Author Topic: Shutterstock no longer accepting shutterstock model release? (Read 9272 times)

txking · « **on:** November 18, 2019, 22:47 »

So I just submitted a batch of images that included a bunch of self shot images. Every single one of them get denied with the reason of invalid model release. Ok cool, I figured reviewer was just having a dumb moment, maybe the automated system had a electrical fart, maybe I didn't fill something out. Well first time that was the case. I missed something on the release and I'll take credit for that one. Fixed it resubmitted and... WAM same rejection.

what? double check everything and this time it's all filled out. so I email [email protected]

Here is the explanation I got as to why the image was rejected.

Quote

I have reviewed your recent submission which got rejected under "Invalid Model Release" as we do not accept release in this format. We only accept release forms from the following agencies:
123rf
Alamy
American Society of Media Photographers
Bigstock
Corbis
Dreamstime
Easy Release (default release)
Fotolia
Getty
iStockphoto

Shutterstocks accepts foreign language releases only from:
Shutterstock
Easy Release
Getty Images
iStockphoto
Adobe
Shutterstock's blank release forms are available through our Legal Center. You can attach the new release and resubmit the content for review.

If you have any other concerns, please feel free to contact us anytime.

Thanks,
Mansa
Shutterstock Contributor Care Team

This is where I'm really confused though. attached is a copy of the release I sent them. Am I missing something here? Are they reading the rules to the letter and shutterstock releases are only mentioned under foreign releases that this is no longer valid lol. Did the support staff just not even look at the release and just flipped an answer at me?

Do you guys have any idea?

Visualab · « **Reply #1 on:** November 19, 2019, 03:52 »

Quote from: txking on November 18, 2019, 22:47

So I just submitted a batch of images that included a bunch of self shot images. Every single one of them get denied with the reason of invalid model release. Ok cool, I figured reviewer was just having a dumb moment, maybe the automated system had a electrical fart, maybe I didn't fill something out. Well first time that was the case. I missed something on the release and I'll take credit for that one. Fixed it resubmitted and... WAM same rejection.

what? double check everything and this time it's all filled out. so I email [email protected]

Here is the explanation I got as to why the image was rejected.

Quote
I have reviewed your recent submission which got rejected under "Invalid Model Release" as we do not accept release in this format. We only accept release forms from the following agencies:
123rf
Alamy
American Society of Media Photographers
Bigstock
Corbis
Dreamstime
Easy Release (default release)
Fotolia
Getty
iStockphoto

Shutterstocks accepts foreign language releases only from:
Shutterstock
Easy Release
Getty Images
iStockphoto
Adobe
Shutterstock's blank release forms are available through our Legal Center. You can attach the new release and resubmit the content for review.

If you have any other concerns, please feel free to contact us anytime.

Thanks,
Mansa
Shutterstock Contributor Care Team

This is where I'm really confused though. attached is a copy of the release I sent them. Am I missing something here? Are they reading the rules to the letter and shutterstock releases are only mentioned under foreign releases that this is no longer valid lol. Did the support staff just not even look at the release and just flipped an answer at me?

Do you guys have any idea?

They didn't even look at your release,simply copy and paste an answer...unfortunately it's how works curation at shutterstock nowdays..
The only thing you can do is resubmit untill it gets accepted...

Pauws99 · « **Reply #2 on:** November 19, 2019, 04:15 »

You'd think it would be simple to provide a simple tick box to tell contributors which tiny inconsistency they may have spotted in model releases. They would rather keep us guessing and catch us out I guess.

kuriouskat · « **Reply #3 on:** November 19, 2019, 04:53 »

As you've redacted almost everything, it's hard to tell if there may be errors, but you certainly can't have a shoot date listed as 'Ongoing'.

As per Shutterstock's instructions:

Only Gregorian calendar dates can be used (i.e. 15 March 2015)
Date ranges (e.g. 15-20 March 2017) are acceptable for the shoot date only
Dates cannot be listed as “various” or “in perpetuity” or other similar phrases

Strange that they indicated the rejection was due to the format rather than the content.

PedroToledo · « **Reply #4 on:** November 19, 2019, 05:20 »

Yesterday I had one rejected to: "Model release not valid", I checked it and it was OK, so I submited it again and was accepted. Random behavior of curators one more time.

m · « **Reply #5 on:** November 19, 2019, 15:07 »

The model signing date and witness signing date probably don't match or those dates have been altered.

txking · « **Reply #6 on:** November 19, 2019, 17:16 »

Can confirm they do match and that they are not altered. Guess I did not need to redact that.

As far as using ongoing, various, or something like that I've never seen as an issue for self releases. Even iStock the company started the one release.for everyday is ok with using that as long as it is for a self release.

kuriouskat · « **Reply #7 on:** November 20, 2019, 10:18 »

Quote from: txking on November 19, 2019, 17:16

Can confirm they do match and that they are not altered. Guess I did not need to redact that.

As far as using ongoing, various, or something like that I've never seen as an issue for self releases. Even iStock the company started the one release.for everyday is ok with using that as long as it is for a self release.

Their requirements tightened up quite recently, I believe, and they state that phrases such as 'ongoing' are not acceptable.

helloitsme · « **Reply #8 on:** November 22, 2019, 09:26 »

The same thing happened to me to recently. They are stupid AF. Sick of them.

trabuco · « **Reply #9 on:** November 22, 2019, 15:34 »

I think that a program can't read the pdf files handwritten. It's the easy answer to that bizarre rejection.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #10 on:** November 22, 2019, 16:05 »

Quote from: trabuco on November 22, 2019, 15:34

I think that a program can't read the pdf files handwritten. It's the easy answer to that bizarre rejection.

This is an amusing thread and subject. Hey why would some program have to read the handwriting, it's a human...

I've had a rejection on IS for release being too small and unreadable. They can see an image and flaws like a gnats nose, but can't read a release because they would have to zoom in? SS could have the same problems, when a reviewer (note that) doesn't really want to try, because of a poor scan, some minor flaws in the image, or hand written dates, which are perfectly correct, but the reviewer is too busy to take the time, so they just reject.

It's a but much for reviewers to start rejecting for penmanship, quality, tiny flaws, or something other than what's in the release.

Best laugh actually is SS rejecting SS releases.

My suggestion, and you can correct a release, as long as those changes are not fraud. Always keep the original on file and only alter the digital version, used to submit. That's protection should anything ever hit the fan. But say you have a release from 2010 where everything is legitimate, but the dates are illegible or don't match, or maybe the full name of someone isn't there, instead they used a nick name or Initial and name, for example.

Complete and correct the information I think everyone here knows how to use an editor, clone or erase and add text?

Otherwise, the answer is, give up and stop sending in old releases for images and only upload new. In which case, make all data except signatures, text, not hand writing.

rinderart · « **Reply #11 on:** November 26, 2019, 22:52 »

Do you see the Box On the right.?? thats where the Image your submitting goes> Hope that Helps. BUT... every site Now compared to every site when I Started 14 Years ago Is really........REALLY So amateur I can't even Believe it. Maybe the reason Not Many except newbies continue with this.So Sad when you Look Back.........Really.2005/2006 was a lot of fun. it really was.

I would re-evaluate your Hobby. I had 14 sites at the time. I have 3 Now.

Anyka · « **Reply #12 on:** November 27, 2019, 04:07 »

Same problem here with submissions of 20 images of the same photo session and model, 10 rejected for some mysterious MR problem, and the rest accepted ... SIGH !!!

I read that many just re-submit. How do you do that? Do you just submit all over again, or do you indicate it is a re-submitted image? Which has the least risk of rejection ?

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #13 on:** November 28, 2019, 18:24 »

Quote from: rinderart on November 26, 2019, 22:52

Do you see the Box On the right.?? thats where the Image your submitting goes> Hope that Helps. BUT... every site Now compared to every site when I Started 14 Years ago Is really........REALLY So amateur I can't even Believe it. Maybe the reason Not Many except newbies continue with this.So Sad when you Look Back.........Really.2005/2006 was a lot of fun. it really was.

I would re-evaluate your Hobby. I had 14 sites at the time. I have 3 Now.

You would be rejected for similars now. https://tinyurl.com/rbxxg6q

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/rinder99?searchterm=beautiful+tomato+isolated+slice&search_source=base_gallery&language=en&sort=popular&measurement=px&safe=true

Reckless · « **Reply #14 on:** November 30, 2019, 14:44 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on November 28, 2019, 18:24

Quote from: rinderart on November 26, 2019, 22:52
Do you see the Box On the right.?? thats where the Image your submitting goes> Hope that Helps. BUT... every site Now compared to every site when I Started 14 Years ago Is really........REALLY So amateur I can't even Believe it. Maybe the reason Not Many except newbies continue with this.So Sad when you Look Back.........Really.2005/2006 was a lot of fun. it really was.

I would re-evaluate your Hobby. I had 14 sites at the time. I have 3 Now.
You would be rejected for similars now. https://tinyurl.com/rbxxg6q

Just so I can keep my terminology right... Are you a stalker or a troll?

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/rinder99?searchterm=beautiful+tomato+isolated+slice&search_source=base_gallery&language=en&sort=popular&measurement=px&safe=true

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock no longer accepting shutterstock model release? (Read 9272 times)

txking

Visualab

Pauws99

kuriouskat

PedroToledo

m

txking

kuriouskat

helloitsme

trabuco

Uncle Pete

rinderart

Anyka

YadaYadaYada

Reckless

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors