Author Topic: Model Release Nightmare (Read 6658 times)

ruigsantos · « **on:** September 18, 2012, 17:44 »

Not happy enough with being a nightmare to upload photos to, IS recently decided to give me an hard time with my model releases (that are accepted elsewhere). My images are being rejected with the following reason: "Please provide a model release with a meaningful and accurate shoot description. Thank you". What am I supposed to write in the release? That we drank a coffee just before the shoot and that I had to take a break one hour later to go to the toiled? Come on! This is a waste of time for everyone! Should I track down my models with new releases to sign, write down a "meaningful and accurate shoot description" and submit the files again so that they could go: "ohhh he took a piss during the shoot! Let's accept this image then."

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** September 18, 2012, 17:50 »

Quote from: ruigsantos on September 18, 2012, 17:44

Not happy enough with being a nightmare to upload photos to, IS recently decided to give me an hard time with my model releases (that are accepted elsewhere). My images are being rejected with the following reason: "Please provide a model release with a meaningful and accurate shoot description. Thank you". What am I supposed to write in the release? That we drank a coffee just before the shoot and that I had to take a break one hour later to go to the toiled? Come on! This is a waste of time for everyone! Should I track down my models with new releases to sign, write down a "meaningful and accurate shoot description" and submit the files again so that they could go: "ohhh he took a piss during the shoot! Let's accept this image then."

It ain't hard.

http://seanlockephotography.com/2012/08/23/shoot-description/

ruigsantos · « **Reply #2 on:** September 18, 2012, 17:56 »

Thanks for the tip Sean. I'll add that to my model release.

ruigsantos · « **Reply #3 on:** September 20, 2012, 03:45 »

I guess they just don't like me. After following Sean advice, I got this rejection:

• Please provide a Real and Specific \"Shot DESCRIPTION\"

My shoot are long and shoot the model in several different clothes and props. I can't provide a model release with a specific shot description for each image I make. Again, I don't understand what extra value this adds to IS.

Oh and I don't get either the rejections where they don't like some of the keywords. Why don't IS just remove those keywords they don't like and accept the image?

ShadySue · « **Reply #4 on:** September 20, 2012, 04:29 »

Quote from: ruigsantos on September 20, 2012, 03:45

My shoot are long and shoot the model in several different clothes and props. I can't provide a model release with a specific shot description for each image I make. Again, I don't understand what extra value this adds to IS.

In theory, it's to stop you sneaking in photos the model didn't agree to, e.g. maybe photographing her/him when they were getting changed between shoots.
In practice, it wouldn't stop anyone who is that sneaky. They'd just add it to the shoot description after the model had signed.

Quote

Oh and I don't get either the rejections where they don't like some of the keywords. Why don't IS just remove those keywords they don't like and accept the image?

To teach us to keyword properly. After a few annoying keyword rejections, we should learn to do it right first time.

ruigsantos · « **Reply #5 on:** September 20, 2012, 05:00 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 20, 2012, 04:29

To teach us to keyword properly. After a few annoying keyword rejections, we should learn to do it right first time.

I don't really think it's a question of us knowing or not knowing how to keyword. It's rather a IS personal taste, I guess. I submit the same images to all agencies with the same keywords and they are accepted. Some of the images that were rejected in IS because of keywords are selling well on Shutterstock and clients are searching for that same keyword. Go figure!

ShadySue · « **Reply #6 on:** September 20, 2012, 05:08 »

Quote from: ruigsantos on September 20, 2012, 05:00

Quote from: ShadySue on September 20, 2012, 04:29
To teach us to keyword properly. After a few annoying keyword rejections, we should learn to do it right first time.

I don't really think it's a question of us knowing or not knowing how to keyword. It's rather a IS personal taste, I guess. I submit the same images to all agencies with the same keywords and they are accepted. Some of the images that were rejected in IS because of keywords are selling well on Shutterstock and clients are searching for that same keyword. Go figure!

There's a keyword forum over there where you can post keyword rejections, and people will either point out why your keyword doesn't match (keywords should be closely, not vaguely, related to the image) or you may get the keyword reinstated and your file accepted, if that was the only rejecton reason.

Different strokes for different agencies.

That said, some inspectors hardly look at keywords and others seem to remove a keyword because they don't know what it means.

ruigsantos · « **Reply #7 on:** September 20, 2012, 05:18 »

Thanks for the tip Sue.

Carl · « **Reply #8 on:** September 20, 2012, 06:18 »

One of many reasons why I no longer upload to IS.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #9 on:** September 20, 2012, 06:34 »

Quote from: ruigsantos on September 20, 2012, 03:45

I guess they just don't like me. After following Sean advice, I got this rejection:

• Please provide a Real and Specific \"Shot DESCRIPTION\"

My shoot are long and shoot the model in several different clothes and props. I can't provide a model release with a specific shot description for each image I make. Again, I don't understand what extra value this adds to IS.

Oh and I don't get either the rejections where they don't like some of the keywords. Why don't IS just remove those keywords they don't like and accept the image?

Well, what did you write?
"female model in business/casual clothing on white/red backgrounds, holding various props (phone, briefcase, etc)".
The "extra value" is for your and the buyer's protection.

ruigsantos · « **Reply #10 on:** September 20, 2012, 08:14 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 20, 2012, 06:34

Well, what did you write?
"female model in business/casual clothing on white/red backgrounds, holding various props (phone, briefcase, etc)".
The "extra value" is for your and the buyer's protection.

Well, yes. More or less that. I really can't be much more specific than that without making the model sign several model releases during the shoot...

I'm about to quite on IS since it takes me a LOT more time to get files online than on the other agencies.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #11 on:** September 20, 2012, 08:21 »

Quote from: ruigsantos on September 20, 2012, 08:14

Well, yes. More or less that. I really can't be much more specific than that without making the model sign several model releases during the shoot...

you can write the description like keywords

click_click · « **Reply #12 on:** September 20, 2012, 09:03 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 20, 2012, 06:34

... The "extra value" is for your and the buyer's protection.

With all due respect, as much as Americans are sue-happy I feel this is really going overboard.

Having a genuine signature from the model for each shoot as IS requires just has to be enough. For crying out loud, do they really want two releases if the same model is being shot within a day both outside and inside a studio?

That has absolutely nothing to do with protection of the buyer or the protection of the photographer, that's just an obstruction of doing the job of a photographer.

Take it further: Why not submit one release for each single photo (to protect buyer, photographer and model) because it could be that the model may be offended posing with a banana as opposed to posing with an apple.

People get a life.

ruigsantos · « **Reply #13 on:** September 20, 2012, 09:36 »

Quote from: click_click on September 20, 2012, 09:03

Take it further: Why not submit one release for each single photo (to protect buyer, photographer and model) because it could be that the model may be offended posing with a banana as opposed to posing with an apple.

But that's pretty much what IS is requiring me to do on the last batch of rejections I got. In the shoot description I listed the sets of clothes used in that shoot and now they say I have to be more specific. Either I'm not getting something or I got a really sour reviewer.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #14 on:** September 20, 2012, 09:40 »

Quote from: click_click on September 20, 2012, 09:03

Having a genuine signature from the model for each shoot as IS requires just has to be enough. For crying out loud, do they really want two releases if the same model is being shot within a day both outside and inside a studio?

Is it really that hard to write:
"model wearing casual sports clothing shot in studio on white background and outside on sports track"
? Or whatever.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #15 on:** September 20, 2012, 09:48 »

@riugsantos: are you not or were you not an admin at DT?
Has that changed?

ruigsantos · « **Reply #16 on:** September 20, 2012, 09:57 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 20, 2012, 09:40

Is it really that hard to write:
"model wearing casual sports clothing shot in studio on white background and outside on sports track"? Or whatever.

Sean, that's pretty easy and that was what I did. But I guess the reviewer thought it was too easy and gave me a "Please provide a Real and Specific \"Shot DESCRIPTION\" rejection. And I get it. Something in the whereabouts of what you (and I) wrote is pretty far from being specific.

ruigsantos · « **Reply #17 on:** September 20, 2012, 10:00 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on September 20, 2012, 09:48

@riugsantos: are you not or were you not an admin at DT?
Has that changed?

I never was an admin anywhere, Warren. Actually I only have one year and a half of microstock photography.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #18 on:** September 20, 2012, 10:13 »

Quote from: ruigsantos on September 20, 2012, 10:00

Quote from: WarrenPrice on September 20, 2012, 09:48
@riugsantos: are you not or were you not an admin at DT?
Has that changed?

I never was an admin anywhere, Warren. Actually I only have one year and a half of microstock photography.

Sorry. My mistake. Good luck with the releases.

Poncke · « **Reply #19 on:** September 20, 2012, 11:17 »

Give the guy a break, he is asking a normal question. Click click is right on the money.

captain · « **Reply #20 on:** October 09, 2012, 23:00 »

I already quit uploading any portrait to IS since 8 month ago.THe model release policy of IS really make me not happy.

ShadySue · « **Reply #21 on:** October 10, 2012, 03:52 »

Quote from: captain on October 09, 2012, 23:00

I already quit uploading any portrait to IS since 8 month ago.THe model release policy of IS really make me not happy.

Why?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Model Release Nightmare (Read 6658 times)

ruigsantos

Sean Locke Photography

ruigsantos

ruigsantos

ShadySue

ruigsantos

ShadySue

ruigsantos

Carl

Sean Locke Photography

ruigsantos

luissantos84

click_click

ruigsantos

Sean Locke Photography

WarrenPrice

ruigsantos

ruigsantos

WarrenPrice

Poncke

captain

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors