Author Topic: Istockphoto rejection because MR date (Read 19904 times)

vii-studio · « **on:** February 04, 2010, 17:44 »

Hello, my one photo rejected because model release problem, they said that :

The following note was supplied by an administrator:
+ Model releases are only valid for the shoot date they were signed for.
Please supply a model release that is specific to this shoot and date and also provide a shoot description on the form.

But last I upload some images use the old MR, signed 2009, and was accepted.Do you had such experience?

melastmohican · « **Reply #1 on:** February 04, 2010, 17:49 »

I saw it before. Since I am shooting myself and my family I usually got one MR for different sessions. It only fails sometimes on IS and DT.

Randy McKown · « **Reply #2 on:** February 04, 2010, 18:13 »

yeah technically you should always get a new model release signed for each shoot even though it's the same model. Most agencies don't care but it's something you should be doing.

melastmohican · « **Reply #3 on:** February 04, 2010, 18:26 »

Quote from: Randy McKown on February 04, 2010, 18:13

yeah technically you should always get a new model release signed for each shoot even though it's the same model. Most agencies don't care but it's something you should be doing.

So you are saying there a people that handle hundreds of MRs? UI on most sites is not ready for this, sometimes you have to pick from combo box and it will use whole screen??? I never tried to delete older MRs, maybe this is a solution for clutter?

disorderly · « **Reply #4 on:** February 04, 2010, 18:34 »

Most agencies don't have a problem with you reusing the same MR for multiple shoots with the same model. iStock used to be that way, but now insists on a release per shoot for any shoot on or after 9/1/2009.

flashon · « **Reply #5 on:** February 04, 2010, 18:45 »

How do they determine the date of shooting?

Randy McKown · « **Reply #6 on:** February 04, 2010, 18:50 »

Quote from: melastmohican on February 04, 2010, 18:26

Quote from: Randy McKown on February 04, 2010, 18:13
yeah technically you should always get a new model release signed for each shoot even though it's the same model. Most agencies don't care but it's something you should be doing.

So you are saying there a people that handle hundreds of MRs? UI on most sites is not ready for this, sometimes you have to pick from combo box and it will use whole screen??? I never tried to delete older MRs, maybe this is a solution for clutter?

Micro agencies started adding features a long time ago where a buyer could see a shot of a model and then quickly browse all shots of that model. Which is great for sales because often the buyer will buy multiple poses. However, back then they didn't think (or know) about the fact that a MR for one session was not valid for the next so they just took the easy route and made the system display all images linked to that MR. What they should have done was designed the systems so that a contributor created a model entry that could allow multiple releases to be attached to it .. then display results attached to the model entry instead of the model release. It would have made it clutter free when submitting while still maintaining proper business practice. At this point I don't think most of them care .. or even realize the flaw in the first place. Maybe they will catch on eventually. It always amazes me how little microstock companies actually knew about the stock industry when they got the ball rolling in the first place. You'd think it wouldn't take a decade to run to the library and pick up a book on selling stock photography. LOL

Phil · « **Reply #7 on:** February 04, 2010, 19:01 »

istock require a new model release for every shoot (I believe the max amount of time to be around 3-4 days) (including for your own family)

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/new-model-releas-for-every-shooting/

lisafx · « **Reply #8 on:** February 04, 2010, 19:53 »

Quote from: Phil on February 04, 2010, 19:01

istock require a new model release for every shoot (I believe the max amount of time to be around 3-4 days) (including for your own family)

^^ What he said.

FWIW, if the shoot took place before Sept 1, 2009 I write that in the description at IS and that way they know why there is no new release for it. I have DL'd the Getty generic release and am filling out a new one for each shoot since September.

Filling in the information except for the signatures and dates is a real timesaver. Can't remember who suggested it - maybe Sean? - but whoever it was: Thanks!

FD · « **Reply #9 on:** February 04, 2010, 22:12 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 04, 2010, 19:53

Filling in the information except for the signatures and dates is a real timesaver. Can't remember who suggested it - maybe Sean? - but whoever it was: Thanks!

That was me!

dnavarrojr · « **Reply #10 on:** February 05, 2010, 06:44 »

Just have them sign a blank release and scan it in... Then fill out all the data so that you can change the date whenever you need to.

MichaelJay · « **Reply #11 on:** February 05, 2010, 06:59 »

Quote from: dnavarrojr on February 05, 2010, 06:44

Just have them sign a blank release and scan it in... Then fill out all the data so that you can change the date whenever you need to.

That sounds like legally solid advice...

Quote from: melastmohican on February 04, 2010, 18:26

So you are saying there a people that handle hundreds of MRs?

I think I have about 400 MRs on my hard disk right now. Once you get used to it, you'll find a system to organise them. I sort them by date, so it's easy to assign the right ones to the photos I've taken during that shoot. With DeepMeta it's also very simple to add them to images before uploading them to iStock.

RT · « **Reply #12 on:** February 05, 2010, 07:41 »

Quote from: Randy McKown on February 04, 2010, 18:13

However, back then they didn't think (or know) about the fact that a MR for one session was not valid for the next so they just took the easy route and made the system display all images linked to that MR.

What fact? A model release is a contract between the photographer and the model, there are no facts you can write on it whatever and however you wish. You can make a release valid for one, two or twenty sessions if you so desire, the only requirement is that it's written in a way thats legal in the country where the contract was made.

The only 'facts' are a) both Microstock and Macrostock agencies have to base their model release requirements on their own individual requirements as they feel appropriate, and b) you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

crazychristina · « **Reply #13 on:** February 05, 2010, 14:55 »

One of the istock admins explained this to me a while back. He said he did a stock shoot with a model one day, and some private work for her the next. An unscrupulous photographer could upload the second days shots as stock if the model release did not make it clear (by date and descriptions) which shots were stock and which were not.

RT · « **Reply #14 on:** February 05, 2010, 15:56 »

Quote from: averil on February 05, 2010, 14:55

One of the istock admins explained this to me a while back. He said he did a stock shoot with a model one day, and some private work for her the next. An unscrupulous photographer could upload the second days shots as stock if the model release did not make it clear (by date and descriptions) which shots were stock and which were not.

That makes no difference whatsoever, if he's unscrupulous enough to upload shots of a model that weren't shot for stock he could just alter the date on the first release for the second days shoot.

Agencies cannot verify the information on the release, agencies have no legal responsibility for the release information, if there is ever a legal implication between a model and image usage (other than those stated in the relevant license - defamatory etc) it is the photographer that is responsible to prove the release is valid. Agencies each have their own requirements for model releases but that is not the law, they make these requirements to help avoid any future problems for contributors, there is no such thing as an universal international employment contract which is basically what a model release is, each country has it's different requirements. If a case ever goes to court the agency only has to prove that the contributor was aware a release was required and that they had submitted one with the image, if that release then proves to be bogus or illegal it's down to the photographer.

Most agencies do a good job of giving guidance for what is required, however a lot of contributors think that information is gospel, it isn't.

Here's a tip that most pro's use that isn't mentioned by any agency, when you do a model shoot always get the model to sign the release before you start shooting, and make the first shot one of her/him holding a copy of the release they've just signed, and do it in RAW and keep an unconverted copy. In the future you might not be able to get hold of the person that witnessed the release but that unconverted Raw file is your proof that the model signed the release.

crazychristina · « **Reply #15 on:** February 05, 2010, 17:03 »

However, if the model signed on the first day it might be hard for the photographer to demonstrate that permission was given for a day later.

RT · « **Reply #16 on:** February 05, 2010, 19:33 »

Averil you're missing the point, your unscrupulous photographer could upload a shot to the stock agency and include a release with completely fabricated details because the agency cannot check those details. The agency would not know if the release was genuine or not.

Some agencies such as iStock impose regulations like they have to hopefully highlight to contributors the importance of having a correctly signed release, but other agencies that accept a release no matter what date it was signed are not technically doing anything wrong. One thing worth pointing out is that the releases that some sites encourage their contributors to use don't contain enough relevant legal information for certain countries and yet some contributors would be easily fooled into thinking they do. I wish every agency clearly pointed out that it is the photographers responsibility to ensure the release is legal.

Randy McKown · « **Reply #17 on:** February 06, 2010, 02:36 »

Quote from: RT on February 05, 2010, 07:41

Quote from: Randy McKown on February 04, 2010, 18:13
However, back then they didn't think (or know) about the fact that a MR for one session was not valid for the next so they just took the easy route and made the system display all images linked to that MR.

What fact? A model release is a contract between the photographer and the model, there are no facts you can write on it whatever and however you wish. You can make a release valid for one, two or twenty sessions if you so desire, the only requirement is that it's written in a way thats legal in the country where the contract was made.

The only 'facts' are a) both Microstock and Macrostock agencies have to base their model release requirements on their own individual requirements as they feel appropriate, and b) you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

Ok let's pretend for a brief moment you know what you're talking about. If a model release was not bound by a specific date then there lies a loop hole where individuals could potentially stalk another individual and photograph them at any time they desire and license those images for commercial use. This type of image activity obviously would be done without the individuals consent and could lead to decades of massive court cases. One reason why the specific date is important if a legal dispute is ever brought up. You had permission to license images of that specific person taken on that specific day. It's short, simple and legal.

Now you did state that a model release is a type of contract and yes .. technically you could write one up that allowed you to photograph a person whenever you want and license images from that single MR .... but that's not the way it's done ... it's not the way it has ever been done .. you basically just wanted to say something intelligent but unfortunately had nothing intelligent to say. Who in their right mind would sign a document like that

?

Instead of sitting there thinking of what statement you could possibly pull out of the back of your pants to show that you're the alpha dog why not put some "real" thought into something. Feel free to re-write the way model releases are used around the world that still avoids anyone from potentially getting sued or screwed and then the world will bow at your feet and we can all sleep better .... LOL you're a goof RT LOL

RT · « **Reply #18 on:** February 06, 2010, 04:50 »

Quote from: Randy McKown on February 06, 2010, 02:36

Ok let's pretend for a brief moment you know what you're talking about. If a model release was not bound by a specific date then there lies a loop hole where individuals could potentially stalk another individual and photograph them at any time they desire and license those images for commercial use. This type of image activity obviously would be done without the individuals consent and could lead to decades of massive court cases. One reason why the specific date is important if a legal dispute is ever brought up. You had permission to license images of that specific person taken on that specific day. It's short, simple and legal.

Now you did state that a model release is a type of contract and yes .. technically you could write one up that allowed you to photograph a person whenever you want and license images from that single MR .... but that's not the way it's done ... it's not the way it has ever been done .. you basically just wanted to say something intelligent but unfortunately had nothing intelligent to say. Who in their right mind would sign a document like that ?

Instead of sitting there thinking of what statement you could possibly pull out of the back of your pants to show that you're the alpha dog why not put some "real" thought into something. Feel free to re-write the way model releases are used around the world that still avoids anyone from potentially getting sued or screwed and then the world will bow at your feet and we can all sleep better .... LOL you're a goof RT LOL

Well I trained in law and use to work for an firm of solicitors (lawyers) so yes I do know what I'm talking about, now on to your reply.

A model release is bound by a specific date, but that date doesn't have to be one day or one session, it can last two, three days or even a week, this is/has and always will be done this way, it's the same for film productions, as I tried to point out (although you seem to have trouble understanding simple things) it's an employment contract and therefore can be written in many different ways with varying stipulations, the problem is people like you read a few guidelines given out by stock agencies and get the wrong end of the stick and think that info is law, and what's worse is that as a reviewer on a microstock agency you're actually advising people on these things!!!!

I'm not even going to comment on this : "If a model release was not bound by a specific date then there lies a loop hole where individuals could potentially stalk another individual and photograph them at any time they desire and license those images for commercial use." because apart from it being one of the dumbest thing I've ever seen you write, anybody with even the lowest level of intelligence would realise that stalking someone to take a photo is outside of the contracted terms would be a breach of the contract, the contract is for a specific purpose so once the 'stock' or other reason shoot has finished the contract terminates. Or do you think that can you stalk your models as long as it's only on the calendar day that they sign the release

However like most of your threads you like to make out you're an expert in anything related to the photography industry, so therefore please feel free show me and everyone else which law relates to model releases and states it can only be for one day or session, I'll even make it simple for you, just show me the US law.

I noticed you started as an exclusive reviewer on DT so as someone who is inexperienced I hope you're not relying on a release downloaded from a stock agency as your only contract when shooting models, they are provided to satisfy the agencies needs and most don't cover enough things that should be included (especially the DT one), you should really get your own contract drawn up by a lawyer in your country to supplement the release you upload to agencies, especially if you intend to do this for a living.

Randy McKown · « **Reply #19 on:** February 06, 2010, 16:37 »

Quote from: RT on February 06, 2010, 04:50

Well I trained in law and use to work for an firm of solicitors (lawyers) so yes I do know what I'm talking about.
.... I'll even make it simple for you, just show me the US law.

LOL MR's regard privacy rights .. you're not dealing with a single US law .. it's state law that varies from state to state .. HUGE difference. You expect me to write you a book covering all 50

Quote from: RT on February 06, 2010, 04:50

nybody with even the lowest level of intelligence would realise that stalking someone to take a photo is outside of the contracted terms would be a breach of the contract, the contract is for a specific purpose so once the 'stock' or other reason shoot has finished the contract terminates.

if you had MRs not controlled by specific dates then yes it would provide a loop hole because it leaves too much room open for too many arguments. What is the purpose of your activity? She said I could photograph her for stock. So why did you photograph her shopping in the mall a week after the original shoot? Because it was for stock covering retail shopping themes. But why was it being done a week later? Because that's when we scheduled the session and her MR is not bound to a specific date. But the defendant claims you were stalking her. No I wasn't and she knew I was photographing her and I have this signed legal document to prove it. Yes you do have a document to prove it .. case closed .. models privacy rights are screwed.

Can you see now where this leave too much room open for legal disputes? It's pretty obvious why multiple MR's for multiple dates are needed. Unless you plan on having your lawyer draw up custom contracts detailing every single specific every single time you shoot a model. Will a photographer make a profit running a business that way? Not a chance .. good reason why it's not done that way huh.

Quote from: RT on February 06, 2010, 04:50

I noticed you started as an exclusive reviewer on DT so as someone who is inexperienced ...

Where did that come from

... I started getting paid as a photographer 20 years ago long before microstock or the internet for that matter.

Quote from: RT on February 06, 2010, 04:50

you should really get your own contract drawn up by a lawyer in your country to supplement the release you upload to agencies,

I'm not just a micro photographer working out of the house that was all done a long time ago. I don't use microstock agency provided forms.

Quote from: RT on February 06, 2010, 04:50

especially if you intend to do this for a living.

I own a full time photography studio and have been a full time photographer for a long time .. or do you mean do microstock as a living? In which case why would I want to do that?

RT · « **Reply #20 on:** February 07, 2010, 08:29 »

Randy I give up as you clearly don't understand a thing about model releases or the law. You also can't read, I asked you to provide me an example of any law that states a model release has to be dated for one day, you won't be able to because there isn't one.

You stated that agencies weren't aware of the 'facts' concerning releases only being valid for one day/sessions, again please provide evidence of these 'facts', each agency make their own rules on what they require on a model release based on what they feel offers themselves and photographers the most protection, and the reason they do this is because of people like you that don't understand the law, these are not facts based on law but based on their own concerns.

MR are not concerned with privacy law, MR forms part of a contract for the commercial usage of images.

I'm also astonished that in you far fetched example you think that is the way law works, thankfully for the rest of the people that live on this planet it doesn't. I'd also like to point out that in your shopping mall scenario the photographer hasn't broken any privacy or other laws concerning the model, millions of editorial photos get licensed each day featuring people for whom no model release is available, it's how those photos are subsequently used that may be of debate, he may have broken some laws concerning the mall owners but that is too complicated to explain to someone like you. And a point to note if the photographer in your scenario had shot her a week after the shoot then the release/contract would be invalid anyway.

I seriously suggest you get in contact with a trained legal professional to explain what a model release is and how it effects you as a photographer, because YOU DO NOT understand it. Now I don't expect you to believe me, and I'm not going to enter into anymore debate with you over the subject because it's a waste of my time explaining it to you.

As for you being in the business for 20 years - you surprise me, but not nearly as much as the fact you are a reviewer judging other peoples work.

Randy McKown · « **Reply #21 on:** February 07, 2010, 15:21 »

Quote from: RT on February 07, 2010, 08:29

Randy I give up as you clearly don't understand a thing about model releases or the law. You also can't read, I asked you to provide me an example of any law that states a model release has to be dated for one day, you won't be able to because there isn't one.

You stated that agencies weren't aware of the 'facts' concerning releases only being valid for one day/sessions, again please provide evidence of these 'facts', each agency make their own rules on what they require on a model release based on what they feel offers themselves and photographers the most protection, and the reason they do this is because of people like you that don't understand the law, these are not facts based on law but based on their own concerns.

MR are not concerned with privacy law, MR forms part of a contract for the commercial usage of images.

I'm also astonished that in you far fetched example you think that is the way law works, thankfully for the rest of the people that live on this planet it doesn't. I'd also like to point out that in your shopping mall scenario the photographer hasn't broken any privacy or other laws concerning the model, millions of editorial photos get licensed each day featuring people for whom no model release is available, it's how those photos are subsequently used that may be of debate, he may have broken some laws concerning the mall owners but that is too complicated to explain to someone like you. And a point to note if the photographer in your scenario had shot her a week after the shoot then the release/contract would be invalid anyway.

I seriously suggest you get in contact with a trained legal professional to explain what a model release is and how it effects you as a photographer, because YOU DO NOT understand it. Now I don't expect you to believe me, and I'm not going to enter into anymore debate with you over the subject because it's a waste of my time explaining it to you.

As for you being in the business for 20 years - you surprise me, but not nearly as much as the fact you are a reviewer judging other peoples work.

A sphincter says what?

UncleGene · « **Reply #22 on:** February 19, 2010, 20:31 »

I received a new one:

++Releases for photos shot September 1st and later require both a shoot date and a shoot description.

Is this yet something new?
(my releases have signature date that is exactly the shoot date. Even this is not enough now?)

MichaelJay · « **Reply #23 on:** February 20, 2010, 03:26 »

Quote from: UncleGene on February 19, 2010, 20:31

I received a new one:

++Releases for photos shot September 1st and later require both a shoot date and a shoot description.

Is this yet something new?
(my releases have signature date that is exactly the shoot date. Even this is not enough now?)

Do you have an appropriate Shoot Description? It's not really new anymore, it was announce half year ago in this article.

madelaide · « **Reply #24 on:** February 20, 2010, 11:16 »

To tell the truth, regardless of any laws, it doesn't seem ethical not to have a release at every session. I would in fact add contact sheets of the photos under a specific release as part of the MR.

I'm glad I don't shoot people.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Istockphoto rejection because MR date (Read 19904 times)

vii-studio

melastmohican

Randy McKown

melastmohican

disorderly

flashon

Randy McKown

Phil

lisafx

FD

dnavarrojr

MichaelJay

RT

crazychristina

RT

crazychristina

RT

Randy McKown

RT

Randy McKown

RT

Randy McKown

UncleGene

MichaelJay

madelaide

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors