<...
>...
But some of the other stories cropping up here make no sense at all, especially the model release ones, and more so, if they are pix that are selling....
makes no sense. =tom

It does make sense if they have had a legal warning or thier 'fingers burnt', we do not know if there has been a compensation claim or just a policy change after a risk assesment and they are not saying, there is no profit in the exercise of looking again at every single image, so it is a cost to the business which needs to be tightly controlled.

If I remember there is no way to retrospectivly assign a model release to an image with Istock, so they would have to develop one, then they would have to mail shot all the contributors giving clear instuctions on what needs a release and ask them to attach a release or delete images, there would be an massive number of support emails from contributors questioning if one is required for a specific image, and the cost to look at these would be high, and after all that they would still have to look at all the images and find any offending items and delete them.

So they likely have it right from a business minimum cost perpective, but not from a contributors perspective.

David