How old is she?  Old people can be GREAT models!

OK, I wrote to the Ebay seller who sold me the doll.  I checked her sales text, and she's not REALLY saying she made it herself, so I just hope she did. 

I think we are somewhere between art and craft here.  The doll is a factory product that is supplied in pieces.  It is a kind of new hobby for gifted women to apply special paints to the face, sew a body, attach the limbs, implant hair and eyelashes and if you're good at it, the result is very real.  If this is art, then the creator/painter needs to sign a property release I suppose?  If not, then the owner should sign the release (which is me!).

If you all think this is art, and the Ebay seller sends me an answer that she did NOT paint the doll's face herself ... what next?   

Now this is a new problem for me :  I shot a few photos of a young woman holding a baby.  Only, the baby is a doll, a REALLY beautiful one, and it looks like a real baby.  It is so real, that any one would believe it is a real mother and baby portrait.

Knowing I would be in trouble with Model Releases, I wrote a "note to editor" while submitting the first image, explaining why I am only adding 1 model release.  
The result ?   6 out of 7 agencies already rejected it for missing MR.  Fotolia accepted it without a problem, so they apparently are the only ones that read my note.

Of course I can resubmit, but if I have to submit and resubmit every picture of that photo-shoot, I'll be quite irritated in the end.  So I thought :  what if I made a fake Model Release, pretending I'm the mother?  Who's going to sue me?   Would I be doing anything illegal that would get me into trouble with the agencies?

Congratulations!  I wish you many more successful years, fun shoots and at least one big raise per year!

Not a bad idea at all, since we all know that the only thing any site will do in a situation like this is close down the infringer's account, without compensation for the one who reported it.   A settlement between the copyright holder and the infringer + removal of all images involved would be a much better solution for every party (even for Istock!).

No, watch out, don't touch the "Extended License Opt Out" button!   

To opt out of Thinkstock :  Control Panel (top right) => Contributor (bottom left)
=> Partner Program => click "Remove All" button.

What I don't understand is the "transfer" of images to ThinkStock.  Most of us have many more images on StockXpert than on IS (in my case it's 3100/1800), and the StockXpert announcement talked about the Hemera collection of StockXpert images to ThinkStock.
I was opted in on StockXpert and IS and haven't changed anything (yet), but only 300 IS pictures are appearing on ThinkStock, and not even my bestsellers.  If I click "hemera", the result is zero.
Why aren't they using the StockXpert collection?  The number is not growing, so it's not a question of slow transfer.  And why only 300 IS photos without the bestsellers?  Any thoughts?

I had 3.  I'm glad so many others had the same experience!

You could ask the guy than runs marquisemodels.eu. He's a friend and he told me they were insured for that. But he's not in the least interested in microstock when he saw what it pays. They're doing assignments exclusively and their models are 2-300 euro/day.

Thanks for the tip.  I'll contact that agency.  If I tell them I got their website as a tip by FD-amateur, will they know who you are?  (if not, could you send me your real name?).

I only have insurance for liability cases during shoots, but not for copyright infringement problems.  Why?  Simply because I cannot find such a policy here in Belgium (and neither can my insurance broker).  It does exist for other professions, like architects, but not for photographers.
I have been seriously thinking about taking a foreign insurance, but what in case of a "legal case" if you live in Belgium, have a UK policy, and a USA company sues you for copyright infringement

Good idea, I'll do that on BigStockPhoto!

As for Dreamstime :  I just started disabling the SR-EL licenses there, but then I changed my mind :  instead, I'm putting VERY high prices on my best sellers (like 3000 to 4000 dollars).  If there's any one crazy enough to be willing to pay amounts like that for a single file, I'm not going to stop them 

I just had an e-mail from Dreamstime : 
Dear Anyka, This is an automated notification informing you that one of your files has been sold under the SR-EL license. The image ID is: 10713614 http://www.dreamstime.com/disabled.php?imageid=10713614 Note that you have maximum 72 hours for removing this image from all mediums that you may have it available for sale. This includes but is not limited to: stock agencies, personal websites, exhibitions. The file has already been disabled from our site. Congratulations!

My first reaction was WOW!!  Great!!
I consider this photo of one of my best of a particular shoot, but it is definitely not a bestseller.  The sale was for 300 $, so 150 $ for me.  Nice.

Then I thought :  what if they did this to one of my REAL bestsellers???  Can Dreamstime just tell me to take it off all other sites? 
In that case, shouldn't we disable the possibility of SR-EL sales for all of our bestsellers?