it's hard to say without seeing your release.  Can you post a shot of your release without any of the personal details filled in.

Release for male model

Also, is the witness a different person than the model and the photographer?

I think you need to attach a photo of the model as visual reference so they can cross-check with the photo.

not really, that is for nude shooting etc. and i never used ref photos for normal shooting and never was problem

Hmm not sure, only the date signed by photographer and model/witness is different by a month, but that shouldn't matter either as long as the date for witness and model is the same. You can always try to resubmit, it could be a drunk reviewer 

SS wants them all the same.  You can try and explain the witness is witnessing the model, but they don�t care.

Quote from: Not Today on April 08, 2019, 08:21

Hmm not sure, only the date signed by photographer and model/witness is different by a month, but that shouldn't matter either as long as the date for witness and model is the same. You can always try to resubmit, it could be a drunk reviewer 

SS wants them all the same.  You can try and explain the witness is witnessing the model, but they don�t care.

When others started having problems, I made sure all three dates match. I know what you are saying, it's a witness for the model but SS apparently doesn't tell reviewers that. Anyway, all my releases now have all three dates identical.

I also include the printed name for each, not just a signature, just to be ahead of the requirements or mysterious rejections that don't tell us WHY?

Heck some of the old releases used to have one date for the whole release and a bunch of signatures and they got accepted. Adding a date or correcting information is not fraud. Faking a witness would be, but making the dates match would just be adjusting for new standards and requirements.

Old releases that were acceptable five years ago, should still be accepted for the same shoot and model. You don't make something illegal after the fact and back date rulings. That's what SS has done. I know it's their game and their rules, but in legal terms, ex post facto changes can't apply to events in the past.

Arguing with the agencies is useless, so is complaining, because they make the rules and change them and we have no say or opening to appeal or reason with them. Talk about arbitrary!