It is disappointing to see how many of you were so quick to judge the image in particular and glamour images in general. There are numerous usages for glamour images that would not violate SS's TOS. Sad to see so many of you have such a limited vision of what a lingerie (a fairly tame one at that) is only good for an escort ad.

It seems to me that the real point of this issue is a photographer using standard and accepted business practices without any subterfuge or malice is facing a federal lawsuit that he will have to submit a REAL defense for. It seems very clear to me that the photographer was acting in the same manner that many of us here do when shooting models for stock. We should not get bogged down in the content and jump to this photographer's defense. The provocative nature of the photo in question, in my opinion, is not relevant. Images twice as revealing are available on micro stock and at the same time images that are half as revealing are pirated for the same purposes complained about here.

Unfortunately I have fielded calls from models upset upon finding one of their photos in print. The case that is most clear in my mind was from a plus-sized model who was featured in a full-page ad for a diet pill. She was actually not complaining about the association with the product. Her (not-so-professional) agent got her thinking that it was a multi-thousand $$ model fee missed where upon I emailed her back a copy of the plain language iStock model release not only she signed but her sister witnessed.

The acknowledgement of the signed model release SHOULD have ended this suit. It is unfortunate that the NY Post and UK Daily Mail have gotten ahold of this story and presented it in the most salacious manner possible. I do hope that the photographer has taken good council from a qualified IP attorney and possibly even filed a counter-suit. I further hope he prevails because it will benefit us all. What would be amazing would be to have Shutterstock stand up strongly behind the photographer and defend this frivolous lawsuit.

I've pretty much switched all my releases to EasyRelease. There are a lot of reasons, but chasing papers once I'm back from a shoot is frankly a drag. However, microstock is by far NOT the only reason I am shooting. I felt as though I needed to modify the language of the EasyRelease by one sentence to also include adult content for magazine submission--I make a lot more from this than I do from Microstock. IStock is insisting on unmodified releases. I'm not even sure they are reading for the difference--in my case a one sentence addition of usage. It wouldn't even effect IStock usage a bit yet I just got a batch rejection.

Sorry but I'm not going to take the time to have the model fill out two forms of release just for IStock. I had no problems with SS or DT. IStock just doesn't produce enough revenue for me to change my work flow. Just another reason for me to care less about playing in IStock's playground in addition to taking about 3x longer to make each individual image submission. I foresee me just tapering off of IStock and eventually just deactivating my entire portfolio.

Has something dramatically changed at Dreamstime? I am accustomed to 50-60 hour review estimates when I upload, but I did a batch yesterday with an estimated review time of 12 hrs and they are already under review. Did they just get a lot faster or is nobody uploading to them anymore?

When I started with iStock a few months ago it was quite difficult to get photos accepted.
...
My conclusion is that now iStock accepts everything and anything ...
This is not good news I think

Is it only my impression or other forum's users feel the same?

At a little over 3 years (and roughly 750 each of uploads and downloads), I still consider myself newbie to microstock. I'm scratching my head to figure out how/why you are drawing any kind of conclusions based on a few months of experience.

It was explained way back when they tightened the MR requirements that it was to protect a model who perhaps had done one shoot with a tog for stock and signed a release for that, then another more 'intimate' shoot for some other purpose, the model not intending them to be used as stock, but these 'intimate' pics were also used as stock, as the tog already had a blanket release.
@Dan, it seems like if you had less specific releases accepted, you've had a very 'lenient' inspector.

I certainly understood that was the accusation made by the rejection. The thing is that I use the Getty form model release. There isn't a line on it for model to indicate the model is agreeing to the content other than the entire model release ITSELF. I haven't looked at the iStock release lately, but I don't think it has a line for that either. Furthermore, it's not like one or two images have 'slipped past' lenient inspectors in the past. I'm talking about possibly 200 images over dozens of submissions--all of which have been accepted by other agencies. Plus, I have been shooting this kind of content and similar for magazines for the past 10 years without this issue coming up once.

I just find the inconsistency frustrating.

OMG...I just got another rejection with the following message:

"The model releases must state that nude or semi-nude shots were agreed upon++"

I'm calling crap on this. I have never heard of this policy. That addition of language would not make the release MORE LEGAL. I re-read the information about model releases on the iStock sight and do not find anything indicating that. Other shots of same model/same scene/same wardrobe were approved by other reviewers. I've shot similar content for numerous magazines and this issue has NEVER come up. The model is aware of what he/she is shooting and knowingly signed the release and provided proof of age.

More and more, iStock rejections are amusing distractions. Or maybe it shows the lack of experience/skill of new inspectors they have hired since new upload limits.

Interesting that they seem to be featuring Maura McEvoy. She was an interior stylist when I was a photo assistant long ago. She seems to have made the transition nicely.

OMG yes. I've been hit with 10 in the last 3 weeks. Suspiciously all images are within the same genre: glamour shots of Asian models. I don't think it takes a genius to figure out that this is the same buyer. I opened a support case and got this reply: "Please note that due to the high volume of daily transactions, we will be unable to provide additional clarification on the refund performed."

I had a string of 6 rejections from a shoot submission of 70 for the following reason.

"- Your MR document is governed by the laws of a different country than the model's or photographer's and other than US. The model release represents a written agreement between the model and the photographer, therefore it must be governed by the laws of the country/state where one of the parties resides. Alternatively it can be governed by US laws or international (generic, not country related)."

That would mean there would always be a problem with a photographer traveling to shoot in any country other than his own (except of course traveling to the US according to them). Wouldn't that rule also apply to international models shooting in the US?

Funny how the other 64 were accepted.

Recent photos disappeared from Content Overview window, but I did not receive an acceptance or rejection email and the images did not show up in my Image Gallery. I've had rejections before, but they have always been accompanied by email, as have acceptances. Is there something up with the review system?

Still waiting on some 9/11 WTC images to get thru queue uploaded last weekend in anticipation of the anniversary.  They are already up and selling at SS even though I uploaded a day later.

I can't get the Image Gallery Stats to work.  Getting that working again would be as much or more helpful than the Keyword Trends.