

click_click · « **Reply #5 on:** August 26, 2009, 09:25 »

Quote from: lisafx on August 26, 2009, 09:15

Up to now I have been using the same release for all agencies. Seems like going forward it would be a good idea to have them sign my generic one and also istock's specific one.

You bet. Better safe than sorry I'd say.

disorderly · « **Reply #6 on:** August 26, 2009, 09:26 »

This may just be the last straw for me. My model shots haven't done all that well at iStock relative to the rest of my portfolio, and their upload process takes far more time than the other agencies combined. Maybe it's time to make a change: give them scenics and architecture and my isolated shots, although they're unlikely to accept many of the latter. Give the model shots to agencies that produce results and don't put up quite so many roadblocks.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #7 on:** August 26, 2009, 09:53 »

Quote from: lisafx on August 26, 2009, 09:15

Up to now I have been using the same release for all agencies. Seems like going forward it would be a good idea to have them sign my generic one and also istock's specific one.

Lisa, you should be able to use Getty's new release which is good for all micros anyway. This should save you some time.

lisafx · « **Reply #8 on:** August 26, 2009, 10:49 »

Quote from: Zeus on August 26, 2009, 09:53

Lisa, you should be able to use Getty's new release which is good for all micros anyway. This should save you some time.

Thanks Zeus

For anyone interested, it can be downloaded here:
http://contributors.gettyimages.com/img/articles/downloads/SAMPLE_Model_Release_-_English_-_Dec_2008.pdf

Talanis · « **Reply #9 on:** August 26, 2009, 11:36 »

What a PITA it will be. Needing a release for each picture of my 4 or 6 years old kids is so dumb. At least if it could be 1 release per year. Not like I could sue myself for selling a picture of my own kid since I'm the one signing the release anyway. It's already dumb that I need a witness to co-sign my kids releases that I sign myself... once again, am I gonna sue myself?

/sigh

travismanley · « **Reply #10 on:** August 26, 2009, 11:49 »

Quote from: Talanis on August 26, 2009, 11:36

What a PITA it will be. Needing a release for each picture of my 4 or 6 years old kids is so dumb. At least if it could be 1 release per year. Not like I could sue myself for selling a picture of my own kid since I'm the one signing the release anyway. It's already dumb that I need a witness to co-sign my kids releases that I sign myself... once again, am I gonna sue myself?

/sigh

I feel the same way. I take photos of my son almost everyday. Many of those photos become stock photos I will sell later and IS wants a new MR for every photo session? This is really going to get out of hand. I really hope the Deep Meta guys come up with a good system for dealing with all of these releases.

graficallyminded · « **Reply #11 on:** August 26, 2009, 12:02 »

One word for this. Redonkulous.

Does it surprise me? Not a bit. Pretty soon we'll have to show them a video clip of the person signing it, as well as the models SS# and scan of their birth certificate. Give me a freakin break.

travismanley · « **Reply #12 on:** August 26, 2009, 12:05 »

Quote from: arenacreative on August 26, 2009, 12:02

One word for this. Redonkulous.

Does it surprise me? Not a bit. Pretty soon we'll have to show them a video clip of the person signing it, as well as the models SS# and scan of their birth certificate. Give me a freakin break.

How about "Friggn' Redonkulous." lol

goldenangel · « **Reply #13 on:** August 26, 2009, 14:39 »

Quote from: arenacreative on August 26, 2009, 12:02

One word for this. Redonkulous.

Does it surprise me? Not a bit. Pretty soon we'll have to show them a video clip of the person signing it, as well as the models SS# and scan of their birth certificate. Give me a freakin break.

I totally agree. I also shoot my son or friends and to require them to sign it every day we make a single picture is really too much.

cardmaverick · « **Reply #14 on:** August 26, 2009, 14:52 »

I actually have zero issue with these standards. I already get a release for every single shoot as it is, so no skin off my back.

The one problem I do have is with the more subjective clarity of your release form. I've already seen the IS reviewers reject for inaccurate issues about an image like bogos "filtering" claims when no filters have even been used LOL. I can only imagine how the "release form clarity" factor will come into play for non-exclusive submitters.

We shall see!

travismanley · « **Reply #15 on:** August 26, 2009, 14:57 »

Quote from: cardmaverick on August 26, 2009, 14:52

I can only imagine how the "release form clarity" factor will come into play for non-exclusive submitters.

Totally agree. Its just one more reason to reject a photo.

zzz · « **Reply #16 on:** August 26, 2009, 15:14 »

You guys can complain about it all day long. It's not gonna change. Get over with it or stop uploading to istock. Simple!

cathyslife · « **Reply #17 on:** August 26, 2009, 16:27 »

It totally cracks me up that they are being anal about these model releases, but they can't fix a simple problem like having metadata show up when photos are uploaded. How the heck are they going to manage a billion model releases in a system that doesn't even work correctly?

leaf · « **Reply #18 on:** August 26, 2009, 16:44 »

Quote from: lisafx on August 26, 2009, 10:49

Quote from: Zeus on August 26, 2009, 09:53

Lisa, you should be able to use Getty's new release which is good for all micros anyway. This should save you some time.

Thanks Zeus

For anyone interested, it can be downloaded here:
http://contributors.gettyimages.com/img/articles/downloads/SAMPLE_Model_Release_-_English_-_Dec_2008.pdf

thanks for the link, that looks like a good release to use.
have you tried it with dreamstime though? I had used the istock release before and Dreamstime didn't like that it mentioned Calgary, Alberta. This release mentiones new york, alberta, london etc... is that better?

graficallyminded · « **Reply #19 on:** August 26, 2009, 17:37 »

I have a model in a series named BJ. I have no idea what her full name is, BJ is what she goes by all over the internet. It's how she even signed the model release, and being one of the Coors Light models I'm pretty sure that she's signed a model release or two in her lifetime. They reject images of her about 50% of the time because of the initials. There's no way for me to argue this. No other agency gives me any problems about it; it's just silly.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #20 on:** August 26, 2009, 17:57 »

One would imagine that any court would have not care about Coors Light, but instead be interested in her legal name. I can't see that iStock requiring a real name is them being unreasonable.

dbvirago · « **Reply #21 on:** August 26, 2009, 18:39 »

Quote from: cclapper on August 26, 2009, 16:27

It totally cracks me up that they are being anal about these model releases, but they can't fix a simple problem like having metadata show up when photos are uploaded. How the heck are they going to manage a billion model releases in a system that doesn't even work correctly?

But before you can upload multiple MRs and reenter metadata, you have to be able to log in and they haven't fixed that problem either.

zzz · « **Reply #22 on:** August 26, 2009, 18:54 »

What do model releases have to do with how a site runs? Some of you act like little kids... If istock is oh-so-miserable, just stop uploading there.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #23 on:** August 26, 2009, 19:16 »

It became ridiculous that we have to do more and more every day for less and less money. Soon I expect agencies to ask of us to send a blood sample by post every time we submit new image. By lowering our commission they are showing us how they "appreciate" our work, yet they require more and more from us.... This becomes a nightmare...

dbvirago · « **Reply #24 on:** August 26, 2009, 19:54 »

Quote from: zzz on August 26, 2009, 18:54

What do model releases have to do with how a site runs? Some of you act like little kids... If istock is oh-so-miserable, just stop uploading there.

You've been around a couple months, posted 6 times and already two people have set you to ignore. Nice work for a troll.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Istock's NEW model release requirements (Read 24185 times)

lisafx

disorderly

tdoes

leaf

lisafx

click_click

disorderly

PeterChigmaroff

lisafx

Talanis

travismanley

graficallyminded

travismanley

goldenangel

cardmaverick

travismanley

zzz

cathyslife

leaf

graficallyminded

Sean Locke Photography

dbvirago

zzz

Dreamframer

dbvirago

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors