MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Model release needed for non recognizable person  (Read 4093 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 04, 2007, 05:44 »
0
I have two pics rejected for showing people from their back, it is normal in StockXpert?

This is one of them:

http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/5144308

Model release was needed nowhere except in StockXpert  ???


« Reply #1 on: November 04, 2007, 10:28 »
0
Yep..... They even have a sticky posted about it in their general Forum.   :)

« Reply #2 on: November 04, 2007, 10:47 »
0
Well think of it this way, if that was you in that picture, you would be able to recognize yourself wouldn't you? I know I would be able to.

« Reply #3 on: November 04, 2007, 13:21 »
0
I told before of a famous law case in Brazil, a photo of people at the beach used in a bank advertisement, and there was this lady whose back (better say, whose buttocks!) appeared very clearly in the photo.  Not only she won the case, but her famous side earned her a lot more money.

Regards,
Adelaide

digiology

« Reply #4 on: November 04, 2007, 14:24 »
0
That person could be anybody.  I think it is a little silly, especially since they accepted this without a model release:

http://stockxpert.com/browse.phtml?f=view&id=5190901

SS & IS accepted it also. (I think DT wanted a release)

I have been shown pictures of me (taken by friends) and I didn't even recognize myself - face on!  ;D

« Reply #5 on: November 04, 2007, 16:28 »
0
Steve-Oh responded to a similar question in another thread.  BTW, I think they are being more strict with property as well.

Hi JC-SL (and others),

Yes. Just because a person's face is not visible does not mean they are not identifiable. As microstock matures and becomes more prevalent in mainstream usage, we are going to be a bit more strict when it comes to model releases.

Even though faces weren't visible in many of your shots, runners still had numbers on them, and there were other contextual visual clues that could easily make a person identifiable.

Thanks!
-Steve

« Reply #6 on: November 04, 2007, 16:30 »
0
That person could be anybody.  I think it is a little silly, especially since they accepted this without a model release:

http://stockxpert.com/browse.phtml?f=view&id=5190901

SS & IS accepted it also. (I think DT wanted a release)



Yeah, dreamstime has stopped accepting pictures of people from the back without a release.

« Reply #7 on: November 04, 2007, 16:47 »
0
I once sent one with two silhouetted people and they say they were identifiable. 

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #8 on: November 05, 2007, 03:06 »
0
I wonder if it's because they're sick of receiving pictures of people from the back.

Let's be honest ... for most of us it's the easy way out. We could grab candids and submit them without the hassle of a release.

But for the agencies ... they're having to wade through 10 pictures of people from the back to every one from the front.

« Reply #9 on: November 05, 2007, 12:14 »
0
Yup I had that on SX too... same story - accepted everywhere else (and is quite a good seller). I understand why they want to be on a safe side - like "hmm I don't know if this identifiable or not, who knows, but to avoid even remote possibility for the lawsuit it's better to reject it... we have lots of other stuff to sell". With current practices especially in US where all this ridiculous lawsuits are happening all the time I'd probably do the same if I was the owner of the agency.
Not that I don't think it's a ridiculous nonsense. Next they will require releases for the clothes that models are wearing from the manufacturer. I mean, the pattern on the sweater or the hat can be identifiable right?:) Hmm, shouldn't have said that, don't want to give them ideas...:)
About street shots being "easy way" - can't agree. For the shot that I am talking about, had to spend an hour on the corner of the street waiting for the right light and right people to show up (let's post LO again cause I like Bryan:)):
http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/4940814/business_people
This image has unmistakable "street feeling', something you can't really recreate with models. Not this kind of dynamics.

Now, can you even tell which city this was taken in? Now or 10 years ago? Can you really say for sure if it was you - yes this is me without a doubt?
I don't think so... But like I said before they are just being too cautious. Why not accept them as editorials tho?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2587 Views
Last post December 21, 2007, 16:49
by yingyang0
17 Replies
8119 Views
Last post August 17, 2010, 10:48
by Anyka
1 Replies
1741 Views
Last post July 01, 2017, 21:33
by Mantis
3 Replies
2470 Views
Last post September 18, 2017, 20:01
by namussi
12 Replies
2319 Views
Last post November 09, 2018, 02:56
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results