Author Topic: Model release for people shoot from the back?! LOL! (Read 9033 times)

Peter · « **on:** March 18, 2008, 10:10 »

I got rejceted those:

Reason:
The main subject of the image is a person, a model release is required even if the face is not visible.

does not make any sense... I can write my own MR, and claim it is me on the photo, can you prove it? Of course not. nonsense...

Seren · « **Reply #1 on:** March 18, 2008, 11:21 »

The person in the photo could identify themselves. Therefore a model release needed. If you have pictures with people in that you do not have a model release for, you should sell them rights managed, not for advertising use.

Peter · « **Reply #2 on:** March 18, 2008, 11:46 »

I dont think it is possible to recognize people from the back.

how come other agencies do not ask for mr, just DT?

Karimala · « **Reply #3 on:** March 18, 2008, 12:45 »

IS asks for them now, and more than likely all the other sites will follow suit in the future. At Alamy, photos like these can only be sold as Rights Managed.

madelaide · « **Reply #4 on:** March 18, 2008, 18:21 »

You may not recognize the person, but if the person recognizes himself, he can make a claim. So I was told many times.

I have mentioned here before the woman who sued a bank for a photo of her at the beach, shot from the back, used in their advertisement. She possible became the best-paid butt in Brazil...

And Chode, you can forge any model release, that doesn't make it legal.

Regards,
Adelaide

Phil · « **Reply #5 on:** March 18, 2008, 19:50 »

StockXpert also require mr for any person shot.

I saw a couple of years ago, where someone went and tried to claim and 50 pics of mouths, hands etc was theirs. they didn't have any luck though.

it comes down to if I say that is a photo of me on that roof, can you prove that it isn't?

madelaide · « **Reply #6 on:** March 19, 2008, 11:24 »

Quote from: clearviewstock on March 18, 2008, 19:50

it comes down to if I say that is a photo of me on that roof, can you prove that it isn't?

I can't. But the person in the photo may, as he probably had that specific clothes, shoes and makes a living being on roofs.

It's not the agency that needs the release, it's a guarantee for the final user that nobody will hit on his door claiming they're using his image.

Regards,
Adelaide

fotografer · « **Reply #7 on:** March 19, 2008, 11:35 »

Quote from: madelaide on March 19, 2008, 11:24

I can't. But the person in the photo may, as he probably had that specific clothes, shoes and makes a living being on roofs.

He would be especially annoyed if it ended up being used by a rival company.

stokfoto · « **Reply #8 on:** March 19, 2008, 13:20 »

had it been 2-3 years ago I would have been surprised over this rejection.but now I know they are more strict on this issues and I must say I agree with their point.to my point of view by rejecting such photos they in a way protect us too from getting involve with some sort of legal infringements.No offense intended.I think as suggested above it is best selling them as RM -editorial

null · « **Reply #9 on:** March 20, 2008, 04:50 »

Quote from: Chode on March 18, 2008, 10:10

Can you prove it? Of course not. nonsense...

Of course I can. It's my uncle Gene and his partner. I can tell very well from their back. I know they were in plumbing, I'm just surprised they are in roofing now. And his brother, uncle Jeff, is a lawyer and he would love some easy money

The point is, can you prove it"s not my uncle Gene if uncle Jeff drags you to court?

basti · « **Reply #10 on:** March 20, 2008, 07:47 »

You dont need to prove it isnt him - HE needs to prove its HIM! And he cant! Thats it. Anyway I got refusal with just sihouttes of persons far in landscape - I dont think they even could recognize themselves! I stay away from shooting models for microstock and thats it for me.
One refusal of 600 years old building because of property release was also LOL. I wonder how I could ask Mr. Matyas from Arras to sign property release when hes dead couple centuries... And I dont agree with signing it by current owner (state) - at first they are not the copyright holder and it was shot from public place and second they will never agree to that just because they dont have any office for such purpose so nobody could sign it!

Dr Bouz · « **Reply #11 on:** March 20, 2008, 15:00 »

if person can identify themselves - photo requires a release, and that's o.k.
but one of the best stupidities on dt is that i had a nude body parts rejected with asking me to upload release, and a copy of some kind of ID (passport on example - that's nice too- flat scans of us currency are not allowed (which is o.k.), and flat scans of some person's passport are asked to send over internet .
i think that i asked support "whose release, and passport do i need? - i do not remember which was the answer.

another one nice stupidity - recently i had image rejected with "this image do not need release" - but i have to say that i could easily identify person on the photo. - for this i am sure i had no reply from support. (i pointed on that issue with "i can't believe that you rejected ...(that) image with that rejection reason.
but.. life goes on..

snurder · « **Reply #12 on:** March 20, 2008, 16:58 »

All of the agencies are tightening up. I noticed the change at IS just about in tandem with when Getty got involved. The rest are beginning to follow suit in drips and drabs.