pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Model release form change  (Read 5581 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 06, 2009, 06:33 »
0
As i don't upload images with people that much have i just realised something that changed months ago or just recently. No longer is the "Attach Visual Reference here" box optional as it was it seems; and is also more prominant on the form. Has this had any impact on anyone else or will this make it even more unlikly for me to upload model based images to istock. People are reticent to say the least when faced with a form let alone one that requires further visual reference!! If this is the case i shall take them elsewhere.


« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2009, 06:36 »
0
As i don't upload images with people that much have i just realised something that changed months ago or just recently. No longer is the "Attach Visual Reference here" box optional as it was it seems; and is also more prominant on the form. Has this had any impact on anyone else or will this make it even more unlikly for me to upload model based images to istock. People are reticent to say the least when faced with a form let alone one that requires further visual reference!! If this is the case i shall take them elsewhere.

I'm not sure which old MR you are referring to. But from my knowledge, there is no change in policy, Visual Reference is still optional (hence the grey box) and is meant to be an additional protection for photographers who wish to use it.

« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2009, 06:42 »
0
Hi, the original release that i downloaded on the 28.06.09 has the word "optional" next to the "attach visual etc etc" wording. The current one i downloaded today doesn't????

RT


« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2009, 07:16 »
0
The visual reference can take the form of nothing more than a simple photo of the model, I use one on all my releases, personally I find it very helpful as over time names aren't as easy to reference as a visual reminder.

« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2009, 07:32 »
0
Hi, the original release that i downloaded on the 28.06.09 has the word "optional" next to the "attach visual etc etc" wording. The current one i downloaded today doesn't????

Ok, I see... as it appears to me right now is that iStock has decided to unify their release with Getty's MR which makes sense especially for contributors uploading to both sites. I am still not aware that there is any change to the policy that Visual Reference and Ethnicity Information are optional. I will try to find out what I can.

« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2009, 10:14 »
0


Ok, I see... as it appears to me right now is that iStock has decided to unify their release with Getty's MR which makes sense especially for contributors uploading to both sites. I am still not aware that there is any change to the policy that Visual Reference and Ethnicity Information are optional. I will try to find out what I can.

Hope you will report back MichaelJay. 

I have already had to modify my releases twice in the past couple of months - to add photographer signature line (for istock) and birth date info (for Veer) to them.  Kind of a PITA when the rules keep changing all the time.

I would be willing to upload a reference pic of the models if that becomes a requirement, but I am not willing to upload a photo ID (drivers license or passport, etc.)  Frankly I doubt any of my models would agree to that. 

« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2009, 14:45 »
0


Ok, I see... as it appears to me right now is that iStock has decided to unify their release with Getty's MR which makes sense especially for contributors uploading to both sites. I am still not aware that there is any change to the policy that Visual Reference and Ethnicity Information are optional. I will try to find out what I can.
...  Kind of a PITA when the rules keep changing all the time.

I would be willing to upload a reference pic of the models if that becomes a requirement, but I am not willing to upload a photo ID (drivers license or passport, etc.)  Frankly I doubt any of my models would agree to that. 

Well spoken PixelBytes. Especially with so much being written to warn us about ID fraud. Asking too much personal identity information is just not to kosher . On one hand we are warned not to diverge too much personal information , and on the other hand, stock sites are going out of the way to collect these private information. Not a good idea. Why are they collecting these informations? Are they
selling these private datas, or planning ? I am sure we are going to lose some models on this issue, especially those who are used to making portraits of the elderly or more matured .
Perharps some official government watchdog agency should comment on how much we should give away to these stock agencies. Is it even legal or what?
 

puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2009, 14:54 »
0


Ok, I see... as it appears to me right now is that iStock has decided to unify their release with Getty's MR which makes sense especially for contributors uploading to both sites. I am still not aware that there is any change to the policy that Visual Reference and Ethnicity Information are optional. I will try to find out what I can.
...  Kind of a PITA when the rules keep changing all the time.

I would be willing to upload a reference pic of the models if that becomes a requirement, but I am not willing to upload a photo ID (drivers license or passport, etc.)  Frankly I doubt any of my models would agree to that. 

Well spoken PixelBytes. Especially with so much being written to warn us about ID fraud. Asking too much personal identity information is just not to kosher . On one hand we are warned not to diverge too much personal information , and on the other hand, stock sites are going out of the way to collect these private information. Not a good idea. Why are they collecting these informations? Are they
selling these private datas, or planning ? I am sure we are going to lose some models on this issue, especially those who are used to making portraits of the elderly or more matured .
Perharps some official government watchdog agency should comment on how much we should give away to these stock agencies. Is it even legal or what?
 

hmm !  :o
WHICH brings us to a yet  touchier question: If it has been traced that some of these "private data" were obtained from the 3rd party affliated with the stock agencies. Will the photographer who provided these "private data" be legally liable ?   8)   Even if not, the relationship tween you and your model(s) would surely have been sullied.  ???
« Last Edit: July 06, 2009, 14:57 by puravida »

« Reply #8 on: July 07, 2009, 03:07 »
0
Quite right all of you! Who in their right mind would allow a thirdperson to copy in any way their personal documents be it a passport or driving licence, all for the supposed privilege of having their photo taken and added to a library. Libraries always make a play of wanting more people shots then make it impossible/unfeasible to take them.

« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2009, 03:55 »
0
I don't understand what you're referring to either - could you post a link?

I see the iStock model release at http://www.istockphoto.com/docs/modelrelease.pdf and it still says "Optional".

Anyway, what's the difference?  It says "visual reference" - surely you can just include a photo of your subject?  It's not insisting on any additional personal details.

« Reply #10 on: July 08, 2009, 01:50 »
0
That one is the old one it seems - hopefully link below takes you to the new one on the upload page:

http://www.istockphoto.com/docs/languages/english/modelrelease.pdf


« Reply #11 on: July 08, 2009, 05:53 »
0
Stop freaking out.  All Getty wants is a photo of the model in that space.  You are uploading a photo of the model with the release, right?  Just cut out their face and paste it in the box.

« Reply #12 on: July 08, 2009, 11:38 »
0
The problem being that one of the recommended visual references is a DL. Then you read the last paragraph where it says that the model release will be shared with sub-licensees and it's cause for alarm.

from the release - "including by being shared with sub-licensees / assignees of the Photographer / Filmmaker and transferred to countries with differing data protection and privacy laws where it may be stored, accessed and used."

This is no longer a release, it's a contract. That's why photographer's have to sign it as well.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
8667 Views
Last post June 23, 2006, 04:27
by leaf
5 Replies
3594 Views
Last post August 22, 2007, 20:15
by Keefo
11 Replies
20396 Views
Last post December 01, 2007, 02:49
by Peter
6 Replies
4516 Views
Last post May 20, 2012, 12:51
by icefront
9 Replies
7678 Views
Last post April 23, 2014, 11:46
by Susanita

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle