Stokfoto I'd be very careful with 17th Street Photo! This is the actual location of that 'company'. http://donwiss.com/pictures/ManhattanStores/h0028.htm
I've heard very bad things about that outfit. I would suggest buying from only B&H photo or Adorama if you're going to order from a US online company. Remember that the lowest prices online for photography gear are almost always scams.

From what I hear it is quite a feat to get into SS now-a-days, so congrats!

Look at Imus, although not a fan, I heard him say a couple words which he obviously learned from the rap vernacular.  Wrong?  Absolutely.  But, we have heard these words thousands of times on the news following the incident.  All top ten songs by rap artists have one or all of these words.  The difference is, he has sponsors that will feel the heat.  Al Sharpton has a constituency that needs to hear that he's doing something, and Jesse Jackson, well, Jesse Jackson, he needs the donations, voluntary or extorted.

What rap song(s) are you referring to where they use the term "nappy-headed"? They don't.

The fact is that this wasn't a case of someone exercising their first amendment right to free speech. This was defamatory language (not protected) that has no place in society. What's wrong is wrong. Whether or not Jackson and Sharpton are capitalizing on the situation is irrelevant.

Oh, and the difference between rap and Imus is that Imus was calling specific people "nappy-headed hos." 

I guess I musta missed it, but shutterstock now wants a witness for model releases.  I don't get a chance to log on very often, and hadn't seen it on this site or SS, but it probably was.

I can understand the need for model releases, but a witness?  If somebody is faking a model release, what would stop them from faking the witness.

What's next?  photo id's, photo's of the person signing, or holding the release in a picture that's date marked, or even notarized?

I know someone that is faking releases would fake the witness signature, but that's not the real point of the witness signature. The main point is to avoid models being able to clam that they didn't know what they were signing, or they were drunk when they signed it, etc. What bbettina is doing defeats the whole purpose of the witness signature and would probably do more harm than good if the release was ever challenged.

As for photo id's, if you can't tell easily what the age of the model is then you should get a photograph of their id to prove that you checked. Just because they told you they were 18 won't legitimize the release. If it is good enough for the porn industry it is good enough for you 

Any increase will put pressure on IS and DT.

Umm..not on IS. IS was the one that raised prices first and that increased commissions per download a lot more than any commission increase SS is considering. It is IS's actions that allowed SS to raise prices, not the other way around.

edited

So they asked me for a quote (proposal?) about creating one or more new images in the same style (it's an illustration, not a photograph) that would be exclusive to them...

Any advice on what terms I SHOULD include in the contract for such a sale, apart from clearly indicating that I remain the copyright holder and limiting the use of the image ?

Why would you insist on remaining the copyright holder and limiting the use of the image. They want exclusive rights to use the image, so unless you're setting a specific time frame for the exclusivity (which I'm willing to venture they don't want to do) their is no point in retaining or limiting anything. They're looking for a work-for-hire arrangement and you should give it to them, charge them appropriately but still give it to them.

I now own all the negitives (and digital files) for the photos of my wedding, there are some great shots which would make excellent stock, I'm just wondering if I can legally upload them as I didn't take them. Anyone have any ideas about this.

Short answer = No, you can't legally upload them because you don't own the copyright to them.

Long answer = same as first but explains why not a work-for-hire, etc.

My sales have fallen a lot since they changed the Best Match search...This is still my best month with istock but the last 10 days have been disappointing.

Do you know how crazy this sounds. "Sales have fallen, but this is my best month ever". They changed the Best Match months ago so it seems your statements contradict each other.

To be frank, I was shocked when I first signed up at the "big six" that they accepted images of cellphones and other easily identifiable electronics.

Even without the names/logos, all modern electronics still have design patents and the companies haved copyrighted of the "look", aka the basic shapes, of the electronics. It's all about weighting the cost of litigation/judgments versus the profits they get from selling the images. That's why most of them won't touch photos of ipods with a ten foot pole, apple is just too litigious to make it worth it. There's no difference between ipods and the unique modern phones that you see in terms of legal protection. The only difference is that Apple is more likely to sue than Nokia (at least in their minds).

As a photographer, I would never upload a photo of modern electronics because of cost benieft analysis. I'd rather upload a photo of some not widely known artist's painting (a clear copyright violation) rather than upload a photo of the Razor phone (not so clear cut violation). Do the math. A simple (not completely accurate or complete) expected value (EV) calculation. Is the likely profit from the photo greater than the cost of litigation times the probability of being discovered and sued.

For artist's painting:
profit from photo: low to medium (1-25)
chance of being discovered and sued: almost nil
cost of the law suit: 3 to 5 digits

For ipod:
profit from photo: medium to high (25+)
chance of discovery and being sued: low-med
cost of law suit: 6+ digits

If I owned a stock agency I'd have the same rule as 123RF. The risk is greater than the reward, in my opinion. You should also note that the photographer is the one on the hook for the litigation costs as most if not all microstock agencies. So 123rf is also taking into consideration the possiblity that the photographer wouldn't be able to cover the costs of litigation.

This is true apart from Dreamstime , so for 1 picture I have  3 MR:   1 IS  1 IS without logo and ref. and 1 DT.....jean

You had a rejection on Dreamstime using the IS model release? Did you remove both the logo at the top and the copyright notice at the bottom?

I ask because it seems strange that Dreamstime would be upset about the use of a better release than the one they use. You'll notice that there is no copyright notice on the bottom of Dreamstime's model release. That is because they use a generic one available to any lawyer that uses Westlaw.

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.

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.