Author Topic: Istock changes model release policy??? (Read 31563 times)

Anyka · « **on:** January 07, 2009, 15:44 »

Like most of you, I work with a model release that suits every microstock site. After a few adjustments, it seems it is good enough for every site and I have used it for 1,5 years without problems, including Istockphoto.
This week however, I had 16 images inspected, and 5 contained people. Istock rejected all 5 because of "MR not compatible with Istock policy". No reason given, so I don't know what would be missing suddenly. (and FYI : each MR was for a different model, of a different shoot).
Among those 5 were 3 model releases they had already accepted several times before.
I am not going to contact the models to sign the Istock model release, so what should I do?

Does any one know what detail in a standard MR they are looking for at the moment?
At least I 'd know what's wrong with it all of a sudden!

e-person · « **Reply #1 on:** January 07, 2009, 15:52 »

Getty has a new model release form.

lisafx · « **Reply #2 on:** January 07, 2009, 15:55 »

I have had the same thing happen a few times recently. In my case they rejected the releases because there was no photographer signature, even though these are the same releases I have been using for 4 years that never required a photographers signature.

A call to support confirmed that if you are using your own release with photographer's name and contact info preprinted on it, then photographer's signature is still not required. All my rejections for release were overturned and accepted.

Apparently there are some new reviewers who don't understand istock's model release policy and just reject by default if there is no photog signature.

For my future releases I am signing just to avoid this.

Anyka · « **Reply #3 on:** January 07, 2009, 16:14 »

Well, mine are all signed by me (and preprinted too), but I suppose you're right that this might be an error of a newbie inspector : all 5 rejections arrived within 10 minutes, so they could come from the same person.
OK, I'll send Scout a contact ticket, but not for the Valentine photos : these 2nd inspections take so long that 14th February will be over by the time they are approved

fljac · « **Reply #4 on:** January 07, 2009, 17:42 »

I have downloaded and modified the form used by Your Arcurs. I don't suppose that Istock rejects his images based on that form? He's form clearly states: " Model release form for all agencies"

So I thought that if it's good enought and valid forhim, then surely it must be for me as well

Everybody can download it in word format from his homepage.

grp_photo · « **Reply #5 on:** January 07, 2009, 18:06 »

Quote from: e-person on January 07, 2009, 15:52

Getty has a new model release form.

where do i get the new model release form? On gettys website is still the old one i'm already using for years. Though i'm not a getty contributor i'm using this release for all my macro work. The one i'm using is here http://contributors.gettyimages.com/article.asp?article_id=1767

e-person · « **Reply #6 on:** January 07, 2009, 19:12 »

Quote from: grp_photo on January 07, 2009, 18:06

Quote from: e-person on January 07, 2009, 15:52
Getty has a new model release form.

where do i get the new model release form? On gettys website is still the old one i'm already using for years. Though i'm not a getty contributor i'm using this release for all my macro work. The one i'm using is here http://contributors.gettyimages.com/article.asp?article_id=1767

Sorry, I don't know where you can find the new ones. I suppose SJLocke knows, he's with Getty. I am not. In fact I am with none other than Alamy. I am not that organized, yet.

shank_ali · « **Reply #7 on:** January 08, 2009, 02:26 »

The standard istockphoto model release form is very straight forward IMO.
I did have one rejection and that was because the inspector wanted the full witness name not just the signature even though the form does not specify "full name" on the witness section.
I always carry several model release forms in my kit bag.

Phil · « **Reply #8 on:** January 08, 2009, 03:53 »

I had 2 images rejected in dec for same reason, resubmitted and got through ok.

RT · « **Reply #9 on:** January 08, 2009, 04:27 »

Quote from: e-person on January 07, 2009, 19:12

Quote from: grp_photo on January 07, 2009, 18:06
Quote from: e-person on January 07, 2009, 15:52
Getty has a new model release form.

where do i get the new model release form? On gettys website is still the old one i'm already using for years. Though i'm not a getty contributor i'm using this release for all my macro work. The one i'm using is here http://contributors.gettyimages.com/article.asp?article_id=1767

Sorry, I don't know where you can find the new ones. I suppose SJLocke knows, he's with Getty. I am not. In fact I am with none other than Alamy. I am not that organized, yet.

It's via the contributor section, if you PM me your email address I'll send you the release which is a PDF.

Or in case Leaf missed this the first time round is there a way to attach a PDF here?
http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=6611.0

e-person · « **Reply #10 on:** January 08, 2009, 04:33 »

Thank you Richard, it was not me asking for it, though. I was just replying.

I use Italian language version (I am in Italy), do not want to give you any troubles. don't worry about me, I am OK with the old ones. Thank you anyway.

Imagecom · « **Reply #11 on:** January 08, 2009, 04:39 »

Hi,
Same here
I got forms (model & property) written by lawyer - and still doesn't work for Istock.
But after all that is there rule.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #12 on:** January 08, 2009, 06:19 »

Fill in MR from IS with your data and copy/paste models signature from your regular MR to new one

I'm kidding, I know It's illegal, but I remember one guy told me that he did it....
Not everybody is so honest like you Anyka

cybernesco · « **Reply #13 on:** January 08, 2009, 08:27 »

Hi everybody,

The following link is a model release in a pdf file I created based on iStock format which has been working for me for the last year until yesterday for all agencies:

http://ca.geocities.com/[email protected]/model_release.pdf

It is very similar to theirs:

http://www.istockphoto.com/docs/modelrelease.pdf

It should work as it works for me. Denis

Anyka · « **Reply #14 on:** January 08, 2009, 12:04 »

Even if I could go back to last year's models and present the Istock Model Release to them : I simply do not want to do that. Suppose all agencies would be so fussy, should we take 6 different releases and ask every model to sign it? No way.
Before contacting Scout, I'll resubmit and see if I am lucky enough to get a different reviewer.

Anyka · « **Reply #15 on:** January 09, 2009, 13:13 »

Good news : all 5 refused photos got through after being resubmitted. So if any one of you gets a refusal for bad MR, just try again and keep your fingers crossed that you'll get another reviewer!

shank_ali · « **Reply #16 on:** January 12, 2009, 15:11 »

Quote from: Anyka on January 09, 2009, 13:13

Good news : all 5 refused photos got through after being resubmitted. So if any one of you gets a refusal for bad MR, just try again and keep your fingers crossed that you'll get another reviewer!

I had two images this weekend that got inspected one asking for a MR ( i uploaded one) and the other asking for a clearer MR.The thing that annoys me is i have used this model recently and had no problems with the same MR i uploade with these two images..They view our files on calibrated monitors at 100% is it to much to ask the inspectors to magnify the MR and look at an obvious model release form,phone number,signature and witness/photographer's signature and details.

Dr Bouz · « **Reply #17 on:** February 02, 2009, 16:33 »

i have had rejected a photo of a professional model with MR form filled up with agency's booker - with the agency's adress - the only thing where you can find this model for modeling purpose on the planet earth.
after a several mails and telephone calls - i just gave up the file. of course - they are not right - morally and legally, but one image less in my portfolio is saving more my nerves, than 'fighting for justice.

*imagine this option:
on photo shooting on exampe.. for l'oreal - if photographer asked a models "excuse me young misses - may i have your home adress, and not agency's in your contract/mr. excuse me miss penelope cruz are you sure this is your home adress?" ...

lisafx · « **Reply #18 on:** February 02, 2009, 16:56 »

Quote from: Dr Bouz on February 02, 2009, 16:33

i have had rejected a photo of a professional model with MR form filled up with agency's booker - with the agency's adress - the only thing where you can find this model for modeling purpose on the planet earth.
after a several mails and telephone calls - i just gave up the file. of course - they are not right - morally and legally, but one image less in my portfolio is saving more my nerves, than 'fighting for justice.

*imagine this option:
on photo shooting on exampe.. for l'oreal - if photographer asked a models "excuse me young misses - may i have your home adress, and not agency's in your contract/mr. excuse me miss penelope cruz are you sure this is your home adress?" ...

I agree with you, it should be acceptable.

But when asking for a release with the home address, make sure to make it clear to the model that their address is just to have on file. It is not given out when someone downloads a file. So even though it is on file with the agency, it will not endanger their privacy.

I have never had anyone refuse to sign the release and provide the information once they understood that.

Dr Bouz · « **Reply #19 on:** February 02, 2009, 17:17 »

yes, but if model has an exclusive contract with agency - that's the same thing as we have to sign model release for our kids - if we agree with selling photos with our kids.
i never had a problem, but according the privacy there are some interesting questions that i have on my mind:
-are sites possible for hackers to brake in ? - yes
- who are MR reviewers (now - i have on my mind that on isp reviewer actually do not see a mr? (i forgot a few times to attach mr, and few times deep meta did not "pull" the releases with files - and i had a "...upon an initial inspection, we determined that your mr is missing ... etc - but did not ask )? where do they live? which country? which town? which adress? do any of these persons have a criminal history? violence? women abusing? where can i find these information?
so, i rather gave up the file, and saved some of my nerves.

Spectre · « **Reply #20 on:** February 03, 2009, 10:05 »

We had a release refused from Dreamstime (I know not Istock, so a bit off topic), but it brought up some very interesting thoughts/issues. DT basically said they didn't care.

The issue was the lack of a phone number/address from the model. The model wasn't comfortable giving up that information, as he's a doctor. Explaining it was difficult as his English wasn't the greatest, and he was the only french speaking person on the trip. Their claim was that without an address and phone number, they are suspect as to if the model truly signed it. However the model had supplied an e-mail address; which makes them just as (if not more) accessible then a foreign mailing address and phone number.

The issues that came to light with the rejection were... yes, while in general civilized life, everyone has a postal address and phone number. However when you go beyond the typical world that we live in, you are likely to find many interesting subjects that that have no postal address, nor a phone. Luckily the last time I was in a far away land (Micronesia), the locals we shot were able to use the address and phone of the boat that we were on and they were employed by and those were accepted.

thaimacky · « **Reply #21 on:** February 12, 2009, 20:27 »

it's quite annoying. first, all the sites accepted my MRs. then IS changed their policy and started to reject my uploads. ok, i thought i will use the IS' Mrs in future coz there's really a lot of information in it and everybody should be fine with it.

aaaand: today i got my first rejections on DT coz of the MR with the following reason:

The model release represents a written agreement between the model and the photographer, therefore it must be governed by the laws of the country/state where one of the parties reside, or by international laws.
The attached MR/PR is signed specifically for another agency, or it is not generic in terms of the laws that govern the agreement. The model release represents a written agreement between the model and the photographer, therefore it must be governed by the laws of the country/state where the parties reside, or by international laws. Please use our own model release document or a generic one in English.

i had no problems for about two month on DT with this IS MR. but now it doesn't seem to be right anymore... hmmmm...

imagine, every site wanted to get its own MR signed: "sorry, may you pls fill out and sign this MR for me? and this one, and then this, and this..... eeehm..... and if you aren't tired, yet, i'd have another 10 forms......."

now, for the next shooting i gonna try denis' MR. hope, this works for all the sites. or does anybody have other sugestions?

cheers from bangkok
mac

thaimacky · « **Reply #22 on:** February 12, 2009, 20:28 »

Quote from: thaimacky on February 12, 2009, 20:27

it's quite annoying. first, all the sites accepted my MRs. then IS changed their policy and started to reject my uploads. ok, i thought i would use the IS' MRs in future then coz there's really a lot of information in it and everybody should be fine with it.

aaaand: today i got my first rejections on DT coz of the MR with the following reason:

The model release represents a written agreement between the model and the photographer, therefore it must be governed by the laws of the country/state where one of the parties reside, or by international laws.
The attached MR/PR is signed specifically for another agency, or it is not generic in terms of the laws that govern the agreement. The model release represents a written agreement between the model and the photographer, therefore it must be governed by the laws of the country/state where the parties reside, or by international laws. Please use our own model release document or a generic one in English.

i had no problems for about two month on DT with this IS MR. but now it doesn't seem to be right anymore... hmmmm...

imagine, every site wanted to get its own MR signed and you have to tell the models: "sorry, may you pls fill out and sign this MR for me? and this one, and then this, and this..... eeehm..... those were the big 6, i'd have another 10 forms from smaller sites, too, if you don't mind......."

now, for the next shooting i gonna try denis' MR. hope, this works for all the sites. or does anybody have other suggestions?

cheers from bangkok
mac

disorderly · « **Reply #23 on:** February 12, 2009, 21:13 »

I've been using a slightly edited version of Shutterstock's MR, which every other agency has accepted without issue. (I removed the two references to Shutterstock.) Even iStockphoto accepts this release now that I've added my name and address to the form.

Anyka · « **Reply #24 on:** February 13, 2009, 00:51 »

Here we go again : Istock just refused 2 MR's of the same shoot. They have accepted more than 80% of that shoot already and now suddenly they decide it is not compatible with Istock policy. They don't even state why.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Istock changes model release policy??? (Read 31563 times)

Anyka

e-person

lisafx

Anyka

fljac

grp_photo

e-person

shank_ali

Phil

RT

e-person

Imagecom

Dreamframer

cybernesco

Anyka

Anyka

shank_ali

Dr Bouz

lisafx

Dr Bouz

Spectre

thaimacky

thaimacky

disorderly

Anyka

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors