congrats everyone!:)

This is my image from iStockphoto in June's Good Housekeeping:

It isn't enough to have a player model release Diane.  Even with the logos removed, that player is identified with the school he is playing for.  Once you have the model release, you have the player's name.  Once you have the player's name, it is pretty obvious which school he is representing, even if the logo was Photoshopped out.  

If that image runs in a commercial campaign and the school sees it, there is no way they will not put up a fight.   The school itself is being used in any commercial campaign this image is used in.  And I seriously doubt ANYONE would have a release from a university to sell its imagery in RF.  I can just imagine Notre Dame smiling at one of its football players being used in a commercial campaign just because a model release was used.

I don't have to say anything Diane.  There is very little in the way of true sports imagery on iStock, but almost all of it comes from Exclusive members.  Maybe you would prefer to explain why that is?  And then explain why you would crop off someone's head if you had a model release?

   First of all, I do not speak for IStock, and I do not work for them (other than being an exclusive contributor) so I can't "explain" anything. I'm an observer just as you are.

  I did a quick search of "football player" . MOST of the shots of players are unidentifiable, and some were non-exclusives.

My point here is that I don't see a conspiracy by iStock to dismiss the model release requirement for exclusive members. I know this by personal experience, not just from the perfunctory search I just did.

I am not saying that iStock doesn't have some problems implementing their policies (especially the copyright and "not suitable as stock" rejections) evenly across the board...they do. They are bound to with the inspection system that is in place. I do think it's wrong-headed to assume it's an exclusive/non-exclusive issue.

I cannot tell you how many times I have submitted NCAA football photos to iStock, with the players face hidden from camera and the logos removed, and gotten the "sorry, player identifiable" rejection.

But they accepted this one from an exclusive photographer:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/object/4260212_running_back.php?id=4260212

You cannot tell me that player is not identifiable.  For goodness sake, his face is in the picture!  This is a lawsuit waiting to happen, and with 700 DL's already, it is just a matter of time.  Great picture, awesome shot.  Crisp, clean, great story.  But it is editorial only until that face is removed.

I am in the process of writing a PC based football game and was considering purchasing this picture for a game screen.  But I knew I was asking for a lawsuit if I did.  If I do end up making a EL purchase this year, it will probably be one of Rinder's excellent photos.

Seriously, the reviewer who let this one by should have to explain himself/herself. 

Perhaps they have a model release for that shot? I'm not sure but it looks like a high school or college player so it's very possible that a release was signed.

I do know from personal experience that ANYTHING NFL related is summarily rejected on iStock, whether their faces are showing or not. I had an image of an NFL official taken from the back rejected because of the type of shoes he was wearing...evidently only pro officials wear them.