MicrostockGroup

Agency Based Discussion => Sites that no longer exist => StockXpert.com => Topic started by: vividpixels on January 04, 2008, 15:22

Title: Steve-oh
Post by: vividpixels on January 04, 2008, 15:22
Hi Steve,

Knowing that you are kind enough to interact in these forums, I thought I'd post here because I've sent 2 notes to support over the past month with no response. I've had a number of baby images rejected for the following reason: "Signing guardian cannot be the photographer"   I've been submitting photos for over two years now to multiple sites and not one has ever given me that reason for a rejection of a baby image. My releases are signed by me for my kids and I also am the photographer. Why is that an issue with Stockxpert?

Images in question are the baby images in the briefcase #073636.


Thanks!
Title: Re: Steve-oh
Post by: fotografer on January 04, 2008, 15:30
I always sign as photographer and parent on my children's model releases and have never had a rejection for it at stockxpert or anywhere else.  I'd guess that it is a mistake by a new reviewer
Title: Re: Steve-oh
Post by: steve-oh on January 04, 2008, 15:43
Sorry no one replied to you about this. I think they were waiting for a definitive answer. In fact, I know our legal team is reviewing the policy of photographers signing as legal guardians.

I'll let you know what the outcome is.

In the meantime, don't delete the photos. We can always put them back in the queue and re-review( ???).

Thanks!
-Steve
Title: Re: Steve-oh
Post by: fotografer on January 04, 2008, 15:58
If they decide that the photographer can't sign as legal guardian that would be ridiculous it would mean that if a photographer is their child's only legal guardian they would no longer be able to use their own child as a model.
Title: Re: Steve-oh
Post by: madelaide on January 04, 2008, 16:52
I'm curious about something.

Let's suppose the father of a child wants to use him as a model, but the mother doesn't want it.  I believe the right thing (ethical, at least) would be having both signing the release?

Regards,
Adelaide
Title: Re: Steve-oh
Post by: ale1969 on January 04, 2008, 17:05
I'm curious about something.

Let's suppose the father of a child wants to use him as a model, but the mother doesn't want it.  I believe the right thing (ethical, at least) would be having both signing the release?

Regards,
Adelaide

Ethical things are a principles, legal principles are another.
For italian law a person of minor age is represented by one of his parents for ordinary legal actions and by both of them for extraordinary actions.

For example to sell something owned by the child you need both his parents as every other act that can decrease the child's estate.
I guess that rights on his own image can be assimilated to a property so I guess for the italian law you need both the parents to sign the release.
Title: Re: Steve-oh
Post by: vividpixels on January 04, 2008, 17:21
Thanks Steve for the quick response... I'm not happy with the response but I guess I'll wait and see. BTW, who is supposed to sign a minor's release, if not the parent?
Title: Re: Steve-oh
Post by: steve-oh on January 05, 2008, 10:11
Ok. I've just been told it's cool for a photographer to sign as a legal guardian (provided he or she is the legal guardian  ;D).

Vivid, I'll request your images be put back in the queue.

Thanks!
-Steve
Title: Re: Steve-oh
Post by: fotografer on January 05, 2008, 12:58
Wise decision, anything else wouldn't have made sense. :)
Title: Re: Steve-oh
Post by: madelaide on January 05, 2008, 13:09
I guess that rights on his own image can be assimilated to a property so I guess for the italian law you need both the parents to sign the release.

I imagine it would be the same in the Brazilian law, so photographers have to see what is legal in their country, not it the stock site's country, right?

I know here minors can travel with the consent with one parent only (what, if you think of some disastrous marriages leading into disputes over the kids, is a very risky thing - I guess lawmakers consider it an extraordinary rare situation).

Regards,
Adelaide