Author Topic: iStock changes mind about MR - PO Boxes now acceptable as addresses (Read 5078 times)

disorderly · « **on:** August 20, 2009, 16:52 »

Back in February I had a series of photos rejected by iStockphoto because the model used a post office box instead of a street address on her release:

Quote

++We are sorry, buit iS standards do not allow a PO Box to be used for a model's address. Please upload a new release with a physcial address for the model. Thank you for your understanding++

I mentioned this problem in a thread on Model Mayhem, prompting a friend to call iStock and raise models' privacy concerns as a justification for their using PO Boxes both on releases and, where permitted (and most states do permit), on their driver's licenses. He was informed that iStock will now accept PO Boxes:

Quote

Hello Alan

Thank you very much for your message.

Yes, your models can use a PO box for their address on the model release form.

Please note, model releases are for internal use only. iStockphoto does not provide these releases to the public, customers who download your images will not get copies of the releases. Privacy laws prevent us from making this info public.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Tina
iStockphoto LP
Contributor Relations

Just in case anybody else runs into this issue.

melastmohican · « **Reply #1 on:** August 20, 2009, 17:04 »

I was always wondering why they need so many private info on model releases and if it is revealed to the buyer. Fortunately all my models are my family so they would have to go thru me to contact them :-)

madelaide · « **Reply #2 on:** August 20, 2009, 17:08 »

I'm curious, as I always thought buyers would get a copy of the release if they requested: are buyers who purchased images from deceased sites such as LO unprotected? How can they prove those images had a release, if questioned?

disorderly · « **Reply #3 on:** August 20, 2009, 17:14 »

As far as I know, none of the agencies ever releases a copy of an MR to a client. If a question comes up, I'd expect them to point the client at the photographer. It's about the agency doing its diligence to verify that a release exists and conforms to the agency's standards regarding language, but it's still the photographer's responsibility if there's an issue.

One of the agencies has a policy where they'll let a client see a release for a fee. But that's specifically so they can see the language and verify that it meets their legal requirements; all the information provided by the model is redacted (wiped out). I think the agency said they've done this exactly once.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #4 on:** August 20, 2009, 18:18 »

Quote from: madelaide on August 20, 2009, 17:08

I'm curious, as I always thought buyers would get a copy of the release if they requested: are buyers who purchased images from deceased sites such as LO unprotected? How can they prove those images had a release, if questioned?

Absolutely not. Releases are never... released.. at istockphoto.

lisafx · « **Reply #5 on:** August 20, 2009, 18:35 »

Quote from: madelaide on August 20, 2009, 17:08

I'm curious, as I always thought buyers would get a copy of the release if they requested: are buyers who purchased images from deceased sites such as LO unprotected? How can they prove those images had a release, if questioned?

This has come up on the istock forums in the past and they said it would take a court order to get them to turn over a model release.

I have checked with other agencies too and all of them (that I am on) claim the buyer will not get access to the release info.

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #6 on:** August 20, 2009, 21:41 »

This is good to know. I live on a Native American reservation and we do not have door to door mail service. I have often gotten rejections for not using a street address either for myself or for the model. The way our mail system works is that if there is a house number and street name in the address then it is returned to the sender as undeliverable.

I've tried explaining this to multiple agencies but the common thought amoung them is that they would rather have a house number and street name than to actually be able to contact anyone using the information in the MR.

madelaide · « **Reply #7 on:** August 21, 2009, 16:11 »

Quote from: lisafx on August 20, 2009, 18:35

Quote from: madelaide on August 20, 2009, 17:08
I'm curious, as I always thought buyers would get a copy of the release if they requested: are buyers who purchased images from deceased sites such as LO unprotected? How can they prove those images had a release, if questioned?

This has come up on the istock forums in the past and they said it would take a court order to get them to turn over a model release.

I have checked with other agencies too and all of them (that I am on) claim the buyer will not get access to the release info.

But my question remains: if a buyer is questioned by using an image and the agency doesn't exist anymore, how can he prove the agency had claimed it had a release? Does the purchase receipt inform that?