The way I see it, is that Crestock is asking permission to turn the blog of people who are using this plugin into a free advertising portal for them. As the difference between $0,25 per download and nothing, squat, zilch is physically not that big (but mathematically, infinite) I might as well have my site scream "CRESTOCK", let every other blog use my images for free, allowing their site to scream the same message, and get a handful of $0,25 sub-sales a month more due to the "boost in traffic", If I'm lucky.

Hmmm. Think I'll pass. As Crestock seems incapable of paying within a reasonable time, I don't hold my breath waiting to see if anything good comes out of this.

Can only agree with the above suggestions, I see such a tool working.

Both are very useful, thanks for posting! They're great inspiration-tools.

And if DT thinks it's really, really, really important to attach the correct number of releases perhaps they should be really, really, really specific about the rules for such on their site and they should really, really, really train their reviewers to adhere consistently with those rules so that everyone follows the rules really, really, really well!  

I really, really, really agree with you.  I've asked DT about that, but never received a satisfying answer. (yeah - Go Search Forum. Go Search forum again. Post question. Thread removed - read forum.)

I also just got paid today, so that part is still running OK, if a bit slower than it used to.

Approvals, however, seem to be very much delayed.  It's as if Getty cut review staff or money to pay freelancers, and a backlog has been building up.  Current waiting period for reviews seems to be about 8 days.  Not too long ago you only had to wait about 24 hours.

Oh well, the sales are still good, so I'll keep uploading there every day.

Payment was as swift as usual - requested it this morning, payment approval only 12 hrs later.

As to the review times, I didn't notice any changes to prior the Getty take-over. Usually, my images are reviewed and approved in about 4 - 8 hours, with an occasional delay to about 24 hours.

August revenues were just slightly down from July, but still in line with expectations, so I have yet to notice any negative change at StockXpert. Even got three responses (from three different people) to a support request, recently. They're still going strong, as far as I can tell.

Quote from: Aetherial on August 27, 2009, 01:07

the new deadline is September 1st.

can we use old releases for shoots prior to Sep 1? I have around 100 old pictures that will not be accepted before that date.

Good grief...I have over 200!  Well, I guess Istock isn't getting any of those photos.

Shoots, which have taken place prior to September 1st can still use the "old" model release. These changes seem to go in effect for shoots, planned after 1 September. So, you should be fine to upload those older photos with the older model releases, also after the new rules apply.

It's nothing new. DT has been doing this ever since I joined them three years ago.

Agreed, nationality definitely helps them with the completeness of their records in case a dispute occurs, however, they ask for a lot of redundant information. Besides, people tend to mature, and people tend to relocate, so the use of that information is rather time bound.

All redundant bits of information about the models you use is already required when uploading a new model release. Dreamstime's explanation is, that all this information is required, because of their ingenious search options, which allows buyers to search for a specific number of models, ethnicities, and gender groups. I just wish they would make that an optional bit of information, because I found it extremely tedious to file the correct number of model releases and identify all persons in a group of 20 people dancing in a nightclub correctly. Let alone the DT reviewers know how to distinguish models by name.

In the past, I've had rejections for an incorrect gender - the default was male, and the model happened to be female, quite obvious from the photo. (DT did change that in the registration form for new models). I've also had rejections because the DT review team thought the models had a different Ethnicity than I filed with the release form. I've also had the MR for my son rejected. As a minor, my wife signed it as gardian / parent, but she doesn't use my sir-name, and my son does.  It's always a guess - a few rejections have been overturned by resubmitting the same file under the same model release, or by contacting support.

It's all a bit over-jealous, I think. But it's their prerogative.

@ pancaketom: Yes, they require your signature as well. Apparently , that requirement is legally unstable, as a MR isn't a contract.

Does anyone know if Stu99 is an admin at StockXpert?  He's the only one who seems to have any answers???

Not sure. I only had a few site mail exchanges with Chris2k, who has been extremely helpful, also recently. (another + for StockXpert)

C'est tres cute, but I would rather that Dreamstime IT spend their time better to fix  the search engine so our new images get more views, instead on creating some game for us to play !

My point exactly. Either that, or (even) more marketing.

NEW!

Get you EIN on-line 

https://sa1.www4.irs.gov/modiein/individual/index.jsp

Should save some cost...

Restrictions:

The business location must be within the United States or U.S. territories.
Foreign filers without an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) cannot use this assistant to obtain an EIN.
If you were incorporated outside of the United States or the U.S. territories, you cannot apply for an EIN online. Please call us at 215-516-6999 (this is not a toll free number).

Even without looking any further than the two images and the word rejects in the title, it's bound to be about Crestock.

They have a funny, if not ambiguous way of looking at pictures. They claim they've done extensive research into customer demands and trends, as well have an expert team of reviewers (both photographers as well as high volume customers) on board, however, very little of their self proclaimed expertise is showing through in their review and rejection (sure wish it would've been acceptance-) policy.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. The images look fine to me, too. It's easy to say, but you have two choices. Either live with it, or deal with it; In case you chose the latter, do let us know how you succeed? I've tried, and am still trying to get a professional answer from them, but most of my efforts seem to be in vain.