Author Topic: Shoot description rejections... (Read 7990 times)

danhowl · « **on:** May 26, 2013, 10:30 »

Maybe I have been lucky in the past but on this last large batch of submission, I got a dozen rejections because of shoot description on model release. The rejections were not including models wardrobe in description, specifically lingerie or nude (even though they were included in keywords). While I can see an argument regarding nudity or partial nudity, I don't see why I would need to specify lingerie in description when model had various outfits on throughout a shoot. Furthermore, I have submitted literally dozens of model releases without these specifics in the past without rejections across hundreds of images.

Seems like location description and general info of model(s) are more important in the shoot description than wardrobe, especially with multiple outfits. Is this a change in policy?

ShadySue · « **Reply #1 on:** May 26, 2013, 10:34 »

Could be a change, could be an inspectors 'thing'. I'd have thought that nude and probably lingerie would have to be specified in the release so that it was clear that the model had signed agreeing to these pics being used as stock, though of course there's no way they can know that you didn't add that in later, after the model had signed. The keywords are irrelevant to this issue because the model doesn't see/consent to these.

tab62 · « **Reply #2 on:** May 26, 2013, 11:22 »

maybe a 'wardrobe malfunction'

drd · « **Reply #3 on:** May 26, 2013, 16:27 »

You should have used 'viaduct' and 'man made structure' within your keywords.

danhowl · « **Reply #4 on:** May 26, 2013, 19:34 »

OMG...I just got another rejection with the following message:

"The model releases must state that nude or semi-nude shots were agreed upon++"

I'm calling crap on this. I have never heard of this policy. That addition of language would not make the release MORE LEGAL. I re-read the information about model releases on the iStock sight and do not find anything indicating that. Other shots of same model/same scene/same wardrobe were approved by other reviewers. I've shot similar content for numerous magazines and this issue has NEVER come up. The model is aware of what he/she is shooting and knowingly signed the release and provided proof of age.

More and more, iStock rejections are amusing distractions. Or maybe it shows the lack of experience/skill of new inspectors they have hired since new upload limits.

danhowl · « **Reply #5 on:** May 26, 2013, 19:38 »

Quote from: tab62 on May 26, 2013, 11:22

maybe a 'wardrobe malfunction'

This was a series of image of a staged/posed glamour shot with the wardrobe matching the theme of the background. It was not exactly open to interpretation. Other sites did not have this objection.

disorderly · « **Reply #6 on:** May 26, 2013, 19:49 »

Quote from: danhowl on May 26, 2013, 19:34

OMG...I just got another rejection with the following message:

"The model releases must state that nude or semi-nude shots were agreed upon++"

One of the many reasons I'm happy I dumped iStock. I got tired of them changing the rules constantly. It started with them requiring me to sign my releases, which made no sense, and only got crazier from there.

Of course they have every right to make whatever rules they like, and to refuse content from anyone who doesn't follow them. And we're just as free to tell them to get stuffed.

Poncke v2 · « **Reply #7 on:** May 27, 2013, 08:46 »

Quote from: danhowl on May 26, 2013, 19:34

OMG...I just got another rejection with the following message:

"The model releases must state that nude or semi-nude shots were agreed upon++"

I'm calling crap on this. I have never heard of this policy. That addition of language would not make the release MORE LEGAL. I re-read the information about model releases on the iStock sight and do not find anything indicating that. Other shots of same model/same scene/same wardrobe were approved by other reviewers. I've shot similar content for numerous magazines and this issue has NEVER come up. The model is aware of what he/she is shooting and knowingly signed the release and provided proof of age.

More and more, iStock rejections are amusing distractions. Or maybe it shows the lack of experience/skill of new inspectors they have hired since new upload limits.

Well its not like the model is not knowing she is not wearing any clothes during the shoot. "Holy crap, when did you shoot those images, I am not aware of taking my clothes off at any time !!!"

ShadySue · « **Reply #8 on:** May 27, 2013, 11:36 »

Quote from: Poncke v2 on May 27, 2013, 08:46

Quote from: danhowl on May 26, 2013, 19:34
OMG...I just got another rejection with the following message:

"The model releases must state that nude or semi-nude shots were agreed upon++"

I'm calling crap on this. I have never heard of this policy. That addition of language would not make the release MORE LEGAL. I re-read the information about model releases on the iStock sight and do not find anything indicating that. Other shots of same model/same scene/same wardrobe were approved by other reviewers. I've shot similar content for numerous magazines and this issue has NEVER come up. The model is aware of what he/she is shooting and knowingly signed the release and provided proof of age.

More and more, iStock rejections are amusing distractions. Or maybe it shows the lack of experience/skill of new inspectors they have hired since new upload limits.
Well its not like the model is not knowing she is not wearing any clothes during the shoot. "Holy crap, when did you shoot those images, I am not aware of taking my clothes off at any time !!!"

It was explained way back when they tightened the MR requirements that it was to protect a model who perhaps had done one shoot with a tog for stock and signed a release for that, then another more 'intimate' shoot for some other purpose, the model not intending them to be used as stock, but these 'intimate' pics were also used as stock, as the tog already had a blanket release.
@Dan, it seems like if you had less specific releases accepted, you've had a very 'lenient' inspector.

danhowl · « **Reply #9 on:** May 27, 2013, 15:50 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 27, 2013, 11:36

It was explained way back when they tightened the MR requirements that it was to protect a model who perhaps had done one shoot with a tog for stock and signed a release for that, then another more 'intimate' shoot for some other purpose, the model not intending them to be used as stock, but these 'intimate' pics were also used as stock, as the tog already had a blanket release.
@Dan, it seems like if you had less specific releases accepted, you've had a very 'lenient' inspector.

I certainly understood that was the accusation made by the rejection. The thing is that I use the Getty form model release. There isn't a line on it for model to indicate the model is agreeing to the content other than the entire model release ITSELF. I haven't looked at the iStock release lately, but I don't think it has a line for that either. Furthermore, it's not like one or two images have 'slipped past' lenient inspectors in the past. I'm talking about possibly 200 images over dozens of submissions--all of which have been accepted by other agencies. Plus, I have been shooting this kind of content and similar for magazines for the past 10 years without this issue coming up once.

I just find the inconsistency frustrating.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #10 on:** May 27, 2013, 16:04 »

"Seems like location description and general info of model(s) are more important in the shoot description than wardrobe, especially with multiple outfits. Is this a change in policy?"

It's not hard.

"Studio shoot on colored backgrounds. Model in casual clothing, lingerie and partial nudes."

ShadySue · « **Reply #11 on:** May 27, 2013, 16:06 »

What Sean said, of course.
Plus what other agencies or magazines accept has no bearing on iStock.
I appreciate the inconsistency is annoying, but just like keywords, some inspectors are more strict with the rules than others.

danhowl · « **Reply #12 on:** May 27, 2013, 16:26 »

Quote from: disorderly on May 26, 2013, 19:49

Quote from: danhowl on May 26, 2013, 19:34
OMG...I just got another rejection with the following message:

"The model releases must state that nude or semi-nude shots were agreed upon++"

One of the many reasons I'm happy I dumped iStock. I got tired of them changing the rules constantly.

I feel like this is likely my path. Trying to look at my participation objectively, iStockphoto takes roughly twice as long per image to upload and nets me about one quarter of SS. This latest thing is just another check against. I imagine my IS days are numbered. My assignment work is my mainstay.

stephenkirsh · « **Reply #13 on:** June 05, 2013, 18:17 »

They must have made a change recently. I've been getting rejections. I inquired about it on the forums and they said I was missing the "shoot description" part. So now I have to make a release for the same person every time I shoot?

They're also inconsistent; sometimes images went through with the "old" release and sometimes they were rejected saying "incomplete release info."

It's honestly very frustrating and discouraging, as if iStock didn't need any other complaints against them.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #14 on:** June 05, 2013, 18:23 »

Quote from: stephenkirsh on June 05, 2013, 18:17

They must have made a change recently. I've been getting rejections. I inquired about it on the forums and they said I was missing the "shoot description" part. So now I have to make a release for the same person every time I shoot?

since ever (at least from 2009)

Quote from: stephenkirsh on June 05, 2013, 18:17

They're also inconsistent; sometimes images went through with the "old" release and sometimes they were rejected saying "incomplete release info."

all agencies make mistakes, perhaps if you really want to submit to iStock work on a new updated release, then you wouldn't have any issues

gillian vann · « **Reply #15 on:** June 05, 2013, 18:36 »

ah ditto, have had MR rejections too, although oddly a few images got through

and a few were flagged.

* missing postcode, seriously!
* and missing shootdate/description, which it was not. hmm, are they just getting a bit trigger happy?

I recently had a spanish publication reject my invoice cos i'd put their address down incorrectly (which I just cutnpasted from their email footer), even though I emailed the bloody thing! Pedantic people ruin the fun of business. They should go where they belong: to government employment. [/rant]

tab62 · « **Reply #16 on:** June 05, 2013, 20:14 »

"They should go where they belong: to government employment. [/rant]"

I am a federal employee! Served 13 years in the US Army (Warrant in data security) and now an technology guy. I would be very nice stock editor - I promise...

gillian vann · « **Reply #17 on:** June 05, 2013, 21:00 »

sorry Tom, really I mean bureaucracy. those people who make rules, in order to form committees, in order to pad our their days, in order to rack up overtime and longer service leave... then whine about staff cutbacks when the bloated public service finally gets noticed. (talking about Australia in particular but I'm sure it's similar everywhere)

tab62 · « **Reply #18 on:** June 05, 2013, 21:42 »

that's okay, I was worried no one would like me anymore

Those type of folks you mention all live in DC and never come out to the field to meet the worker bees like us- they tell me they have to stay away to concentrate on the big picture lol...

Mantis · « **Reply #19 on:** June 06, 2013, 06:47 »

Quote from: gillian on June 05, 2013, 21:00

sorry Tom, really I mean bureaucracy. those people who make rules, in order to form committees, in order to pad our their days, in order to rack up overtime and longer service leave... then whine about staff cutbacks when the bloated public service finally gets noticed. (talking about Australia in particular but I'm sure it's similar everywhere)

Definitely here in the US for sure.

stephenkirsh · « **Reply #20 on:** June 06, 2013, 22:13 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 05, 2013, 18:23

since ever (at least from 2009)

I've been contributing since 2008 and never had any problems before.

Quote from: gillian on June 05, 2013, 18:36

ah ditto, have had MR rejections too, although oddly a few images got through and a few were flagged.

* missing postcode, seriously!
* and missing shootdate/description, which it was not. hmm, are they just getting a bit trigger happy?

See that's my problem with situation! The inconsistency!

fotografer · « **Reply #21 on:** June 07, 2013, 06:50 »

Lately I am getting 100% acceptance for technical quality but keep getting dinged for model releases.

gillian vann · « **Reply #22 on:** June 10, 2013, 18:42 »

yeah, I uploaded 6 all with the same model release, and 4 got through and 2 didn't, due to "incomplete model release". how very odd.

tab62 · « **Reply #23 on:** June 10, 2013, 18:51 »

different reviewers I suspect thus explaining why some of the same batch pass and fail with the same exact MR....

gillian vann · « **Reply #24 on:** June 10, 2013, 20:32 »

the upload release through metadata is not working (it uploads but doesn't seem to get through to iS) so it's unlikely I could be bothered uploading new releases singly. no biggie, still only uploading sporadically to iS, waiting, like many, for some reason to have confidence in them.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shoot description rejections... (Read 7990 times)

danhowl

ShadySue

tab62

drd

danhowl

danhowl

disorderly

Poncke v2

ShadySue

danhowl

Sean Locke Photography

ShadySue

danhowl

stephenkirsh

luissantos84

gillian vann

tab62

gillian vann

tab62

Mantis

stephenkirsh

fotografer

gillian vann

tab62

gillian vann

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors