So I don't understand why they won't accept it or where they get their legal advice.

They accept images from contributors worldwide and in some countries digitised signatures are not considered legal.

it was never alive...

agree

Quote from: madelaide on March 22, 2010, 19:56

Quote from: RT on March 22, 2010, 19:12

That's not what it's indicating, the blinking is indicating that particular area of the image is overexposed based on the settings you've taken the image at, that doesn't mean the background is pure white.

I always thought the blinking indicated clipped highlights.

I as well.  Higher than 255 at 0 exposure in the raw converter, and that's what I've experienced.

Cameras as I'm sure you well know don't know that white exists, to a camera a correctly exposed image will have an 18% (or thereabouts) balanced midtone, the highlight alert is to indicate which part of the image the camera thinks is overexposed based on that 18% which it takes from the settings you've applied to take the shot at.

Try it yourself, set up a shot of something white, let the camera auto meter the shot and the result will be that the white object comes out grey, then manually set the camera to overexpose the shot by 1/3 and you'll get the blinking highlights but this is not enough to make the white object 255 it will still be grey albeit a bit lighter, in order to get pure 255 white you'd probably need to overexpose by 1 stop or more.

Sean if you've got your 255 it's because you've correctly overexposed enough to get 255 but you'd still have got the blinking on your camera at 254,253 etc etc if that makes sense.

Something else to consider is that the cameras histogram will not be the same as the image histogram when you go to convert the RAW file, and to be really geeky the cameras highlight alert only blinks if all three channels are 'overexposed'.

To a camera a correctly exposed shot of something white will result in it being 18% grey, an exposure that makes the white thing 16% grey will in the cameras mind be overexposed and it'll blink at you  

Personally I don't use the highlight alert, I go by the histogram.

......... the background is blown out pure white as I intended.  In the camera's playback with histogram, the background is blinking to indicate this.

That's not what it's indicating, the blinking is indicating that particular area of the image is overexposed based on the settings you've taken the image at, that doesn't mean the background is pure white.

Yes from what I've found it tends to happen when renaming a file and saving it, I use a Mac but found lots of examples where people said they were using a PC. The annoying thing is that I'd done nothing differently than what I've done a thousand times before, and have done since posting the message without it happening again. 

I buy a few times a year and from my point of view there is never a big enough selection of similars. Someone a page back mentioned "image stacks".  In a perfect world, everthing from a series could be linked and the photographer could flag 2 or 3 photos to go into the search for potential buyers to bring up the rest of the "stack" would need to be called up to search through.  I was making a folded brochure on 11x17 and found 3 photos of same family with moving boxes.  They were somewhat allright - but I sure would have loved a selection of about 20 to chose from.   

Maybe if I was buying every day I would feel differently though and would have less time to look for the perfect set.

I agree in part with what you've said, however I think one of the problems DT and others face is the contributors who can't differentiate between a series and 25 images of the same model shot on motor drive, I saw a portfolio the other day on DT that had 23 images of the same model wearing the same outfit leaning against the same wall doing, well nothing actually, on most of the images the only difference was her hand had moved slightly and I mean slightly and on others she'd turned her head a little bit. DT's latest move might make these people think twice before uploading the 'whole roll of film'. A good, well thought out and executed series is very useful, 20 odd near identical shots helps nobody.
I don't think DT has gone about it the right way but I'm guessing this is what they're trying to deter, like others have said I think there should be a tiered system based on proven success.

http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2010/01/29/4799.aspx

Same problem as before I expect

I have no experience of selling footage so can't help on that one, but I would say you'd probably have problems getting it accepted for commercial use not just because of the people but because of the location unless you have a property release from the airport.

I like the video though and like you love the tilt-shift effect, mind you that person in the yellow top must have got fed up of having to go to the start of the queue all the time 

This grandstanding has taken this thread too far away from the OP's original question and thrown too much misinformation into the air.  I'm sticking to the issues with iS going forward.

Burying your head in the sand, ignoring and refusing to accept or trying to understand things is probably the best course of action for you to take.

Actually that language comes from a litigator in the rights & clearances department of one of the largest law firms in the world--not from myself.  They confirm what countless people who actually work in this industry practice every day.  And yes, I work in the industry as a professional fashion and commercial photographer and work with model releases on a constant basis.  And no, I don't need to create a double identity to contrast your intellectual errors.  This user name is the same I use on iStock--and after all, isn't this what the thread is all about?

And to remind...you made the statement that model releases are 'employment contracts' an assertion without attribution.  I think that the burden is on you to site a case where a MR equals a employment contract, not me. 

Your emphatic stance almost make me think that you are trying to bring up the argument wether models are employees.  More of an argument can be made in this avenue and debate has been made on either side.  But, and this is the important part, a model release is NOT the document that has any bearing on this.  If you have an ounce of legal experience you should realize this salient difference.

I must apologise I had searched for you on google with no avail and because of the lack of knowledge you displayed in your previous posts and the way you versed you replies I came to the conclusion you were someone else who also often gives opinions on things they know nothing about. But I see now that you are indeed a different person and have some nice photos on iStock that would indicate you've been shooting models for a while, which judging by your previous comments surprised me.

Now you say that this statement:

Model releases are specifically intended to outline the rights being granted to the photographer and his reps for licensing purposes.  The subject/model is pre-approving the designated future uses (usually anything and everything in the case of stock) and releasing the licensor and licensee from liability.  It is titled very aptly - it is a release of rights and liability, plain and simple.

 "comes from a litigator in the rights & clearances department of one of the largest law firms in the world" which totally surprises me, I find it hard to believe that a someone in the legal profession would make such a sweeping generalised statement and I'll explain why -
 As I mentioned earlier there is no set legal standard for a model release but there are common clauses set in the releases supplied by most agencies, the legal definition of a release is that it's a contract, whilst the releases supplied by most of the sites mention the site by name it is not a legal requirement to do so and all the sites accept a release that does does not name them individually so for now lets deal with this general release, when a model and photographer sign a release it is a contract between the model and the photographer only the contract will most likely then contain a clause that allows the assigning of rights to "his reps"  or 'assigns' as most model releases refer to them but those are clauses the "reps" are defined by law as having signed or formed the contract.
 The model does not "pre-approve the designated future uses" because the model at the time of release does not generally know what the future uses are and the possible uses are not designated on the release instead there are some suggested possible uses normally including the phrase "amongst others" which is deliberately added exactly because the future uses are not designated.
 But the biggest surprise in that statement is "...releasing the licensor and licensee from liability" no it doesn't it only releases them from certain liability claims as listed in the clauses contained in the contract, which is why as I said earlier I would be very surprised that someone in the legal profession would make such a general definition of a release.

Now onto the 'model release' itself, as i stated earlier it is a contract that for simplicity the industry has named as a 'model release' which is fine you can call a contract whatever you want, however whilst this contract does indeed contain release clauses it also contain clauses relating to property, identity, data protection,privacy & payment so unknowingly you see it is so much more than just a "release of rights - plain and simple"

Now onto the employment side of things. Do you understand that when you shoot a model you are employing that person? or am I right in assuming that you're having trouble with understanding that, which I could understand because employment law is one of the most complex things there is. You need to understand that you can employ someone without that person being an 'employee' for the purposes of employment law and employee rights.
The most basic definition of employing someone is when you control the work of another, to put that into the context of shooting models, when you shoot a model it is you the photographer that directs/controls what that model does for the purpose of obtaining the product in this case the photo (I can see you know how to shoot a model and what's involved so I won't go into anymore technicalities) and in some shape or form you then reward that model be it financial, tfp, bananas or whatever and at some point be it written or verbal you have made a contract with the model, in the case of licensing the photos for commercial stock you get the model to sign a legal contract (model release) and that contract relates to the period of time and work the model did (the shoot) which by definition of employment means it would be defined by law as being (or part of) a contract of employment. Now I'm not going to insult you because you clearly understand why you need a release and the whole point of the exercise in getting them to sign one but I still don't understand why you can't accept that it is more than just a simple release.

Law is defined by interpretation or stated cases, there are no stated cases that I'm aware of that legally define a model release, the generic model release issued by most agencies is simplified to cover most worldwide usage but it is not a definitive contract as each country has varying laws and intricacies, my interpretation is that it forms the basis of an employment contract for the reason I've explained above, if you can find any legal definitions to defy that then please do so.

You must look like Lou Ferigno at this point.

Only when he thinks of you.

Serious point though I know how he feels, I'm 45 this year and thinking about old age and my fitness has crossed my mind too.

Quote from: RT on March 11, 2010, 09:12

Wow you better let all the legal minds that compile the law dictionaries know then  

Employment is a contract between two parties, one being the employer and the other being the employee. An employee may be defined as: "A person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, where the employer has the power or right to control and direct the employee in the material details of how the work is to be performed." Black's Law Dictionary page 471 (5th ed. 1979).

Again, that is not, nor has it been a standard that applies to model releases.  Just because you empty the bins at a law firm does not make you a legal scholar.  

The industry never thought of a release as an employment contract and never would.  Model releases are specifically intended to outline the rights being granted to the photographer and his reps for licensing purposes.  The subject/model is pre-approving the designated future uses (usually anything and everything in the case of stock) and releasing the licensor and licensee from liability.  It is titled very aptly - it is a release of rights and liability, plain and simple.

It is more akin to a licensing or royalty agreement than any kind of employment contract.  In fact, several modeling agencies create contract documents that specifically state that models are not employees. Similarly, when I shoot an assignment for a magazine or advertiser, I am not an employee nor do I sell my photography to them.  I license the use of my photographic product, usually for a fixed period of time and specified usage.

Seriously, if you do not understand this distinction you might want to reconsider your activities in both law and photography--at the very least refrain from littering discussion forums with misinformation.

I'll refrain from any personal insults because I don't want to come down to your level.

Apart from the fact your definition of a model release and what it does is wrong, neither you or the industry can change or make legal definitions, and whether you or anyone in the industry who chooses not to accept that a model release forms part of an employment contract does not detract from the fact that it does.

As I tried to explain earlier there is no specific legal definition of a model release, however you seem to know otherwise so please rather than give your opinion and insults share with us your knowledge of the law and prove me wrong, show me where in law a model release is defined.

I'm at a complete loss at to why you have such a problem accepting this, or why you want to make a big issue over it, it's no big deal really 'model release' is just a generic term used for the form.

As for this: "Similarly, when I shoot an assignment for a magazine or advertiser, I am not an employee nor do I sell my photography to them.  I license the use of my photographic product, usually for a fixed period of time and specified usage."
Why did you bring that up in the discussion over a model release?  Interesting though that even then you don't know what you're doing.

Out of interest I notice your username is new here and you've only made two posts on this subject, you wouldn't happen to be someone already registered here who's trying to pretend to be another person would you, I only ask because you've the same characteristics i.e. lack of knowledge and eagerness to make everyone think you're an experienced photographer despite your own trip ups. I wonder who you could be

Let me know when you've found that law.