Author Topic: Well, I gave them a second chance . . . (Read 6040 times)

Greg Boiarsky · « **on:** March 13, 2007, 16:23 »

I live by the credo that everyone gets to screw up once. Istock has exceeded that quota, many times over. They are now rejecting images using model releases that they accepted just two weeks ago. Now, they are requiring a photographer's signature and information. I'm using forms devised by a copyright lawyer, for pity's sake, and Istock refuses to accept them.

My life is too short for this crap. I just modified the form by pasting information from another release.

Is this really worth it?

epixx · « **Reply #1 on:** March 13, 2007, 21:24 »

Of course it is. It makes other challenges look sooooo small

yingyang0 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 13, 2007, 21:43 »

Quote from: Professorgb on March 13, 2007, 16:23

I live by the credo that everyone gets to screw up once. Istock has exceeded that quota, many times over. They are now rejecting images using model releases that they accepted just two weeks ago. Now, they are requiring a photographer's signature and information. I'm using forms devised by a copyright lawyer, for pity's sake, and Istock refuses to accept them.

My life is too short for this crap. I just modified the form by pasting information from another release.

Is this really worth it?

Canadian Law is different than US law (as I recall you live in Colorado?). Please tell me that the release the copyright lawyer gave you at least has both a witness signing section and a section that says somthing about consideration.

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #3 on:** March 13, 2007, 22:47 »

Yes, indeed--remuneration and witness signing both present. However, a witness technically isn't necessary, if I remember correctly.

My release specifies the identity of my company (Yellow Dog Photography), remuneration agreed upon, rights granted, witness identity and signature, date, model identity and address, and a section for guardians of minor models.

BUT, Istock requires that you identify the company more fully, by photographer, address, email address, and phone number--all of which are subject to change, and are therefore useless on a release form.

Quote from: yingyang0 on March 13, 2007, 21:43

Quote from: Professorgb on March 13, 2007, 16:23
I live by the credo that everyone gets to screw up once. Istock has exceeded that quota, many times over. They are now rejecting images using model releases that they accepted just two weeks ago. Now, they are requiring a photographer's signature and information. I'm using forms devised by a copyright lawyer, for pity's sake, and Istock refuses to accept them.

My life is too short for this crap. I just modified the form by pasting information from another release.

Is this really worth it?
Canadian Law is different than US law (as I recall you live in Colorado?). Please tell me that the release the copyright lawyer gave you at least has both a witness signing section and a section that says somthing about consideration.

vicu · « **Reply #4 on:** March 14, 2007, 06:49 »

Hmm... I have an idea. Why not use the istock model release for images uploaded to ISTOCK? The site states in pretty certain terms that you should use their release. How is it considered a "screw up" when you choose not to follow their clearly stated rules?

CJPhoto · « **Reply #5 on:** March 14, 2007, 07:34 »

Vicu - I think what the prof is trying to say is that a model release is there for legal reasons. If those legal reasons are met, why does it matter what form it is in.

Prof - I think what Vicu is trying to say is that reviewers aren't lawyers and cant be expected to review your release to ensure it covers all areas legally when they have already paid lawyers to review their one.

Two sides to every argument.

istock is normally considered the strickest on this front which is why most people base their "generic" release for all sites on Istocks one.

yingyang0 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 14, 2007, 07:54 »

Quote from: CJPhoto on March 14, 2007, 07:34

Vicu - I think what the prof is trying to say is that a model release is there for legal reasons. If those legal reasons are met, why does it matter what form it is in.

Prof - I think what Vicu is trying to say is that reviewers aren't lawyers and cant be expected to review your release to ensure it covers all areas legally when they have already paid lawyers to review their one.

iStock is a Canadian company so all model releases must conform with Canadian law which is general much more strict on protection of rights, including the right to plublicity. People have this notion that laws are uniform. Laws aren't uniform from state to state, let alone country to country.

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #7 on:** March 14, 2007, 09:05 »

You're exactly right--and that's what makes microstock so difficult, I guess.

Vicu--I would use the Istock release, but there are two problems from a professional's point of view. First, I'm not exclusive with Istock, and many other agencies recognize and refuse to accept the Istock release (I tried it). Second, I could use both the Istock and my standard release, but that would be annoying for my models, who dislike signing even one release. But, I understand your point of view. I was mostly irritated because of the inconsistency in Istock's acceptance of my release; they clearly need to train their reviewers in what is and isn't acceptable.

Quote from: yingyang0 on March 14, 2007, 07:54

People have this notion that laws are uniform. Laws aren't uniform from state to state, let alone country to country.

yingyang0 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 14, 2007, 16:17 »

Quote from: Professorgb on March 14, 2007, 09:05

I would use the Istock release, but there are two problems from a professional's point of view. First, I'm not exclusive with Istock, and many other agencies recognize and refuse to accept the Istock release (I tried it).

I haven't had any problems using a generic version of the IS release. I use almost the exact wording they use, but I have it in a word document. Other people just remove the logo at the time and (most importantly) the copyright notice at the bottom. It's worked for me at IS, SS, Dreamstime, and Fotolia.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Well, I gave them a second chance . . . (Read 6040 times)

Greg Boiarsky

epixx

yingyang0

Greg Boiarsky

vicu

CJPhoto

yingyang0

Greg Boiarsky

yingyang0

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors