Author Topic: new model release for every single photo shoot? (Read 25641 times)

thaimacky · « **on:** October 12, 2009, 06:42 »

i just got a rejection i never had before. it says:

"You will need a new, updated model release with signature dates matching the approximate date of this photograph. iStockphoto no longer accepts \"catch all\" model releases and now requires a unique release for each unique photo session. Standards regarding model releases have recently been updated. The changes aren\'t really new but have been slightly clarified for legal reasons."

it's getting really complicated now! what happens if i took a picture last year with a proper signed model release but i want to upload it today. how do the reviewers know if the release and the shoot date are the same or not? i have pictures i took month ago (with model release) but i would like to upload them now or even later. it would be quite a hard work to contact every single model and ask them to sign another release for the shots the signed already (and then maybe 3 month later again because i still have more pics of them)....

how will you guys handle this in future?

Eyedesign · « **Reply #1 on:** October 12, 2009, 07:06 »

Here you go!
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=648

leaf · « **Reply #2 on:** October 12, 2009, 07:09 »

there was a discussion about this back in August. Check out this thread
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock%27s-new-model-release-requirements/

How do they know when a shot was taken? Unless it has been erased, they could look at the meta data in the image file. I'm not sure if there would be another way.

Make sure you have the birthdate of the model, as well as the date of the shoot on the release.

cathyslife · « **Reply #3 on:** October 12, 2009, 07:52 »

The company was built on everyday people shooting everyday photos, but now they are weeding the everyday people out. If you want to play with the big boys, you must bring your expensive toys!

leaf · « **Reply #4 on:** October 12, 2009, 08:23 »

well I can see where iStock is coming from and would have to agree, even though it is more work for us.

If man takes picture of wife and she signs a release, then man keeps taking pictures of wife for the next 20 years and uploading them to stock sites. Man and wife get separated and then wife complains about all the images that are for sale of her that the husband is cashing in on. Wife sues man, wife wins. I don't think a model release that is supposed to span 20 years of photos would hold much weight in court.

iStock is really helping protect us, the photographer.

MatHayward · « **Reply #5 on:** October 12, 2009, 09:09 »

I agree with Life regarding protecting our tails in this regard. The thing I like as far as FT is concerned using the same release for the same model is that buyers can click on the link to see other images of the same model and is taken to a gallery with all different shoots. If this trend picks up and we have to do it everywhere this feature would go away.

MikLav · « **Reply #6 on:** October 12, 2009, 09:18 »

Just to add that professional photographer always used to sign a new release for new shoot - ages before istock existed!

I don't see it as an issue when working with external models.

Only annoying when you need to do it again and again with family members or close friends.

grp_photo · « **Reply #7 on:** October 12, 2009, 09:19 »

A modelrelease signed today can't be valid for a photoshoot in two weeks, that is common sense and logic. I'm not a fanboy of istock but in this regard they are totally correct and if you submit to serious agencies like getty or corbis they have the same policy.

HughStoneIan · « **Reply #8 on:** October 12, 2009, 09:22 »

Not to mention this will massively slow down the upload process at SS, DT, FT, BS, SX, 123, and others, if it becomes the trend across most or all micros. Oy-vay!

travelstock · « **Reply #9 on:** October 12, 2009, 09:26 »

Yep have to agree that you really need model releases covering specific shoots - signing a release isn't a blanket document giving you a right to use someone's image for different photo sessions. Sounds like a pain to administer, but that's all part of running a business.

If you want to be an everyday person shooting everyday photos, don't try to earn money from them - someday the paperwork will catch up with you!

stockastic · « **Reply #10 on:** October 12, 2009, 09:56 »

Well if I needed just one more reason not to do model shots, this would be it.

It seems like this craziness will just keep spiralling upward until there's some serious tort reform in this country. As a supporter of the ACLU it pains me to say this, but people's expectations of privacy - or maybe I should say anonymity - have to change.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #11 on:** October 12, 2009, 10:13 »

Quote from: stockastic on October 12, 2009, 09:56

Well if I needed just one more reason not to do model shots, this would be it.

It seems like this craziness will just keep spiralling upward until there's some serious tort reform in this country. As a supporter of the ACLU it pains me to say this, but people's expectations of privacy - or maybe I should say anonymity - have to change.

What? How is getting written permission assigned to a particular session "craziness"? I certainly don't think people are out of line expecting that others are not able to use their likeness for whatever they wish.

disorderly · « **Reply #12 on:** October 12, 2009, 11:50 »

There are two issues here. One is getting a release for every shoot, which I always do. The second is having to scan, doctor (inserting information iStock demands but no one else requires, and which make the release less usable for other agencies), manage and upload all those releases. Other agencies accept and store one release per model, which reduces the work for the photographer but in no way reduces the requirement to fill out a new release for each shoot and keep it on file.

It's a pain to have to upload a copy of a release for every model photo, a demand no other site I know of puts on photographers. Now having to deal with multiple releases per model just adds to the pain. Just as well that iStock's piddling upload quotas keep me from submitting most of my model photos.

stockastic · « **Reply #13 on:** October 12, 2009, 12:36 »

Any photo, taken anywhere, that includes peopel 100 yards away who might claim that they can recognize themselves because they were wearing a particular jacket that day - is now a "model shot".

cathyslife · « **Reply #14 on:** October 12, 2009, 13:19 »

If you want to be an everyday person shooting everyday photos, don't try to earn money from them - someday the paperwork will catch up with you!

If professional photographers have always done this, why didn't istockphoto do this from the very beginning?

I am in no way saying it's wrong or a bad thing to have model releases for every shoot. I'm down with that. What I am saying is the company started out as one thing with one set of rules and now that they have built up their library on the backs of the everyday folks who have earned money from them all this time, they are changing the rules.

You can see why some people are angry and confused. istock didn't ASK professional photographers to upload photos four or five years ago...they asked everyday people to submit photos and build up their library. NOW they are asking for professional photographers and expecting the everyday shooters to instantly transform into pros.

Just sayin...

sam100 · « **Reply #15 on:** October 12, 2009, 13:20 »

Quote from: cclapper on October 12, 2009, 13:19

If you want to be an everyday person shooting everyday photos, don't try to earn money from them - someday the paperwork will catch up with you!

If professional photographers have always done this, why didn't istockphoto do this from the very beginning?

I am in no way saying it's wrong or a bad thing to have model releases for every shoot. I'm down with that. What I am saying is the company started out as one thing with one set of rules and now that they have built up their library on the backs of the everyday folks who have earned money from them all this time, they are changing the rules.

You can see why some people are angry and confused. istock didn't ASK professional photographers to upload photos four or five years ago...they asked everyday people to submit photos and build up their library. NOW they are asking for professional photographers and expecting the everyday shooters to instantly transform into pros.

Just sayin...

Avery good and valid point.

Patrick H.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #16 on:** October 12, 2009, 13:38 »

Quote from: cclapper on October 12, 2009, 13:19

If you want to be an everyday person shooting everyday photos, don't try to earn money from them - someday the paperwork will catch up with you!

If professional photographers have always done this, why didn't istockphoto do this from the very beginning?

I am in no way saying it's wrong or a bad thing to have model releases for every shoot. I'm down with that. What I am saying is the company started out as one thing with one set of rules and now that they have built up their library on the backs of the everyday folks who have earned money from them all this time, they are changing the rules.

You can see why some people are angry and confused. istock didn't ASK professional photographers to upload photos four or five years ago...they asked everyday people to submit photos and build up their library. NOW they are asking for professional photographers and expecting the everyday shooters to instantly transform into pros.

Because iStockphoto evolved from a simple sharing site to a major stock licensing corporation. Those who have been there for a while have evolved along the way as well. If you want to come in late to the game, you need to play by today's rules. Simple enough.

KB · « **Reply #17 on:** October 12, 2009, 14:14 »

I agree with MikLav.

This is the right thing to do with most model shoots, except those with immediate family. One release covering 20 years is obviously too much, but would one per year be that bad an idea?

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #18 on:** October 12, 2009, 14:20 »

Release have evolved a great deal over time. It used to be that you could someone to sign a release that was the size of a business card. Simple name and signature, that's it. I wouldn't doubt that they would still hold up in court. Thing is agencies won't take an image with that type of release so it isn't a question of whether it is any good or not it's a question of whether you want your image to be accepted for sale. They make the rules. We abide by them. The good thing is they (the agency) have their and in this case our interests at stake. It doesn't hurt to have the extra protection when it comes to releases. It's true that it can make many older images difficult to place because of the age of the release. However it doesn't mean that the image isn't released and can't be sold as such.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #19 on:** October 12, 2009, 14:23 »

Quote from: KB on October 12, 2009, 14:14

I agree with MikLav.

This is the right thing to do with most model shoots, except those with immediate family. One release covering 20 years is obviously too much, but would one per year be that bad an idea?

I used to make up yearly releases for family and close friends but again many agencies seem to have stopped accepted releases with spanning dates so now I get a bunch signed in one go a fill in dates as I need them. If it is obviously family and friends I get the witness line signed in bulk and fill in the date later. Not so for unknown people though.

stockastic · « **Reply #20 on:** October 12, 2009, 16:06 »

Ebay is another example of a company that built their success on small sellers, then gradually squeezed them out by raising fees and introducing other restrictions that favored big sellers that could still "make it up on volume". They lost a lot of sellers (Ebay "stores") along the way and actually had to backpedal and try to mend fences to some extent.

gostwyck · « **Reply #21 on:** October 12, 2009, 17:18 »

Quote from: stockastic on October 12, 2009, 16:06

Ebay is another example of a company that built their success on small sellers, then gradually squeezed them out by raising fees and introducing other restrictions that favored big sellers that could still "make it up on volume". They lost a lot of sellers (Ebay "stores") along the way and actually had to backpedal and try to mend fences to some extent.

But that was a rapidly developing new market, in the true sense of the word, and obviously eBay wants to generate the most profit for the least work/hassle (just like any other business) so it was bound to favour the bigger players that helped them. A lot of small players were also squeezed out by their own naivety and the inability to scale their operation. eBay is a meritocracy, you get the respect or advantages that you earn __ just like microstock.

lisafx · « **Reply #22 on:** October 12, 2009, 18:19 »

My first reaction was that this would be a big PITA and add yet more layers of bureaucracy to the upload process.

On second thought though, it is a good idea from a legal standpoint. Even though one blanket release is enough to get the images on most of the sites, I doubt it would protect us if we were ever sued to have a release on file that is dated weeks, months or years before the shoot in question.

I definitely agree with Disorderly, though, that it should be enough for us to have it on file. Uploading new ones every time to Istock really does make the already tedious upload process more so. Not to mention if you have multiple models and combinations of models. Istock is the only site that requires you to cut and paste multiple releases together into a single file.

Wish their site design team was as forward thinking as their legal team $:-\$

goldenangel · « **Reply #23 on:** October 13, 2009, 14:58 »

Quote from: lisafx on October 12, 2009, 18:19

Istock is the only site that requires you to cut and paste multiple releases together into a single file.

DeepMeta allows for multiple releases to be attached to the file.

PixelBitch · « **Reply #24 on:** October 25, 2009, 14:04 »

It is simply good business sense and legal protection for all concerned to get a signed release for each shoot with the same model...we do it even when using the same model on consecutive days...then you are protected as best you can be. When uploading to sites I simply add a number to the models name for each subsequent release...ie John Doe 1, John Doe 2 etc.

I agree about the PITA of uploading a release each time you upload an image to IS...their site seems to be from the Jurassic era of Microstock.

gilmourbto2001 · « **Reply #25 on:** October 26, 2009, 10:53 »

What about those of us who shoot their own kids and post some of those shots as stock? From what I read, that's a fair number of us . . .

Say we're out on a walk and I happen to snap a nice shot that I think has stock potential. Then we go home for lunch and so on and the next morning we take another walk near the same place and viola lightning strikes again and the camera creates some more spontaneous stock magic.

Is that 2 seperate model releases that I have to draw up, sign and scan? What constitues a "shoot" when dealing with your kiddos? Should I plan ahead and make my son wear the same outfit just in case?

I'm not ranting or anything, just a bit confused.

Ben O.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #26 on:** October 26, 2009, 11:07 »

Hi All,

All stock photos should be signed by the model the day of the shoot. Then we have the model hold up the signed release and take a photo of them and keep it in your archives in duplicate. For those of you not following your rules you are leaving yourself open for some serious danger down the road.

Good Luck,
Jonathan

lisafx · « **Reply #27 on:** October 26, 2009, 17:30 »

I just had the wisdom of this brought home to me today.

Apparently someone who modeled for me saw himself on a cereal box and did not remember modeling for the picture. He contacted the cereal company threatening legal action. They in turn contacted the agency who called me.

FORTUNATELY this was someone I only shot the one time, so the release is dated the same day the photo is taken. For some of my past shoots this would not be the case.

Even so, the release was witnessed by my husband, as many of my releases are. In retrospect I would feel even more comfortable if I had gotten the release witnessed by the other model, rather than my husband. Probably it doesn't make a difference, but if it ever went to court I would feel safer having the release signed by someone who wasn't my closest relative and a participant in my business.

gostwyck · « **Reply #28 on:** October 26, 2009, 17:41 »

Wow __ that must have been a bolt out of the blue! I guess as far as the witnessing is concerned it emphasises Jonathan's recommendation to also photograph the model holding up the MR.

I trust the issue has been resolved now? Is the model unhappy because he thinks he should have been paid more for being on a cereal pack?

RT · « **Reply #29 on:** October 26, 2009, 18:14 »

Photographing the model holding the release is something that's been common practice for many years in macro stock, but the most important thing to remember is that you do it as a RAW file, and then keep a copy of that Raw file straight out of the camera, a Raw file is your digital negative and if you keep a copy that has not been converted should the worse happen you can produce it in court as irrefutable evidence (the court will assign someone to convert the file), you can't do that if you take the shot as a jpeg. You can change the file name to help you keep track of the releases as long as you don't open the file, for Canon shooters it'll mean you have a copy named for instance: JohnDoe_261009.CR2

It's always been my recommendation that every shot you do for stock is done in Raw and an original copy kept, but for some reason a lot of people only shoot jpeg, trust me when I tell you that if they ever had to go to court over any issue concerning an image they shot they'd be wishing they'd shot Raw!

Lisa on a side note you might want to check the compellability of a spouse in legal matters over in the US.

lisafx · « **Reply #30 on:** October 27, 2009, 13:51 »

Thanks Richard and Gostwyck. Very good advice about the RAW file of the model signing the release. Wish I had been doing this all along.

The issue just came up yesterday, but with istock's compliance dept in possession of the the signed release, and also with my friend who knows the model giving him a call to explain where the picture came from and remind him of the photo shoot, hopefully it will be resolved.

The "model" is a PT musician who doesn't have much money so I think when he saw himself on a cereal box and couldn't remember why, he figured it was worth big bucks. He probably can't afford a lawyer, and even if he can, I wouldn't bet on his winning against Post Cereal. Still, this is definitely a wake up call...

sam100 · « **Reply #31 on:** October 27, 2009, 14:02 »

Quote from: lisafx on October 27, 2009, 13:51

Thanks Richard and Gostwyck. Very good advice about the RAW file of the model signing the release. Wish I had been doing this all along.

The issue just came up yesterday, but with istock's compliance dept in possession of the the signed release, and also with my friend who knows the model giving him a call to explain where the picture came from and remind him of the photo shoot, hopefully it will be resolved.

The "model" is a PT musician who doesn't have much money so I think when he saw himself on a cereal box and couldn't remember why, he figured it was worth big bucks. He probably can't afford a lawyer, and even if he can, I wouldn't bet on his winning against Post Cereal. Still, this is definitely a wake up call...

On a side note.... was that image sold EL.?... and how many licenses..?..

Patrick H.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #32 on:** October 27, 2009, 14:31 »

I'm not sure I buy into this 'picture of model holding a release' jazz, and I don't plan to do it anytime soon. I feel the new convention of a dated release with shoot description is plenty. As I recall, no one took a photo of me signing my mortgage, or any other legal document, ever.

lisafx · « **Reply #33 on:** October 27, 2009, 15:32 »

Quote from: patrick1958 on October 27, 2009, 14:02

On a side note.... was that image sold EL.?... and how many licenses..?..

Patrick H.

You know, that is a very good question. I just looked it up after reading your question and there was an Unlimited Reproduction EL purchased in March.

So assuming that was Post, then they really have done everything right and shouldn't be having to deal with this.

gostwyck · « **Reply #34 on:** October 27, 2009, 16:03 »

Quote from: sjlocke on October 27, 2009, 14:31

I'm not sure I buy into this 'picture of model holding a release' jazz, and I don't plan to do it anytime soon. I feel the new convention of a dated release with shoot description is plenty. As I recall, no one took a photo of me signing my mortgage, or any other legal document, ever.

True enough! However adult film-makers always video new starlets holding up their ID to prove they're 18, I think it's part of the records they have to keep. Maybe that's where it came from.

RT · « **Reply #35 on:** October 27, 2009, 16:31 »

Quote from: sjlocke on October 27, 2009, 14:31

I'm not sure I buy into this 'picture of model holding a release' jazz, and I don't plan to do it anytime soon. I feel the new convention of a dated release with shoot description is plenty. As I recall, no one took a photo of me signing my mortgage,

Nobody says you have to it's just another option that would save a whole lot of hassle should you ever need to legally prove the model signed the release, in the case of your mortgage if you turned round at a later date and denied signing the form they'd just take your house back!

Quote from: sjlocke on October 27, 2009, 14:31

or any other legal document, ever.

Passport, drivers license, membership cards

NitorPhoto · « **Reply #36 on:** October 27, 2009, 19:20 »

I can live with the new requirements. It's ok and I follow the new rules since september 1st. But it is annoying that they DO reject old (include images back from 2008) images because of the old general releases (what they accepted many times before). They promised they will not but they do. And I can't go back in time to rewrite and resign the old releases.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #37 on:** October 30, 2009, 01:41 »

Hi Gostywick,

I agree. I actually beleive a mortgage is signed or stamped by a notary for the proof and that is what notaries are trained for. I might be wrong on the notary but like you said, why not do it. It take a second and it helps cover your butt.
Lisa there is a good point behind using someone other than a close relative for witness. At least in the U.S. your lawyer would rather have a non related witness although it doesn't mean your husband won't work it just leaves a loop hole for the other lawyer to try to leverage. Glad you missed it on that one, thats kizmet for ya.

For what it's worth here is a link to what a notary does in a mortgage closing. http://www.notarytrainer.com/whatisasigningagent.html

Best,
Jonathan

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #38 on:** October 30, 2009, 06:29 »

Jonathan, you do look a bit silly when you reply to my posts by attributing them to other people or their responses. It's ok, you can adress me directly. You're right. You do have a notary at a mortgage and some other legal document signings.

However, no one has really addresed what the point of having someone hold up a release for a picture proves. That they were there (obviously they were there). That they signed it (it doesn't actually show them signing it). So what does this give you that stands up in a court case? Has this process actually ever been tested?

FD · « **Reply #39 on:** October 30, 2009, 06:50 »

Quote from: sjlocke on October 30, 2009, 06:29

However, no one has really addresed what the point of having someone hold up a release for a picture proves.

That it was actually them. I came across models that were all too happy to pose for their facebook etc... for their personal promo and to show off, but refused to sign a MR for stock. It would be tempting for some to let a friend sign the release then, claiming the real "model" filled in fake info. I'm talking about the Philippines where photo IDs are rather exceptional and do cost a day wage. The model holding up the signed release would be a great safeguard in those cases.

Not wanting to hijack the thread, but has anybody cooked a generic istock release with the logo cloned out? I tried it last night but I got stuck in Word. I don't like to let sign two releases: one for iStock, and one for all the rest.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #40 on:** October 30, 2009, 12:08 »

Quote from: RT on October 26, 2009, 18:14

Photographing the model holding the release is something that's been common practice for many years in macro stock, but the most important thing to remember is that you do it as a RAW file, and then keep a copy of that Raw file straight out of the camera...

Then do you have to get a release for the shot of the model holding the release since it's a different shoot?

Hey Lisa, was that musician a Blond by any chance? Doesn't remember a photo shoot? Kind of up in the clouds isn't he? Makes me want to go to the store and look at Post cereal even though I don't eat breakfast.

One a day releases, this is funny. What next are you going to need every model release to be notarized? ps I blame lawyers, not the agencies for this kind of stupidity. Pets need releases, now buildings need releases, silhouettes need releases, pictures in the pictures need releases, what the heck?

FD · « **Reply #41 on:** October 30, 2009, 12:22 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 30, 2009, 12:08

One a day releases, this is funny. What next are you going to need every model release to be notarized? ps I blame lawyers, not the agencies for this kind of stupidity. Pets need releases, now buildings need releases, silhouettes need releases, pictures in the pictures need releases, what the heck?

I've got a model signing anything and it was rejected for LCV or "lighting" at most sites. Kubrik might have gotten away with candle light in Barry Lyndon but stock sites have a different agenda.

(PS - the notary couldn't attend since there was a brownout and the bridge to town was flooded by a typhoon - photography is fun)

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #42 on:** October 30, 2009, 15:40 »

Hi Race,

Nope you just need a clear Raw file of the person holding up their signed model release and some ID and that will cover you. Captured in a single frame for your archives. it only takes a second. It is also the time we shoot the head shots of our talent to place on our model release. Many agencies need photos of the person in the shots so we use these. two birds with one stone. This is just what we do it is not law or right or wrong we just have found it an extra level of security for the years our images are going to be available for sale, that could be a very long time.

Best,
Jonathan

ap · « **Reply #43 on:** October 30, 2009, 16:06 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 30, 2009, 12:08

One a day releases, this is funny. What next are you going to need every model release to be notarized? ps I blame lawyers, not the agencies for this kind of stupidity. Pets need releases, now buildings need releases, silhouettes need releases, pictures in the pictures need releases, what the heck?

race, i think it's all down to the photographer's comfort level. even if he has all the required paperwork, but if he still gets spooked by even just the threat of a lawsuit, he's gonna want all the notaries he can get. i have been following this photographer getting sued by her model over on ss. http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=72229 even though she dotted all her i's, she's just in such a vulnerable state, as a result, she not only incorportated herself but thinking of getting out of 'glamour' stock photos.

you, obviously, are made of stronger stuff.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #44 on:** October 30, 2009, 17:19 »

If you shoot a lot of hot women in little to no clothing, and offer those images RF, you should expect to have to deal with situations like that. To be surprised or distraught over it happening is just silly .

gostwyck · « **Reply #45 on:** October 30, 2009, 17:44 »

Quote from: sjlocke on October 30, 2009, 17:19

If you shoot a lot of hot women in little to no clothing, and offer those images RF, you should expect to have to deal with situations like that. To be surprised or distraught over it happening is just silly .

Exactly. She covers aforementioned hot women in baby oil (and not much else) then shoots them in flattering seductive lighting. What did she (or the models) design those images for __ Post cereal packaging maybe? Pre-school education? Financial? Or strips clubs and adult entertainment industry? Tricky one to decide really.

lisafx · « **Reply #46 on:** October 31, 2009, 14:24 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on October 30, 2009, 01:41

Lisa there is a good point behind using someone other than a close relative for witness. At least in the U.S. your lawyer would rather have a non related witness although it doesn't mean your husband won't work it just leaves a loop hole for the other lawyer to try to leverage. Glad you missed it on that one, thats kizmet for ya. For what it's worth here is a link to what a notary does in a mortgage closing. http://www.notarytrainer.com/whatisasigningagent.html

Best,
Jonathan

You're absolutely right, IMO, that it will be better to have someone other than my hubby sign the release. When I was just photographing friends and relatives it didn't seem important, but as I have widened my model pool to include people I don't know personally this is a good example of the type of issues that can arise.

FWIW my hubby IS a notary public - although he didn't notarize the releases

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 30, 2009, 12:08

Hey Lisa, was that musician a Blond by any chance? Doesn't remember a photo shoot? Kind of up in the clouds isn't he? Makes me want to go to the store and look at Post cereal even though I don't eat breakfast.

LOL. Quite the opposite. He is an older Carribbean man who plays steel drums.
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2188467-caribbean-steel-drummer.php

They play on the beach - a lot of Jimmy Buffet type stuff for the tourists. Maybe there was some Margaritaville action going on that caused it to slip his mind...? LOL.
Funny thing is he isn't even a good seller. I haven't made nearly enough money from him to justify the hassle

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #47 on:** October 31, 2009, 17:20 »

Hi Lisa,

He's a notary, Maybe he can notarize your releases. Boy, the agencies couldn't say much to that.

Best,
Jonathan

Batman · « **Reply #48 on:** November 01, 2009, 13:30 »

What was she thinking they were used for?

PixelBitch · « **Reply #49 on:** November 09, 2009, 16:23 »

The latest Getty Images release looks to be adapted from the iStock one...basically the same wording but without the logo...I use it for everything and it's accepted by all whether for RM, RF or micro.

Quote from: FD-amateur on October 30, 2009, 06:50

Quote from: sjlocke on October 30, 2009, 06:29
However, no one has really addresed what the point of having someone hold up a release for a picture proves.

That it was actually them. I came across models that were all too happy to pose for their facebook etc... for their personal promo and to show off, but refused to sign a MR for stock. It would be tempting for some to let a friend sign the release then, claiming the real "model" filled in fake info. I'm talking about the Philippines where photo IDs are rather exceptional and do cost a day wage. The model holding up the signed release would be a great safeguard in those cases.

Not wanting to hijack the thread, but has anybody cooked a generic istock release with the logo cloned out? I tried it last night but I got stuck in Word. I don't like to let sign two releases: one for iStock, and one for all the rest.

FD · « **Reply #50 on:** November 09, 2009, 21:57 »

Quote from: PixelBitch on November 09, 2009, 16:23

The latest Getty Images release looks to be adapted from the iStock one...basically the same wording but without the logo...I use it for everything and it's accepted by all whether for RM, RF or micro.

Thanks. I just will have to find the link now to that release. I guess this means the end of all our "generic" model releases since iStock asks for birth day too and on mine it won't fit any more. If it's accepted everywhere, we can just use that one with specific Getty text omitted.

PixelBitch · « **Reply #51 on:** November 10, 2009, 01:50 »

http://contributors.gettyimages.com/article.asp?article_id=1835

This should lead you to the right page...and they are available in several languages.

Quote from: FD-amateur on November 09, 2009, 21:57

Quote from: PixelBitch on November 09, 2009, 16:23
The latest Getty Images release looks to be adapted from the iStock one...basically the same wording but without the logo...I use it for everything and it's accepted by all whether for RM, RF or micro.

Thanks. I just will have to find the link now to that release. I guess this means the end of all our "generic" model releases since iStock asks for birth day too and on mine it won't fit any more. If it's accepted everywhere, we can just use that one with specific Getty text omitted.

Dan_Wiedemann · « **Reply #52 on:** November 11, 2009, 15:03 »

I have made a generic, dual-language (English and Portuguese) model release. Feel free to copy and modify to your liking!

http://www.danielwiedemann.com/storage/model_release.gif

lisafx · « **Reply #53 on:** November 11, 2009, 15:58 »

Quote from: FD-amateur on November 09, 2009, 21:57

Thanks. I just will have to find the link now to that release. I guess this means the end of all our "generic" model releases since iStock asks for birth day too and on mine it won't fit any more. If it's accepted everywhere, we can just use that one with specific Getty text omitted.

This latest additional layer of red tape has caused me to switch to the Getty release too. It is generic as far as I can see, and has all possible info anyone could want.

alias · « **Reply #54 on:** November 11, 2009, 16:26 »

I can see a time coming when agencies require image exclusivity for people shots. Too many potential problems otherwise.

Far better to keep a solid check of which site model released RF images were sold from when models are involved. In which case use a site specific release.

I am surprised that photographers distribute model released people shots to more than one site. In the future I think it will seem incredible that people used to do that.

lisafx · « **Reply #55 on:** November 11, 2009, 17:47 »

Quote from: alias on November 11, 2009, 16:26

I can see a time coming when agencies require image exclusivity for people shots. Too many potential problems otherwise.

What problems would those be that aren't already addressed by having a model release?

FWIW in cases of misuse I think it benefits the agency when the images are on more than one site. Much easier for them to deny any responsibility if it isn't obvious where the image was downloaded.

The ones who would most benefit from having only one outlet in the case of misuse would be us - the photographers. Then we would be in a better position to make the agency enforce its TOS.

Right now we independents have to pursue cases of misuse on our own. Fortunately we are compensated for this extra risk with the 20% (in my case) or more we make over being exclusive.

Business liability insurance and/or incorporation are additional ways for photographers to protect ourselves from potential problems.

FD · « **Reply #56 on:** November 12, 2009, 05:59 »

Hail Pixelbitch for the Getty release links. I downloaded the English version (in PDF), and converted it to Word by this free online program (I tried a few but this is the best, preserving the shapes).

I made a few unimportant changes to the layout and the fonts
- ("if applicable") was too small to be photocopied well;
- more lines for the shoot description;
- one extra line in front of the signature to provide more space (some people have huge signatures);
- added "in print" in front of Parent name, like with the other names.

I replaced country of jurisdiction by (...), omitting the location of the iStock/Getty offices. This should make the form generic. If you fill in your own name and country of jurisdiction in the document, it's ready to go, I think, for all possible stock sites. I'll use this single form from now on for everybody and for every 1-2 shoot days.

Here is the doc file. (done in Office 2007, saved for Word 1997-2003 - looks bad in Office 2000).

ErickN · « **Reply #57 on:** November 13, 2009, 20:05 »

Quote from: Dan_Wiedemann on November 11, 2009, 15:03

I have made a generic, dual-language (English and Portuguese) model release. Feel free to copy and modify to your liking!

http://www.danielwiedemann.com/storage/model_release.gif

Dan, thanks for your sample. I also need a dual language generic model release (french/english).
Is it accepted by most of the big agencies ?
Do they accept releases without a picture of the model on it ?

I have downloaded Getty's latest model releases in both french and english, but fitting both languages on a single page would make the text quite small.